What kind of president do you really want?

[pbrower2a]

Having a temperament much like that of Obama will solve a huge number of problems no matter what the ideology.

[RaphaelDLG]

Having a temperament much like that of Obama will solve a huge number of problems no matter what the ideology.

Eh.  Obama's temperament is massively superior to, say, Trump's, for obvious reasons, but he's also a guy who felt above legislative dealing on capital hill/the bully pulpit, and inexplicably believed that Republicans would act in good faith 6+ years into his Presidency

[Lourdes]

Left-wing on both social and economic policy, but will also defend the right to own arms.

[politics_king]

Socially liberal, fiscally moderate president who knows how the economy works and stops reckless deficit spending.

[Cold War Liberal]

A more aggressively liberal version of Barack Obama.  A transformational president every bit as consequential as Ronald Reagan was for the Republican Party and the conservative movement in his day. 

[Senator Spark]

Moderate to liberal on certain issues while conservative on others, essentially a mixed bag.

[Progressive Pessimist]

A liberal for sure. I wouldn't mind a bit of pragmatism though if they end up having to deal with a divided government. Which will probably happen during their midterms, as usually seems to be the case.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Conservative on social issues, pro-labor, pro-single payer healthcare, moderate on criminal justice issues, cautious on foreign involvements, and an advocate of reduced levels of immigration.

As no one advocates that combination of issues, I'll have to do the job myself.

[dw93]

Left-wing on economic issues, center-left on social issues.

[Ye We Can]

Centrist on economic issues, center-right on social issues, muh Henry Kissenger foreign policy

I miss Nixon

[Jersey Jimmy]

A more aggressively liberal version of Barack Obama.  A transformational president every bit as consequential as Ronald Reagan was for the Republican Party and the conservative movement in his day. 

[Old Man Willow]

I want a modern day Henry Wallace. Is that too much to ask?

[MarkD]

(Posting on this thread a second time, and paraphrasing what I said before, because I want to say it more than once.)

I want a centrist president, because that kind of more likely going to appoint people to the Supreme Court who will truly interpret the Constitution objectively. A liberal president will appoint people who have a liberal bias and a conservative president who appoint people who have a conservative bias. There have been times in my life when I wanted ideological appointments to be made. I once wanted liberal Justices to be appointed, and shortly after that I spent many years wanting conservative Justices to be appointed. Now I recognize the errors of my past desires and see that only objectivity matters.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

A progressive woman of color is my ideal president.

[gottsu]

I would go for a moderate president from both parties. Definitely not a Trumpist or too progressive.

[OctoCube]

Moderate, just because they should be a broad-base Perot style candidate focused solely and entirely on cleaning up Washington D.C

[ON Progressive]

A more aggressively liberal version of Barack Obama.  A transformational president every bit as consequential as Ronald Reagan was for the Republican Party and the conservative movement in his day. 

[PSOL]

A technocrat that is pragmatic in fixing the issues and focuses on that. I would also like if they never make headlines outside of that. Elizabeth Warren would be that figure if she wasn’t as caught in between obvious reeling drama.

[😥]

Left-wing on economic issues, center-right on social issues

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Give me a conservative for once.

[Ohioguy29]

Left-wing on economic issues, center-left on social issues.

Another one in for this. But more important than the president's location on a political spectrum to me is to not get hung up on "I have to be pure on this issue and parrot the acceptable position." We need someone with a little flexibility. For example, I'd like Sherrod Brown to run and he's liberal on just about everything, but he doesn't let that limit him or put him in a box. He isn't worried "oh, this one position I have isn't exactly like what liberals are supposed to believe nowadays, better change my views." He does what's he thinks is right, not what's perfectly liberal.

[MarkD]

I want a President who is centrist, because that makes it more likely that they will appoint truly objective interpreters of law to the Supreme Court.

Why did I say a centrist? No matter how liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, a President should only appoint truly objective interpreters of law to the Supreme Court. They should stop trying to politicize the Court, and a President of any ideology should realize that. A centrist President might appoint "moderate" people to the Court, but being "moderate" is not the same thing as being objective. "Moderate" is still an ideology, and Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to make decisions based on their own ideology.

Please, we need objective interpreters of law on the Supreme Court -- people like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, and Learned Hand -- not more like Antonin Scalia or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Neither Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump said anything right about what the Court needs, which was why I didn't vote for either of them. And I'm worried that the next Democratic nominee is going to say things just like what Clinton said.

[pbrower2a]

Having a temperament much like that of Obama will solve a huge number of problems no matter what the ideology.

Eh.  Obama's temperament is massively superior to, say, Trump's, for obvious reasons, but he's also a guy who felt above legislative dealing on capital hill/the bully pulpit, and inexplicably believed that Republicans would act in good faith 6+ years into his Presidency

Obama was not going to resort to pork barrel spending in an effort to get Republican votes in Congress.  Republicans decided to circle the wagons on him and reject everything except for bailing out the banks. Thus "Give me a vote on this issue and I will promote your expressway project in your district" (let us say US 131 from Kalamazoo* to the Indiana Toll  Road for Fred Upton, whose district would benefit, was out of the question).

Obama needed Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress to achieve anything big. He was a great President for two years and a mediocre one for six. Such was the Republicans' choice. 


Pessimism is sure failure in American politics. Optimism is one's only chance.

*It would probably be renumbered as Interstate 590 in honor of a Kalamazoo radio station, WKZO-AM (590)... if you are wondering about Interstate 820 around Fort Worth, Texas, that is supposedly because WBAP-AM is at 820.

Yes, such a highway would be a good idea, replacing a Blood Alley. It is not in my district, but replacement of Blood Alleys is fitting use for highway funds.   

[bagelman]

*It would probably be renumbered as Interstate 590 in honor of a Kalamazoo radio station, WKZO-AM (590)... if you are wondering about Interstate 820 around Fort Worth, Texas, that is supposedly because WBAP-AM is at 820.

Yes, such a highway would be a good idea, replacing a Blood Alley. It is not in my district, but replacement of Blood Alleys is fitting use for highway funds.   

I-90 doesn't even go into MI at all, so that's not happening.

[Dr. MB]

I want a progressive president with proven accomplishments.

I want somebody who's an insider and an outsider at the same time.

I want somebody who's experienced but not afraid to fight.

That's why I support Neil Abercrombie.