USA Politics

A war during an election year would definitely matter. While the current outcome means this will all be forgotten in the next few weeks, it will be something Trump can point to during a presidential debate as an example of his foreign policy skills. This is why he is already creating a narrative of blaming Obama for the tensions in the first place.
 
Whatever handful of swing voters are left won’t be swayed one way or the other by this. All this did was give Iran cover to bail out of the nuclear deal and give Iraq a reason to kick out the U.S. troops. Net negative objective impact, neutral political impact, IMO.
 
E8pWKrC.gif
 
He looked in the mirror and he saw Obama. Unfortunately for Sen. Booker, nobody else saw Obama.
 
He looked in the mirror and he saw Obama. Unfortunately for Sen. Booker, nobody else saw Obama.
There were many things right with him, but it wasn’t the right year. He and Castro were two great candidates that were really hurt by the large field.

Not sure about a VP pick, maybe a HUD position?
 
Yes, the amount of institutionalized gaslighting and political cowardice at play here is disgusting. But the Democrats also forfeited their credibility when they went out of their way to make excuses for Bill Clinton’s perjury and obstruction of justice in the 90s, so to some extent they’ve made their own bed here. Unfortunately, all Americans have to lie in it.

It’s time for a centrist, non-ideological, anti-corruption party to rise in the United States. But that would require political courage from a significant number of big name people from both parties who still have some shred of credibility left to come together to form it.
 
That's an oxymoron.
Sorry, you’re correct — I meant non-ideological in the sense of standard “leftist” and “rightist” ideology. “Nonpartisan” would have been closer, but still not fully accurate.

I meant no cultural or economic litmus tests, just a commitment to work with other Americans of all stripes for the betterment of Americans of all stripes, and a commitment to honesty and standing against corruption. If you don’t meet that bar, you get primaried.
 
That was George Washington's dream, and it immediately failed. Centrism is an ideology, too, and that's what it sounds like you are describing.
 
That was George Washington's dream, and it immediately failed. Centrism is an ideology, too, and that's what it sounds like you are describing.
Nope, just patriotism. The real kind, not the hugging-the-flag kind. Let’s promote people who honestly want to get good things done for the country and aren’t locked in some perpetual pissing match with an exaggerated enemy. I think the only way to do that in the short term is to set aside the left/right ideological distractions and focus on beating the bad actors with good ones, even if they’re good actors that we may disagree with on a number of issues.

People who are paying attention are so fixated on left and right that they can’t see anything else, and so many people aren’t paying attention at all that the inmates are being allowed to run the asylum. Big data gerrymandering has also locked in so many districts for one party or the other that safe districts are being pushed to the extremes ideologically via the primaries. There’s no solution for this within the two-party status quo because it’s already in a death spiral.

Cobble together as many respectable anti-corruption figures from the two major parties as you can and launch a new party with them. That’s about the only way to get enough attention for people to consider taking a chance on them.
 
Nobody here is saying the two-party system is a good thing. I am saying that what you are espousing is an ideology, a statement of intent by which this theoretical party would abide. There's no such thing as a non-ideological party because that's what parties do, espouse ideology.

Very, very few other countries have this two-party system. Off the top of the head, I cannot think of one. Most countries have at least four, usually two centre parties and two parties on the more left and more right edge. Canada has six major parties right now, only one of which is currently a centre party.

But to bring it to specifics, I am unsure if a "centrist" party in the United States could get it done. I am not sure the people in the Republican party are willing to split to the centre - which is to say, I believe it would retain a strong rump, and you would end up with a party that is more functionally 30-40% of current Democrats + 10% of current Republicans.
 
I am saying that what you are espousing is an ideology, a statement of intent by which this theoretical party would abide. There's no such thing as a non-ideological party because that's what parties do, espouse ideology.
Yes, and I explained in my earlier response to @The Flash that I spoke incorrectly on that point. “Broad based” or “Not policy purist” or something along those lines would have been more accurate. The ideology would be one of representing American interests in an honest, constitutional, and forthright way, without getting bogged down in socioeconomic litmus tests. Things have gone so far to the uncooperative extremes that honesty and cooperation vs. lying and power hoarding is a more important distinction to make than policy differences on any particular social or economic issue.
Very, very few other countries have this two-party system. Off the top of the head, I cannot think of one. Most countries have at least four, usually two centre parties and two parties on the more left and more right edge. Canada has six major parties right now, only one of which is currently a centre party.
And parliamentary systems that require coalitions have a certain appeal to them, though they are ultimately weaker than the U.S. Congress was intended to be.

It does seem that the U.S. tends to self-select for two parties, and whenever a third party truly rises, it causes the collapse of another. I can only hope the Trumpist mockery of the Republican Party is the one setting itself up for the chopping block this time.

I still remember the days before Newt Gingrich came to power when Democrats and Republicans covered a broad range of positions on issues and the differences were primarily on economic policy. If you were a Republican running in the northeast, you were probably pretty liberal on social issues. If you were a Democrat running in the south, you were probably pretty conservative. This helped to foster bipartisanship and tolerance, and it’s something we’ve almost completely lost with today’s polarization.
I am not sure the people in the Republican party are willing to split to the centre - which is to say, I believe it would retain a strong rump, and you would end up with a party that is more functionally 30-40% of current Democrats + 10% of current Republicans.
The question is how it would split. The post-Gingrich Republican Party used to be a bizarre alliance of evangelicals, free traders, anti-taxers, and gun activists that were too weak on their own to win, but could get majorities as a bloc. The Trump version of the party lost or silenced the free traders and the intellectuals and brought in a bunch of populists and isolationists. I think the displaced classic Republicans are looking for a new home, as are non-rabid social conservatives who aren’t comfortable with the hypocrisy of supporting someone like Trump just to achieve policy goals. You’re probably right that it would be a small percentage of current Republicans who would consider breaking off, but there are a lot of right-leaning people who count themselves as unaffiliated yhrse

Meanwhile on the left you’re seeing a rift between the hardcore woke progressives and the pragmatist classic liberals, and if the rise of the anti-intellectual, cancel culture far left continues, then you’re going to see a lot of old-school liberals open to new options as well. But something would have to instill the political courage for some big names to step out and take a chance.
 
It really comes down to a "name" needs to lead that movement. Perot kind of did this with the Reform Party, but it was really the Perot Party. Who that name will end up being, who knows. But both parties really have clear divisions within themselves that realistically could split both of them into 3 parties. It is way beyond old nuances between wings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
Well, Perot wasn't strong enough to create a party, he created a movement for himself - just like a populist might. What's really unfortunate is that we now see a populist controlling a major party. It's been a long time since a major party was created in the United States - 164 years, to be precise, since the founding of the GOP - and it actually took the disintegration of both major parties last time for the Republicans to become a true alternative to the previous parties that inhabited the position of major. The Republicans could have been a fly-by-night party (like the Know Nothings) if it wasn't for Abe Lincoln and the inability of the Democrat Party to work together and survive their own internal turmoil.

A new third party today has significant institutional barriers that didn't exist last time, such as the stranglehold of the existing two parties on the nomination process, which makes accessibility extremely unlikely across all the states. The Democrat/Republican hold of all state houses means that gerrymandering and ballot access shenanigans would further deny the third party an equal shot at individual seats. And finally, I don't think there exists a GOP operative who is "big" enough to lead people out of the Republicans, much as Salmon P. Chase and John C. Fremont led Whigs and Democrats to the Republicans. The one place the Trump apparatus has been excellent is at purging non-loyalists. Look who's left that dares to buck him - Romney is the biggest name, and he's not nearly big enough to create a real insurgency. Even if there was an alliance of anti-Trump people like Romney, the Bushes, Charlie Coyne, Larry Hogan, etc, it would likely not pull more than a few percentage points away, which is enough to ensure Trump loses while essentially ensuring the GOP will not regain any sanity after Trump is done.

I guess...it's a great idea to think about, but I don't think it will happen in the USA at this time. Trump would need to win re-election and get worse. A lot worse.
 
Ballot access is hard, that is why someone with money is a huge help to overcome that. The Libertarians ran a legitimate ticket last election, two former governors that were elected in democratic states and re-elected pretty easily ... they got on the ballot in all 50 states, but did not make any debates, and really did not have the money to run a legit campaign. The Green party and their whack job candidate got on the ballot in 48 states. It is doable, but it takes a fair amount of resources to do it.

.. and you really hit one of the biggest issues ... Democrats will not follow someone moderate from their party for fear of handing the election to the Republicans and vice versa.

Which is why I think someone with a big name and deep pockets would have to be the one to do it and show he/she has an actual chance to win versus be a spoiler. Plus that gets them on the debate stage, which is essential for any run to have a chance

Ranked balloting would help some for the Libertarians and Green parties .. if anything to put them over ballot thresholds for future elections.

But, building a party without a "name" with money is essentially impossible. Perot and Teddy Roosevelt are the only ones that made any kind of dent . and they still lost
 
But, building a party without a "name" with money is essentially impossible. Perot and Teddy Roosevelt are the only ones that made any kind of dent . and they still lost
Correct. The last person to actually get electoral votes was George Wallace in '68, and it is pretty clear that he was able to organize a movement.
 
Back
Top