Idiotic Third Party Bid in the US hopes people don't notice they are idiots.

[JohnLarue]

View attachment 160788

you lack the stones to make a logical argument

 

[SQUAD51]

Third party victories occur.
They surprise every one and cause a few coronaries. They usually come out of nowhere and ignored by the pundits, pollsters and party aparatchik.
Once elected the man is beaten down ( by EVERYBODY ) so he wont get a second term and disrupt their delicate world.

Jesse Ventura was goverenor of Minnesota from '99 to '03 under the Reform Party banner.
His appeal was to voters to "not vote for politics as usual". It worked then and will definetely get traction today.
He pisssed off the two standard parties and was elected with a grass roots campaign and a small budget.
His track record as a mayor since '91, his service record as a navy demmolitions diver in Vietnam and his "celebrity days" in the WWF/WWE were in his favour.

When the media give someone an inordinate amount of coverage (free advertising), and they appear to be an outsider, and resonate with that huge demographic that never votes, and with the 35-50% of regular voters that swing both ways (no pun intended) dark horses will win the election.

 

[Valcazar]

People who pick actual positions that tend to lie in the center, and that reflect good government.

That's an assumption that "good government" is "in the center" and there is no reason to believe that.
How would you even define "the center" here?
Midway between the positions of the two parties?
Or is "the center" whatever this party stakes out as its position?

People disagree but a lot of that disagreement is based on ignorance or naked self interest.
I am not saying there is only one path to good policy, that would be were going middle of the road is important.
However there are policies that are better and policies that are worse. I'd argue the point but quite frankly it's late and I doubt it will end well.

Sure.
But people will disagree which policies are better and which are worse.
That's what politics is.
Which is why saying "we are the party of good government" is meaningless.
What policies are actually being pitched and what values are guiding the choices?

 

[Valcazar]

We have a FPTP system as do jolly old England. Those third parties stick around even though it hurts their cause. Don't underestimate the Rhinos ability to ignore the world around them and be stubborn.
I don't really know 'merican history so I with withdraw my comments on the subject then fight on a hill I don't have a good map for.

Canada and the UK have third parties that have lasted, but they don't have the same system as the US.
They also have only ever had 2 dominant parties at once.
How have the smaller parties survived? Mostly by having regional blocks of power.
The BQ is only a thing in Quebec. Reform lasted as long as it did by being owning the West (and even then, it had to inexorably re-combine with the other conservative party to compete).

The UK has only had 2 dominant parties at a time as well, with who they were switching out over time.
Then you get some regional party power like the Scottish Nationalist movement.

The pressures that make for only 2 dominant parties at a time in a FPTP single-member district style set up are magnified in a Presidential one with a goofy electoral college.
So it is even HARDER in the US to make it work than it is in Canada or the UK.

However I think the US is in a position where a third party could come up the middle. I can't speak for the distant past but both the Rs and the Ds have abandoned the center and gone a but nutty.
As I mentioned, the Rhinos are too stubborn to see that if one part could be more moderate they would trash the other but the base has become more concerned with being right and passing their agenda or nothing at all than having a shot at power. The only reason Biden won was because he was running against a ratbag like Trump, that he only beat him by a few percentage points in the popular vote is telling. However the Ds are all, we won, we are running this beatch. They should be more concerned with why they didn't win 2/3 to 1/3.

If the disaffected middle that doesn't vote could be targeted with a topic that galvanized them, a third party could swoop in, sure.
And it would then, within 10 years, either collapse into one of the two major parties or replace one of them as the other party melted away into the new party.

That being said if a party was to come up the center, drag moderates away from both other parties and have them more dominated by the extreme wings, they would have a pretty good shot at some traction and I wouldn't see any parties being absorbed.

The only way no absorption happens is if one of the parties ends up with a solid regional lock.
Even then it is very unlikely it would last.

The South has gone third party multiple times in the 20th century.
Sticking to presidential elections:
In 1948, the Dixiecrat party got 39 electoral college votes by taking large sections of the South.
In 1960, Harry Bird got 14 electoral college votes as an undeclared Segregationist candidate in the South.
In 1968, the American Independent Party got 46 electoral college votes by taking large sections of the South.

None lasted more than one election cycle before being re-absorbed into one of the main parties.
(Minnesota has also had a recurring bout of third party or independent voting. Again, highly regional.)

In the past, well the recent past at least, if you ignored the partizan whining of the true believers, one could easily refer to the republicrats and the dempublicans. We still basically have that here also. In the 90s all major parties were moved almost lock stock and barrel from being forever A Loan to being surplus happy, in the greater scheme of things they were not all that different. They still aren't for the most part today. Over and over again, to win you need to occupy the center or at least be close to it.

But "I want parties to be more in the center" has nothing to do with why you will end up with only 2 parties.

 

[Valcazar]

that meme is quite representative of reality. As pointed out earlier you dismiss it due to flawed logic based on a dumb assumption
View attachment 160845

 

[JohnLarue]

Again you lack the ability & the stones to make a sound logical argument

 

[JohnLarue]

But "I want parties to be more in the center" has nothing to do with why you will end up with only 2 parties.

Your assumption that the US political system will always reduce to two parties, is not a valid reason for

1. incorrectly assuming a 3rd party would not impact the current destructive political polarization
2. incorrectly assuming anyone seeking to fix the current political polarization is stupid i.e

   stupid people fall for third party bullshit all the time.

again, who cares if the democrats absorb the 3rd party 10 years latter just so long as the democrats take a step right, away from their present insanity ?

 

[Pleasure Hound]

Mind you, stupid people fall for third party bullshit all the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/27/forward-party-new-centrist-third/

If "stupid people" did fall for 3rd party bullshit all of the time, wouldn't there now be three parties all of the time?

 

[Valcazar]

Nice try
I addressed the structural issue and pointed out how despicable it is

You don't understand the structural issue, as you so adeptly demonstrated.

More importantly you described "stupid people fall for third party bullshit"
again an extremely arrogant view of others who recognise how the current two party system is not working

Yes.
Because third parties that are just about "vibes" and "things aren't working" are bullshit in the current system.
At the very least, people who want a third party to rise up and replace one of the current parties and drive it from the field understand what is going on.
People who talk about "third party" sticking around and offering new choices but don't understand why that doesn't happen in the US are bullshit.
People who treat voting as an aesthetic consumer choice are being stupid.

Dutch Oven is far more perceptive and honest than you.

Picking a position should be based on evaluating the interests of all, not based on ideology

And people will disagree on what those interests are and how to balance them based on their ideology.

Hence the need for debate, compromise yet you think anyone who finds the current polarization dysfunctional and look to a 3rd party as a possible solution as "stupid people fall for third party bullshit"

No, people looking for solutions are good.
People pitching third party bullshit are stupid.
People pitching non-bullshit party and/or electoral reform are people I support.

history does not dictate the future
a third party which forces the democrats to take a step back towards the center would be a good thing. It is not important if that 3rd party is later absorbed
Similarly if a third party prevents another polarizing right leader like Donald Trump would be a good thing.

Are you that slow that you do not recognise the benefits of a decade where political polarization is reduced ?

But that's not what we're talking about.
A third party that emerges in a time of crisis and then gets reabsorbed or causes the other party to wither away is nothing I oppose and is the normal trajectory for third parties in the US.

Again - you need either a strong regional base or you need a major issue not being addressed by the current two major parties that lets the third party make the kind of headway needed.
This would then result in the system then re-stabilizing to two parties unless the entire electoral system changed.
So what is the major issue that you think this new party can run on that will give them a road to effect real change?

the US political polarization peaked just before the civil war
A big pile of dead body's & occupation forced the democrats to change

the democrats need to change again
A step back to the right by the democrats is required & the republicans would become less defensive and more open to compromise

Wow. That right there says a lot about you, doesn't it.

the republicans need a different leader than Donald Trump

I agree with this statement, even though I think the reasons why they do are different.

 

[Valcazar]

If "stupid people" did fall for 3rd party bullshit all of the time, wouldn't there now be three parties all of the time?

No, because they evaporate structurally in a FPTP, single-member district system. Especially one with additional pressures like the US.

Third party victories occur.
They surprise every one and cause a few coronaries. They usually come out of nowhere and ignored by the pundits, pollsters and party aparatchik.
Once elected the man is beaten down ( by EVERYBODY ) so he wont get a second term and disrupt their delicate world.

That's not actually why, though.
I completely agree that third party and dark horse candidates can win.
I am talking about why the situation tends to be one off and why it goes back to two parties.

Take the 2021 typology from Pew.


You would think you could have 9 parties with 9 groupings like that.
The problem is that in a FPTP, single-winner system, coming in second gets you nothing. You can win with a plurality, so you have pressure to make a coalition with someone you can sort of agree with to get the win.
So two groups gang up to get over 20% and win.
But that was only 20% of the voters, so three other groups gang up to get 25-30%.
So 4 groups get together and you've got about 45% of the votes.
And now you have 2 parties, each with about 40-50% support, and 10-15% who swing back and forth because they don't quite fit well in either group, but need to make decisions.

This will always happen unless you change the system under which elections are held (either by changing away from single-member districts, changing voting methods, or both).

So if things get frustrating enough that a third party gets formed and is large enough to have an impact, there is too much pressure to make a deal again.
No one is stable at 30/30/30 and 10 percent swing voters and it soon collapses back into 45/45/10. (All numbers rounded for simplicity, obviously they fluctuate in a range a lot.)

 

[Valcazar]

Your assumption that the US political system will always reduce to two parties, is not a valid reason for

1. incorrectly assuming a 3rd party would not impact the current destructive political polarization
2. incorrectly assuming anyone seeking to fix the current political polarization is stupid i.e

again, who cares if the democrats absorb the 3rd party 10 years latter just so long as the democrats take a step right, away from their present insanity ?

If your position is "a third party of note would be good because it would realign the system after it gets reabsorbed" (assuming it wasn't such a huge success that one of the other two parties collapsed and it just replaced it outright) then I have no problem with that.
That's how third parties have always worked in a FPTP, single-member district system.
That is exactly what I would expect to happen.

The next question is how to make even a strong enough showing to have that effect.
You need a real issue that neither party is addressing. (Usually because one is outright opposed and the other just doesn't want to engage with it.)

The most successful third party in US history is the Republican party. They got in and replaced the Whigs because they addressed Slavery and opposing its expansion.

You seem to think this third party will force the Democrats to the right - so what does this third party rally around to do that?

 

[JohnLarue]

]If your position is "a third party of note would be good because it would realign the system after it gets reabsorbed" (assuming it wasn't such a huge success that one of the other two parties collapsed and it just replaced it outright) then I have no problem with that.

No such assumption
I simply stated if the third party positively impacted the polarization and then got absorbed so be it
it surviving independently and positively impact current polarization would be Ok as well

Of coarse there is also the scenario where a 3rd party is more heavily aligned with the right and splits the right vote resulting in a perpetual left govt.
Visa versa if to heavily aligned with the left splits the left vote resulting in a perpetual right govt.
That could be very counterproductive as the incumbent would never be healed accountable by the ballot box, until their incompetence causes so much damage they force a change

The next question is how to make even a strong enough showing to have that effect.
You need a real issue that neither party is addressing. (Usually because one is outright opposed and the other just doesn't want to engage with it.)

Nope
I am pretty sure the reality of the Democrats energy policy, the damage their inflation is causing and Joe Bidens ineffectiveness will be sufficient for many to reject the looniie left democrats
I am pretty sure the current alternative Donald Trump is a revolting prospect for a lot of swing voters

A 3rd party who is committed to sound fiscal policy, sound energy security policy vs ideology driven policy and who is not led by Donald Trump will be quite appealing

The most successful third party in US history is the Republican party. They got in and replaced the Whigs because they addressed Slavery and opposing its expansion.

They also started a civil war which killed more US soldiers than all other wars combined.
most successful ??

history does not always repeat itself
The issues are different
The polarization is not geographically defined as in the 1860s

I do believe if uncheck the political polarization in the US will result in widespread misery and likely violence

You seem to think this third party will force the Democrats to the right - so what does this third party rally around to do that?

They could start by simply stating
1. We are not AOC, Iliad Omar or the other two nuts.
2. We are not Joe Biden
3. We are defiantly not socialists
4. Policy will not be driven by ideology
6. Smaller govt is better
7. Our leader will not be Donald Trump

 

[Valcazar]

No such assumption
I simply stated if the third party positively impacted the polarization and then got absorbed so be it
it surviving independently and positively impact current polarization would be Ok as well

And here I thought you were making sense.
My mistake.

Of coarse there is also the scenario where a 3rd party is more heavily aligned with the right and splits the right vote resulting in a perpetual left govt.
Visa versa if to heavily aligned with the left splits the left vote resulting in a perpetual right govt.
That would be very counterproductive as the incumbent would never be healed accountable by the ballot box

And that party would then collapse or be absorbed because it wasn't sustainable and was being counter productive.
(There is a reason the Greens and the Libertarians exist but don't get a lot of support. 2016 was a highwater mark for them and they didn't crack 5% combined.)

Nope
I am pretty sure the reality of the Democrats energy policy, the damage their inflation is causing and Joe Bidens ineffectiveness will be sufficient for many to reject the looniie left democrats
I am pretty sure the current alternative Donald Trump is a revolting prospect for a lot of swing voters

A 3rd party who is committed to sound fiscal policy, sound energy security policy vs ideology driven policy and who is not led by Donald Trump will be quite appealing

Hey!
At least you have a pitch.
"Republicans but not Trump" isn't going to do very well, though. All you need is the Republicans to nominate not Trump and your third party is toast.
It is possible that "sound fiscal policy" and "sound energy security policy" can be pitched in a way that argues neither Republicans or Democrats are addressing it properly, you might have something.
Really depends on what your ideological pitch is going to be and how you make it sound like you are talking about something completely different than either major party.
If people are worried enough about fiscal policy and energy security, maybe you can make some inroads.

They also started a civil war which killed more US soldiers than all other wars combined.

"started"

most successful ??

Yes.
They were a third party, and they replaced one of the current dominant parties of the time and have no been in existence for 170 years.
That's the most successful third party in US history.

history does not always repeat itself
The issues are different
The polarization is not geographically defined as in the 1860s

Exactly. That makes it even harder for a third party to succeed in this structural context.

They could start by simply stating
1. We are not AOC, Iliad Omar or the other two nuts.
2. We are not Joe Biden
3. We are defiantly not socialists
4. Policy will not be driven by ideology
6. Smaller govt is better
7. Our leader will not be Donald Trump

The only thing you have here is "not socialist" and "smaller government".
No one is going to vote for that ideology in any significant amount.
Do you at least mean "We don't support Trumpism" in number 7 there?

Is this just the party of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger?

"It's just the same Republican Party, but without Trump" isn't going to work as a third party.

 

[JohnLarue]

And here I thought you were making sense.
My mistake.

another example of you not making yourself clear, yet sneaking in a half assed insult

And that party would then collapse or be absorbed because it wasn't sustainable and was being counter productive.

says you and that is not worth shit

What infallible rule of physics states it would be the 3rd party which gets absorbed?
Obviously if a center left party were to be formed its because the democrats have ventured too far left into the realm of fantasy ( AKA AOC)
politics can be a nasty game - fools who bring a disaster upon their party are generally not fogiven

What infallible rule of physics states any party must get absorbed if there are three?

(There is a reason the Greens and the Libertarians exist but don't get a lot of support. 2016 was a highwater mark for them and they didn't crack 5% combined.

the reason is there platforms were just not appealing
that will happen if there are 3, 4, 5, or even 6 ... parties

there were 21 different political parties registered with elections Canada for the last election
obviously there aee a number platforms which were just not appealing

Hey!
At least you have a pitch.
"Republicans but not Trump" isn't going to do very well, though. All you need is the Republicans to nominate not Trump and your third party is toast.

mission accomplished !!!!!

ie a reduction in political polarization & a republican victory
please start paying attention

It is possible that "sound fiscal policy" and "sound energy security policy" can be pitched in a way that argues neither Republicans or Democrats are addressing it properly, you might have something.

Democrats have completely abandoned both & will pay dearly for allowing ideology to dictate policy

Really depends on what your ideological pitch is going to be and how you make it sound like you are talking about something completely different than either major party.
If people are worried enough about fiscal policy and energy security, maybe you can make some inroads.

The number one concern of Americans is "The Cost of Living"
The inflation monster will ensure the democrats get wiped out in the mid-terms
inflation is also predicted to be sticky so they are very likly in trouble for 2024

"started"

yes started
Disunion came after Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 United States presidential election on an anti-slavery expansion platform.

do not read bigotry into that statement, it is simply a fact

Yes.
They were a third party, and they replaced one of the current dominant parties of the time and have no been in existence for 170 years.
That's the most successful third party in US history.

Replacing an old party is hardly the definitive measure of success
THE NDP replaced the CFC and CLC , yet consistently finish third in a three horse race

I would have thought the abolition of slavery would have been cited as the republicans claim to success
at a cost of a civil war and more than half a million young men killed

Exactly. That makes it even harder for a third party to succeed in this structural context.

ah no
The democrats are making a mess in all states & all Americans are experiencing the impacts of inflation on their cost of living

The only thing you have here is "not socialist" and "smaller government".
No one is going to vote for that ideology in any significant amount.

That is not an ideology, that is just plain common sense

Do you at least mean "We don't support Trumpism" in number 7 there?

What part of Donald Trump is a politically polarizing person are you not understanding ?
It would be best for the republicans & the USA if he did not run again

FYI: if the democrat shit show continues Trump will win if he runs again
& Joe Biden is not going to turn that ship around
Its more likely Joe Biden will have a mutinty on his hands - AOC and the other loonies are not team players

Is this just the party of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger?

1, If they are not AOC, Iliad Omar or the other two nuts.
2. If they are not Joe Biden
3. If they are not socialists
4. If their policies will not be driven by ideology
6. If they feel Smaller govt is better
7. If their leader will not be Donald Trump

they could join

"It's just the same Republican Party, but without Trump" isn't going to work as a third party.

Too bad for you it is the democrats who are driving up the cost of living &
it is the democrats who will need to be pulled back towards center

 

[Frankfooter]

1, If they are not AOC, Iliad Omar or the other two nuts.
2. If they are not Joe Biden
3. If they are not socialists
4. If their policies will not be driven by ideology
6. If they feel Smaller govt is better
7. If their leader will not be Donald Trump

Reagan is dead.
So are these ideas.

 

[JohnLarue]

You don't understand the structural issue, as you so adeptly demonstrated.

These elusive Structural issues you apparently can not explain clearly
see below

Yes.
Because third parties that are just about "vibes" and "things aren't working" are bullshit in the current system.

Do you deny the ever increasing political polarization in the U.S. has resulted in a far less effective government ?

FYI:
Calling something "Bullshit" is not an persuasive argument

At the very least, people who want a third party to rise up and replace one of the current parties and drive it from the field understand what is going on.

Yet you are unable to describe "what is going on"

People who talk about "third party" sticking around and offering new choices but don't understand why that doesn't happen in the US are bullshit.

Calling something "Bullshit" is not an persuasive argument

People who treat voting as an aesthetic consumer choice are being stupid.

Calling something "being stupid" is not an persuasive argument

Most rational people view voting as both a right and privilege to support the candidate whos views are most aligned with their own
More and more people will soon start to view voting as an opportunity to remove fools from office before they do more damage

And people will disagree on what those interests are and how to balance them based on their ideology.

you assume voters are incapable of independent evaluation and all are permanently tethered to either red or blue

Unlike die hard uncompromising ideologues such as yourself, there a lot of swing voters

No, people looking for solutions are good.
People pitching third party bullshit are stupid.
People pitching non-bullshit party and/or electoral reform are people I support.

Calling something "being stupid" is not an persuasive argument

Again , if a third party reduces political polarization, then it is a solution

electoral reform- sadly proposed electoral reforms will only be supported by the party which will reap the political benefit

But that's not what we're talking about.

Says you
You do not get ring fense the discussion

A third party that emerges in a time of crisis and then gets reabsorbed or causes the other party to wither away is nothing I oppose and is the normal trajectory for third parties in the US.

Do you not believe the current political polarization & ineffective govt is a crisis ?

and again, so what if one of the 3 parties does not survive the long run if political polarization is reduced?
Mission accomplished !!!!!!!!

Again - you need either a strong regional base or you need a major issue not being addressed by the current two major parties that lets the third party make the kind of headway needed.
This would then result in the system then re-stabilizing to two parties unless the entire electoral system changed.
So what is the major issue that you think this new party can run on that will give them a road to effect real change?

The major issue is offering an alternative to the path to socialism while not being Donald Trump

Wow. That right there says a lot about you, doesn't it.

Similarly your rejection of less political polarization & more compromise paints you as a die hard ideologue

A step back to the right by the democrats is required & the republicans would become less defensive and more open to compromise

I agree with this statement, even though I think the reasons why they do are different.

Let's be clear then
The democrats are failing miserably (the cost of living) & Joe Biden will not be able to turn the ship around
He will become a lame duck president in November

The republicans can win in 2024 , with or without Trump as the candidate

Trump has a nasty, mean spirited, abrasive personality
He is also a polarizing person,

So best he not run in order to reduce political polarization

you are under the delusion that only Trump can derail the suicidal march towards socialism

 

[Valcazar]

What infallible rule of physics states it would be the 3rd party which gets absorbed?

None.
As I have said repeatedly.
Maybe you should stick to misunderstanding high school physics.
Politics may be a bit too complicated.
Especially if you think the laws of physics are involved.

Obviously if a center left party were to be formed its because the democrats have ventured too far left into the realm of fantasy ( AKA AOC)
politics can be a nasty game - fools who bring a disaster upon their party are generally not fogiven

What infallible rule of physics states any party must get absorbed if there are three?

Physics isn't really involved here.

the reason is there platforms were just not appealing
that will happen if there are 3, 4, 5, or even 6 ... parties

there were 21 different political parties registered with elections Canada for the last election
obviously there aee a number platforms which were just not appealing

Yes.
In the US there were 21 candidates on the ballot in Vermont.
Including federal and statewide elections there are almost 30 parties with ballot access in the US.
None of that is what we are talking about, as I've made clear repeatedly.

mission accomplished !!!!!

ie a reduction in political polarization & a republican victory
please start paying attention

I am.
Your scenario means we are back to two parties, as I said would happen.
I tried in the earlier post to give you credit that you were actually arguing for what has been the successful model of a third party and then you insisted you weren't.
Not sure why you now think this is some kind of gotcha.
Besides which, "The Republicans pick someone other than Trump" is called a primary.
(I'm not going to get into "primaries as coalition negotiations pre-general election versus coalition in multi-party systems post-general" and in what ways they are meaningfully different. You're struggling enough already.)

Democrats have completely abandoned both & will pay dearly for allowing ideology to dictate policy

I guess you can modify it to "Democrats have abandoned both and the Republicans are too obsessed with culture wars to focus on this properly" and it could work.
But since you just want to take over the Republican party anyway and not last long, that's fine.

The number one concern of Americans is "The Cost of Living"
The inflation monster will ensure the democrats get wiped out in the mid-terms
inflation is also predicted to be sticky so they are very likly in trouble for 2024

Running as "the anti-inflation party" can get you a run like Perot's I bet.
One good election where you get 0 electoral votes, then be less relevant in 4 years as the other parties adopt some of your policies and rhetoric, and then irrelevant after that.
Given that the GOP refuses to have a plan for inflation, this gives you your "sound fiscal policy" schtick from earlier.

I do think this could be the basis for a successful third party run, where you are relevant for less than a decade before it collapses back to two parties.

do not read bigotry into that statement, it is simply a fact

Sure, playa.

Replacing an old party is hardly the definitive measure of success

It is the only relevant measure of success to the argument I am actually making about "major third parties" and how they work in the current system and why the system keeps returning to only two parties.

THE NDP replaced the CFC and CLC , yet consistently finish third in a three horse race

Canada has only two ruling parties - the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Once, due to a regional collapse of the Bloc Quebecois, they managed to form the opposition.
The more forgiving parliamentary system has allowed them to linger on in a way the US system doesn't allow for.

I would have thought the abolition of slavery would have been cited as the republicans claim to success
at a cost of a civil war and more than half a million young men killed

What they have or have not done politically is irrelevant to the actual discussion.

ah no
The democrats are making a mess in all states & all Americans are experiencing the impacts of inflation on their cost of living

But the geographical dispersal means that a third party has to have the Democrats collapse across the country to contest seriously or replace them.
Much harder to build up strength when you can get lots of votes and have no effect at all.

That is not an ideology, that is just plain common sense

What part of Donald Trump is a politically polarizing person are you not understanding ?
It would be best for the republicans & the USA if he did not run again

I agree. It would be for the best.
That has nothing to do with whether the US system can support a third major party in a stable way.

"I want Republicans but without Trump" is the primary fight - that's how the current system handles that.
If the split is dramatic enough that there is a disgruntled ex-GOP independent candidate (or Trump runs as an independent) that will collapse back into two parties after one run, two at the most if that person is Perot-level successful.

FYI: if the democrat shit show continues Trump will win if he runs again
& Joe Biden is not going to turn that ship around
Its more likely Joe Biden will have a mutinty on his hands - AOC and the other loonies are not team players

None of which is germane to the discussion of third parties being able to exist in the US system as presently constructed.

1, If they are not AOC, Iliad Omar or the other two nuts.
2. If they are not Joe Biden
3. If they are not socialists
4. If their policies will not be driven by ideology
6. If they feel Smaller govt is better
7. If their leader will not be Donald Trump

they could join

What do you have against the number 5, btw?
(I do love how 4 and 6 are in direct opposition.)
And again, this is not a formula that is going to get you a particularly successful third party run as you frame it.
This still just comes across as a pitch for a GOP primary fight, though.
You have a much better chance with your "anti-inflation, fiscally sound, energy security" as a rallying cry.
That sounds far more plausible as a pitch to centrist democrats and disaffected swing voters.

These elusive Structural issues you apparently can not explain clearly

Was the math too difficult for you?

Do you deny the ever increasing political polarization in the U.S. has resulted in a far less effective government ?

No.
But that has nothing to do with whether the electoral structure of the US can support a major third party for any length of time.

Yet you are unable to describe "what is going on"

Do you read any of the posts in this thread that aren't addressed to you specifically?

More and more people will soon start to view voting as an opportunity to remove fools from office before they do more damage

I can only hope more people use their votes that way.
It's incredibly important, especially in a FPTP system.
People viewing voting as an aesthetic choice about their personal validation in a system like the US are working against their best interests.

you assume voters are incapable of independent evaluation and all are permanently tethered to either red or blue

I assume nothing of the sort.
I argue that the structural limitations of the system push to two parties, each encompassing a coalition of interests, because it is the only way to win consistently within the system.

Unlike die hard uncompromising ideologues such as yourself, there a lot of swing voters

Of course there are swing voters in such a system.

Again , if a third party reduces political polarization, then it is a solution

And the system will then collapse back to the stable state of two parties, with a new political alignment between them.

electoral reform- sadly proposed electoral reforms will only be supported by the party which will reap the political benefit

Which is why electoral reform has to be pursued outside the party system to have any chance of success.

Says you
You do not get ring fense the discussion

I do when I already offered you an out there and you didn't take it.
"We should run a third party because if successful, the resulting realignment will be less polarized than it is now" isn't something I disagree with.
I don't think it is particularly likely to work if "less polarized" is the only rallying cry.

Do you not believe the current political polarization & ineffective govt is a crisis ?

and again, so what if one of the 3 parties does not survive the long run if political polarization is reduced?
Mission accomplished !!!!!!!!

So if you agree with me about what will happen, why are you so mad?

The major issue is offering an alternative to the path to socialism while not being Donald Trump

Good luck with that.

Similarly your rejection of less political polarization & more compromise paints you as a die hard ideologue

A step back to the right by the democrats is required & the republicans would become less defensive and more open to compromise

"We would totally be less fascist and authoritarian if you just did what we told you" is a hell of an argument.

Let's be clear then
The democrats are failing miserably (the cost of living) & Joe Biden will not be able to turn the ship around
He will become a lame duck president in November

Prediction noted.

The republicans can win in 2024 , with or without Trump as the candidate

Of course.

Trump has a nasty, mean spirited, abrasive personality
He is also a polarizing person,

And these are not even his worst traits.

So best he not run in order to reduce political polarization

So you are rooting for any of the other candidates to unseat him in the primary, right?

you are under the delusion that only Trump can derail the suicidal march towards socialism

I have no idea where you even got that idea or what's it about, but let's do a thought experiment.

Trump - despite your wishes - wins the GOP nomination.
The Democrats are spiraling towards socialism.
Do you run a third party candidate on your "sound fiscal policy, anti-inflation, sound energy security" party platform since you think Trump should not be running and the Democrats are dangerous to the country?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[JohnLarue]

None.
As I have said repeatedly.
Maybe you should stick to misunderstanding high school physics.
Politics may be a bit too complicated.
Especially if you think the laws of physics are involved.

i understand physics much better than you

Physics isn't really involved here.

Now who is misunderstanding physics ?

Yes.
In the US there were 21 candidates on the ballot in Vermont.
Including federal and statewide elections there are almost 30 parties with ballot access in the US.
None of that is what we are talking about, as I've made clear repeatedly.

obviously the political process does not always reduce to two parties



[

I am.

No you are not

Your scenario means we are back to two parties, as I said would happen.

That one possible outcome

The other being one of the incumbents (democrats) is severely damaged by the new party and we still wind up with less political polarization

I tried in the earlier post to give you credit that you were actually arguing for what has been the successful model of a third party and then you insisted you weren't.

How stunned are you ?
I am arguing for less political polarization
& a left of center new party would go a long way to achieving it
How long the socialists survive after being rejected is moot

I told you to start paying attention

Not sure why you now think this is some kind of gotcha.
Besides which, "The Republicans pick someone other than Trump" is called a primary.

And the goal of less political polarization would be started at that primary
I told you to start paying attention

(I'm not going to get into "primaries as coalition negotiations pre-general election versus coalition in multi-party systems post-general" and in what ways they are meaningfully different. You're struggling enough already.)

you are struggling with the fundamental drivers for a third party - political polarization and the massive step left by the democrats

I guess you can modify it to "Democrats have abandoned both and the Republicans are too obsessed with culture wars to focus on this properly" and it could work.

the problem is it is not working

But since you just want to take over the Republican party anyway and not last long, that's fine.

As I said the democrats has made such a mess the republicans will win in 2024 with or without Trump
No take over of he republicans needed

Its the democrats who will be challenged & threatened by a more centred party- The extreme left experiment has predicably gone wrong

Running as "the anti-inflation party" can get you a run like Perot's I bet.

the US inflation rate was 3.0 % in1992
now it is 6.8%

One good election where you get 0 electoral votes, then be less relevant in 4 years as the other parties adopt some of your policies and rhetoric, and then irrelevant after that.
Given that the GOP refuses to have a plan for inflation, this gives you your "sound fiscal policy" schtick from earlier.

Again
No take over of the republicans needed

Its the democrats who will be challenged & threatened by a more centred party- The extreme left experiment has predicably gone wrong
embracing socialism may be what kills the us democratic party
play with fire & you will get burnt

I do think this could be the basis for a successful third party run, where you are relevant for less than a decade before it collapses back to two parties.

I told you to start paying attention

less political polarization is the goal
who gives a rats ass how long there would be three parties if political polarization is reduced and the march towards socialism is stopped ?

You are really struggling understanding the underlying problem here

No.
But that has nothing to do with whether the electoral structure of the US can support a major third party for any length of time.

again,
less political polarization is the goal

who gives a rats ass how long there would be three parties if political polarization is reduced and te march towards socialism is stopped ?

The major issue is offering an alternative to the path to socialism while not being Donald Trump

Good luck with that.

socialism in the US will will lead to failure

So you are rooting for any of the other candidates to unseat him in the primary, right?

do not presume to speak for me
What I stated is clear enough
"Trump has a nasty, mean spirited, abrasive personality
He is also a polarizing person,
So best he not run in order to reduce political polarization" [

But the geographical dispersal means that a third party has to have the Democrats collapse across the country to contest seriously or replace them.
Much harder to build up strength when you can get lots of votes and have no effect at all.

I told you to pay attention

The number one concern of Americans is "The Cost of Living"
The inflation monster will ensure the democrats get wiped out in the mid-terms
inflation is also predicted to be sticky so they are very likely in trouble for 2024

socialism & inflation
cause & effect

The inflation issue is all across the country
The democrats have already started the self destruction clock by taking too many steps to the left towards socialism

t let's do a thought experiment.

Trump - despite your wishes - wins the GOP nomination.
The Democrats are spiraling towards socialism.
Do you run a third party candidate on your "sound fiscal policy, anti-inflation, sound energy security" party platform since you think Trump should not be running and the Democrats are dangerous to the country

Me?
I am not a US citizen so I doubt I would be permitted to start a new political party

However given that scenario I would hope some of the more centralist democrats would jump ship from the SS titanic that is socialism and offer up opposition to Trump via a third party

Imagine what a landslide victory would do to Trumps ego & his behaviour?
best for all if he has some opposition who offer sound fiscal policy, anti-inflation, & sound energy security"

 

[Frankfooter]

i understand physics much better than you

Couldn't stop laughing here so didn't read the rest.....

 

[Pleasure Hound]

Yeah. I have never he

Couldn't stop laughing here so didn't read the rest.....

Yeah. I have never heard a fellow physicist say stuff like that. Hilarious....