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

[Valcazar]

It's very simple. The party might look for a strong Democratic Senator or Governor with moderate credentials particularly from a purple state. This is what the Democratic party did in 1992.

You and I know the Democratic party is very different* now and a Moderate in the primary will be running a gauntlet. If the party can coalesce around an aging Biden who was faltering until the power blocs came together to crush Sanders, they can also rally around a Moderate.

The problem is that it takes more than one election cycle for the Democrats to unify around moderation. I think it's pretty clear that their current agenda is not that popular. They really need the Republicans to trip up bad on renominating Trump or extreme abortion bans in less than vibrant red states.

* Contrary to Val mocking LaRue's meme, the Democratic party is different. Which leads to the usual political, "No, your party is different. Your party changed!". Is Joe Biden the same politician as his 1992 version?

Absolutely. The normal reaction to losing over a number of cycles will be to adjust their approach.
The Dems got absolutely creamed from 1980 to 1992 and moved to the right and triangulated in 1992 like you say. And yes, over the last 30 years, they have shifted leftwards from those "third way" positions.
They could easily go back in that direction if they thought that's where the voters were.

The same is, of course, true for the GOP. They are not the party they were in 1992 either.
If they think Trump and Trumpism is dragging them down, they will face pressure to moderate or shift in another direction.

If there is a major issue of interest that neither party is addressing, maybe a third party jumps in and pushes that until either it gets taken up by one of the other major parties or one of the major parties collapses in on itself via a split.

 

[Valcazar]

Christian Nationalism is certainly a thing. The racist thing is not a strong identification for this group as you believe.

Which group is "this group" in this sentence?

 

[Valcazar]

Well, your thesis is - as it often is - that the Democratic party has become extremist and cannot tolerate moderates.

I have not gotten the impression that is Wyatt's thesis in this thread.
He may think they have gone too far over but he is explicitly arguing that if it resulted in electoral losses they could swing back to something he viewed as more moderate.

Again, my post about "celebrity" politicians often not gaining support was not remotely provocative. If you are reading the thread, this follows Valcazar's statements that third party candidates need to offer more than just vague good government pronouncements and competency.

I didn't say anything resembling "a celebrity newbie politician who is polite, but has no policy positions is a good thing....". Please let the conversation flow without trying to troll.

I agree with this as well.
I read the McConaughey post as pointing out that when he was just vaguely "a celebrity who wants to get into politics" his numbers are high, but if he began to actually take positions they would likely go down since people have actual opinions on specific positions.

 

[Valcazar]

If you look at the 2020 Presidential election vis-a-vis the 2016 election, you can see the impact small third parties can have. The Green party candidate likely cost Clinton the election. In 2020, the already small Green party vote sunk enough to throw some battleground states back to the Democratic column.

While the Libertarian and Green vote was much lower in 2020, I don't necessarily think Libertarians drifted over to Trump. I would guess they just stayed home or even voted for Biden. In 2016, Libertarian Gary Johnson tripled his percentage take from 2012 (1% to over 3%). That could be explained by a Trump protest vote. The Libertarian vote in 2020 dropped to its normal level.

Which is actually part of my whole point about third parties in an electoral system involving first past the post, especially in a Presidential system like the US.
I remember discussing the the 2020 election with Butler and trying to explain that the spike in third party voting in 2016 (which was well above the norm) was almost certainly going to crash back down.
People vote third party and it fucks them over and gets someone they don't like in and then they swing back to one of the two major parties.
This is very common, which is why I say it takes a lot to get a third party off the ground to the point where it even has a shot of influencing positions.

When things are as close as they are, that third party spoiler factor is present at very low voting levels, which is one of the reasons the two main parties in the US are so vigorously opposed to third parties in their space. (Outside of the occasional "run someone as a third party deliberately to split votes off of your opponent" tactic.)

 

[Valcazar]

Or you should check the WP numbers I posted about the MAGA numbers within the GOP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/02/trump-republicans-biden-maga/

Behind a paywall.
If they only pulled out "MAGA Republicans", though, it isn't quite as useful as the Pew data.
It is newer, though, so that's helpful. These coalitions drift and change over time so it could be that MAGA is best considered its own specific subset now.

 

[Frankfooter]

I agree with this as well.
I read the Modine post as pointing out that when he was just vaguely "a celebrity who wants to get into politics" his numbers are high, but if he began to actually take positions they would likely go down since people have actual opinions on specific positions.

Doesn't that just lead you to 'populism'?
Isn't trump the example of a politician who wanted to get into politics but had no real policies?
'build the wall', 'lock her up', 'drain the swamp' weren't policies.

 

[Frankfooter]

Behind a paywall.
If they only pulled out "MAGA Republicans", though, it isn't quite as useful as the Pew data.
It is newer, though, so that's helpful. These coalitions drift and change over time so it could be that MAGA is best considered its own specific subset now.

Try the link in 'incognito' or 'private' browsing mode.

 

[Valcazar]

Doesn't that just lead you to 'populism'?
Isn't trump the example of a politician who wanted to get into politics but had no real policies?
'build the wall', 'lock her up', 'drain the swamp' weren't policies.

Populism is a more specific thing about "the real people" vs "the corrupt elite".

Trump had zero interest in governing or doing the job, sure.
He had policy goals of a sort, just no real understanding of policy in a more serious way.

The question is does McConaughey want to run to actually do something or does he want to run to have a new sort of fame?

 

[mandrill]

I have not gotten the impression that is Wyatt's thesis in this thread.
He may think they have gone too far over but he is explicitly arguing that if it resulted in electoral losses they could swing back to something he viewed as more moderate.

I agree with this as well.
I read the McConaughey post as pointing out that when he was just vaguely "a celebrity who wants to get into politics" his numbers are high, but if he began to actually take positions they would likely go down since people have actual opinions on specific positions.

Except it was all part and parcel of Wyatt's rant about "politeness".....

 

[Frankfooter]

Behind a paywall.
If they only pulled out "MAGA Republicans", though, it isn't quite as useful as the Pew data.
It is newer, though, so that's helpful. These coalitions drift and change over time so it could be that MAGA is best considered its own specific subset now.

 

[Valcazar]

Thanks.

Interesting for support for some ideas, but not as useful as a grouping of coalitions.
I do suspect that this might end up being a new, unique set eventually though, since it is putting democracy itself as a central pillar of group identity in a way that wasn't done before.

 

[Frankfooter]

Thanks.

Interesting for support for some ideas, but not as useful as a grouping of coalitions.
I do suspect that this might end up being a new, unique set eventually though, since it is putting democracy itself as a central pillar of group identity in a way that wasn't done before.

I think there is something there, though it would be even more useful to figure out where the Venn overlaps between republican groups are, like do the anti-vaxxers also support the gun nuts, do the anti-abortion types support the militias....

 

[Valcazar]

I think there is something there, though it would be even more useful to figure out where the Venn overlaps between republican groups are, like do the anti-vaxxers also support the gun nuts, do the anti-abortion types support the militias....

That's more what the Pew stuff was doing. (Although very broadly.)

 

[Frankfooter]

That's more what the Pew stuff was doing. (Although very broadly.)

Maybe I just wasn't clear or didn't like they way the divided groups.

 

[WyattEarp]

The question is does McConaughey want to run to actually do something or does he want to run to have a new sort of fame?

It could be a little of both. We won't really know what McConaughey was thinking or how serious his interest. As I mentioned, you might have people buzzing around you telling you how popular you are in Texas. I don't think McConaughey wanted to necessarily run as a Republican or Democrat. However, you still have to create some type of platform that attracts different voting blocs.

I think of Howard Schultz Starbucks founder of Starbucks. I don't think he is charismatic. Without charisma, I think you need really good ideas and the ability to communicate competency. I never really think his candidacy got past offering a middle way with little details.

I actually liked Bloomberg. Of course, he was the Mayor of NYC and not a novice. I don't think he gave enough time to really developing a national platform and cultivating a following. Money is only one factor in primaries.

 

[WyattEarp]

Except it was all part and parcel of Wyatt's rant about "politeness".....

I believe I have discussed the use of quotations with some others. If one uses quotation marks to quote another on a forum, it should be the exact words that member actually used. That seems to be a reasonable expectation.

My original post was not very provocative, but you seem easily provoked by even words I haven't written.

So here is "Wyatt's rant" as you describe it (proper use of quotation marks):

"Yes, I concur (responding to Valcazar). We have seen several "celebrity" type businessmen put their toe in the water offering civility, competence and other good things. They quickly find that without taking strong positions they cannot generate support.

I think of Matthew McConaughy recently. From what we know, he was considering running for Governor in Texas based on his immense popularity there. His political confidantes probably told him his hypothetical 70% approval rating or whatever drops to around 45-50% as soon as he takes positions. If he doesn't take positions, no one will vote for him."

 

[Frankfooter]

I think of Matthew McConaughy recently. From what we know, he was considering running for Governor in Texas based on his immense popularity there. His political confidantes probably told him his hypothetical 70% approval rating or whatever drops to around 45-50% as soon as he takes positions. If he doesn't take positions, no one will vote for him."

Part of that is how unpopular some of the GOP positions are.
Abortion, more guns, tax breaks for the rich and even anti-union are all now not popular platforms.

 

[mandrill]

I believe I have discussed the use of quotations with some others. If one uses quotation marks to quote another on a forum, it should be the exact words that member actually used. That seems to be a reasonable expectation.

My original post was not very provocative, but you seem easily provoked by even words I haven't written.

So here is "Wyatt's rant" as you describe it (proper use of quotation marks):

"Yes, I concur (responding to Valcazar). We have seen several "celebrity" type businessmen put their toe in the water offering civility, competence and other good things. They quickly find that without taking strong positions they cannot generate support.

I think of Matthew McConaughy recently. From what we know, he was considering running for Governor in Texas based on his immense popularity there. His political confidantes probably told him his hypothetical 70% approval rating or whatever drops to around 45-50% as soon as he takes positions. If he doesn't take positions, no one will vote for him."

So what's your point?

 

[Frankfooter]

So what's your point?

Maybe he thinks the edits have him looking like this.

 

[Valcazar]

It could be a little of both. We won't really know what McConaughey was thinking or how serious his interest. As I mentioned, you might have people buzzing around you telling you how popular you are in Texas. I don't think McConaughey wanted to necessarily run as a Republican or Democrat. However, you still have to create some type of platform that attracts different voting blocs.

I think of Howard Schultz Starbucks founder of Starbucks. I don't think he is charismatic. Without charisma, I think you need really good ideas and the ability to communicate competency. I never really think his candidacy got past offering a middle way with little details.

I actually liked Bloomberg. Of course, he was the Mayor of NYC and not a novice. I don't think he gave enough time to really developing a national platform and cultivating a following. Money is only one factor in primaries.

Schultz was pretty doomed from the start because he has no charisma and he had a tiny constituency.
Bloomberg could probably do ok as an independent but he "OK" means something like Ross Perot 96 numbers and that doesn't get you anywhere other than being a spoiler.