Obsession Massage

Joe Biden ruled as too incompetent to face charges

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
77,307
91,974
113
Yes, Biden received 96% of the South Carolina vote. However, he was up against Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips.

In my opinion, Nikki Haley is a formidable politician and an incumbent in South Carolina in her own right. She's certainly not liberal on most matters.

Trying to break down the meaning of the S.C. primary beyond Biden won handily, Trump won by a solid margin is mostly conjecture.
You missed the part where a large % of Haley's vote indicated that they would not vote for Trump in November.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
77,307
91,974
113
Mercedes Schlapp and her husband are leaders in CPAC. She said she "brought" him to CPAC this year and took him away from South Carolina.


It's not a good idea to go dumpster diving on Twitter.
Nah. You never know quite what garbage you find there. The Schlapps are a good example.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,246
59,780
113
The USA is probably more split along rural vs urban divisions from what the elections say. Up here we have much stronger regional identity. East coast, Quebec, Ontario, Prairie and B.C all have pretty distinct cultural frameworks. There is some Urban v Rural, but that really is everyone hates Toronto more than anything.
There is a strong Urban vs Rural aspect to the situation in Canada from what I can tell.
But yes, the US regional situation these days is less of a thing than it is in Canada.

The thing is a Regional party in the USA that managed to take say 40 seats on the House and 4 in the Senate could become a very real power broker on some issues, even in the sense that it would cause the two majors to have to work together more to blunt them. And reduce the threat of further erosion of their duopoly.
The problem is that none of the current main "third parties" are remotely interested in doing this work.
They just pop up for the Presidential elections.

A regional party in the US is viable at the Congressional level.
We had the Populists in the late 1800s, then the Progressives, then Farmer-Labor.

As always, they weren't solely regional in focus, having real large scale national ideas, but they had a regional base of power that got them representation.
It isn't an impossible approach.
Unfortunately, the most consistent group to do something regional across a few states and with a consistent ideology is the South. You can still see those voting patterns show up.
But there are other areas that might have some kind of consistent view that could pull out of one of the main parties.

I don't think it could ever be a truly regional for regional sake party outside of the South, though.
Otherwise it would need to have a national policy view shaped by a region.
Water rights management across the Southwest could be something.
A cultural position of note (a blob with a specific view on abortion, for instance) might work.
Some kind of monetary policy that affects one region in a specific way.
I could see a border party with a view on immigration that was consistent across an area acting as a lynch pin.

We just aren't seeing anything like that out of the current minor parties, which focus on the presidency instead.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,246
59,780
113
I thought the Liberal Party drew most of their support from urban areas.
Yes, It's a major factor.

As Valcazar always asks, what does that third party look like? What third party platform would be successful? It's a very idealistic notion until you have to gain enough votes that put the party on the map.
See my earlier post.
I think it is doable in the US, but it isn't going to happen just to happen.

I have held some hope that a third party Presidential candidate could possibly pull enough votes away from the two parties to win. However, I don't think that third party would gain traction in Congressional races.
I think it is the other way around.
Far more likely to get a small regional power base for a third party in congress than get anywhere in a Presidential vote.
The Electoral College makes third parties even weaker than they would otherwise be for the Presidency.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
7,511
2,246
113
You missed the part where a large % of Haley's vote indicated that they would not vote for Trump in November.
You said just yesterday on this thread that we live in the real world.in reference to two choices. These voters will likely have a choice between Trump and Biden.

For some reason, national polling does not pick up the substantial "never Trump" Republican voters when the choice is Biden vs. Trump.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
77,307
91,974
113
You said just yesterday on this thread that we live in the real world.in reference to two choices. These voters will likely have a choice between Trump and Biden.

For some reason, national polling does not pick up the substantial "never Trump" Republican voters when the choice is Biden vs. Trump.
Probably because they're likely to stay home or vote for Biden.

The thinking about Biden is "Fuck, I wish he were 15 years younger. But he didn't do too badly, I guess."

The thinking about Trump is "Fuck the guy is not only senile, but a crook, an insurrectionist and he's corrupt and dumber than a sack of potatoes."

There's a big difference between those 2 opinions and what they make you do on polling day.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,246
59,780
113
I think you could see the rise of a Texas based party, with tendrils to nearby states, rising over immigration policy, and continuing over other social issues. They would have financial backing and "identity" to draw on, no doubt.
I can see something like that.
Border states with an immigration policy and maybe water rights/land use rights focus.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
7,511
2,246
113
I think it is the other way around.
Far more likely to get a small regional power base for a third party in congress than get anywhere in a Presidential vote.
The Electoral College makes third parties even weaker than they would otherwise be for the Presidency.
You might be right. I am thinking about the immediate elections.

I don't think any region currently feels its interests are unrepresented by the two major parties. The Northeast and West Coast are comfortable siding with the Democrats. The South and parts of the West find a home with Republicans. The Midwest states including Pennsylvania tend to be more in play.

The 1850s were interesting because the South was losing electoral power as the mood of the rest of the country turned against compromising on slavery. Up until that point, the Democrats and Whigs had established somewhat of an accommodation. Both had varying amounts of cross-regional success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valcazar

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
7,511
2,246
113
Water rights management across the Southwest could be something.
This comment caught my eye only because the Southwest (including California} is likely getting overpopulated and over-cultivated. Jokingly, it might be also over-golfed in reference to water usage.

It seems like water rights is more of a contentious issue between the Southwest states then an issue that will unify them. Specifically, California, Arizona and Nevada will be fighting over water rights perpetually.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,246
59,780
113
You might be right. I am thinking about the immediate elections.
There's no one serious running for the third slot who could draw significant support, as far as I can see.

The 1850s were interesting because the South was losing electoral power as the mood of the rest of the country turned against compromising on slavery. Up until that point, the Democrats and Whigs had established somewhat of an accommodation. Both had varying amounts of cross-regional success.
The 1840s-1850s sometimes just looks like a series of attempts to stave of the Civil War everyone fears is coming.
And then failing to do so.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
30,831
4,995
113
There is a strong Urban vs Rural aspect to the situation in Canada from what I can tell.
But yes, the US regional situation these days is less of a thing than it is in Canada.



The problem is that none of the current main "third parties" are remotely interested in doing this work.
They just pop up for the Presidential elections.

A regional party in the US is viable at the Congressional level.
We had the Populists in the late 1800s, then the Progressives, then Farmer-Labor.

As always, they weren't solely regional in focus, having real large scale national ideas, but they had a regional base of power that got them representation.
It isn't an impossible approach.
Unfortunately, the most consistent group to do something regional across a few states and with a consistent ideology is the South. You can still see those voting patterns show up.
But there are other areas that might have some kind of consistent view that could pull out of one of the main parties.

I don't think it could ever be a truly regional for regional sake party outside of the South, though.
Otherwise it would need to have a national policy view shaped by a region.
Water rights management across the Southwest could be something.
A cultural position of note (a blob with a specific view on abortion, for instance) might work.
Some kind of monetary policy that affects one region in a specific way.
I could see a border party with a view on immigration that was consistent across an area acting as a lynch pin.

We just aren't seeing anything like that out of the current minor parties, which focus on the presidency instead.
Existing third parties are trying to start nationally. Thats why they aren't working. In what I was thinking it would be a combination of existing imcumbents, and new candidates. It would probably start on Congress, and be a break from a party line. And at a midterms, a small cadre of new Reps adding to the total. That would garner national attention, especially in a split fractious House. It would probably take a crisis situation, like a foreign war, coupled with a regional crisis, to have this happen. One thing history tells us, is it all remains the same, until it suddenly isn't.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,246
59,780
113
This comment caught my eye only because the Southwest (including California} is likely getting overpopulated and over-cultivated. Jokingly, it might be also over-golfed in reference to water usage.

It seems like water rights is more of a contentious issue between the Southwest states then an issue that will unify them. Specifically, California, Arizona and Nevada will be fighting over water rights perpetually.

It would take some kind of national move that pisses them ALL off probably.
Or some kid of accord they reach that for some reason gets opposed by the national government.

As it is right now, I agree it is more divisive than unifying.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
30,831
4,995
113
You might be right. I am thinking about the immediate elections.

I don't think any region currently feels its interests are unrepresented by the two major parties. The Northeast and West Coast are comfortable siding with the Democrats. The South and parts of the West find a home with Republicans. The Midwest states including Pennsylvania tend to be more in play.

The 1850s were interesting because the South was losing electoral power as the mood of the rest of the country turned against compromising on slavery. Up until that point, the Democrats and Whigs had established somewhat of an accommodation. Both had varying amounts of cross-regional success.
Immediate no, but I think the nation could easily see another Tea Party style rise, but if they had a real leader and weren't as immediately bought off as the Tea Party was, then suddenly they can be a real thing.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,246
59,780
113
Existing third parties are trying to start nationally. Thats why they aren't working. In what I was thinking it would be a combination of existing imcumbents, and new candidates. It would probably start on Congress, and be a break from a party line. And at a midterms, a small cadre of new Reps adding to the total. That would garner national attention, especially in a split fractious House. It would probably take a crisis situation, like a foreign war, coupled with a regional crisis, to have this happen. One thing history tells us, is it all remains the same, until it suddenly isn't.
This is a much more reasonable approach to a third party than you've pitched in the past.
Splitting off a caucus is one way some of the smaller parties that hung around in the US happened before.
Then get some people actually elected running on that ticket.

And yes, history shows it has needed something big to act as a pillar.

Fiat currency, immigration, slavery, voting rights, prohibition, war, etc...
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,246
59,780
113
Immediate no, but I think the nation could easily see another Tea Party style rise, but if they had a real leader and weren't as immediately bought off as the Tea Party was, then suddenly they can be a real thing.
The Tea Party was astroturf.
It's still informative, though.
The more natural road here is always going to be to move to take over one of the existing parties, rather than become a "third party".
These divisions and ideological movements are mostly hashed out at the primaries within the existing coalitions.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
7,511
2,246
113
There's no one serious running for the third slot who could draw significant support, as far as I can see.
I always thought someone like Manchin had the name and appeal to make a serious effort. Threading the center is more difficult than it looks, but peeling off voters from an aging Biden and a volatile Trump would have made 2024 a good time to give it a shot.

I think there would be a pool of donors for a play in the center.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,246
59,780
113
I always thought someone like Manchin had the name and appeal to make a serious effort. Threading the center is more difficult than it looks, but peeling off voters from an aging Biden and a volatile Trump would have made 2024 a good time to give it a shot.

I think there would be a pool of donors for a play in the center.
Manchin walked away from No Labels offering him their Presidential ticket.
Either he looked into their organization and saw they were pretty useless or he looked at the numbers and saw he would at best do a Perot run and get double digits and no states.

There is absolutely a massive pool of donors who want someone they consider "centrist".

The media and the mega donor class loves the idea of "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal" but that's the empty quadrant of US voters. (There's very little support for that.)

Outside of their view though, there are probably other "centrist" lanes to run in.
They won't have the big money people lining up, by maybe there are small dollar donors to be found.

But it is too late to build that now - you would have to be working on it for at least a couple of years to make a real run at it.
 

mitchell76

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2010
22,799
9,673
113

Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman says Biden is a complete embarrassment to America and is handing Donald Trump the 2024 election. Facts. “Biden is, I think is done. I mean, it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing for the country having him as a presidential candidate, let alone the president of the country. It's crazy.” “It's just getting worse & it's embarrassing… Every day he waits, he's handing the election to Trump.”
 
Toronto Escorts