Mind you, stupid people fall for third party bullshit all the time.
Idiotic Third Party Bid in the US hopes people don't notice they are idiots.
- Thread starter Valcazar
- Start date
Regrettably third party candidates just bleed votes from the Dems of GOP. Just ask president Gore. You may also recall Trumps threats to start a third party and that was in part how he has gotten the GOP to pay legal fees etc.
I agree that this 3rd party is foolish and counterproductive, just because of their leadership and ideas, but I wouldn't dismiss the idea that a meaningful 3rd party could be formed.
That is an interesting idea. But the repercussions would be interesting. A viable third party would likely scoop up votes from both parties. A centre right would hurt the GOP and help Dems, or vice versa if the new party's leanings were reversed. Who remembers Ross Perot? I wonder if Clinton would have won if Perot hadn't thrown his hat into the ring. He got nearly 20 million votes, about 18% support. Clinton won by just under 6 million votes...
It would take an insane amount of effort to get a 3rd party off the ground in that fucked up country. Americans just can't spare that kind of time anymore.....
implicit in your flawed logic is the belief that the vast majority of Americans are polarized to the extreme left or extreme right and are incapable of compromise or having a balanced view
The reality is Americans who are a bit right of center see the current democrats as irresponsible incompetent ideologs sliding into socialism
Conversely Americans who are a bit left of center see Donald Trump and find his personality abrasive and unacceptable
And the current polarization is
a) not working
b) likely to get worse (Roe vs Wade, climate propaganda,/ energy policy, govt debt, race relations, health care , immigration, wealth re-distribution, competitiveness, etc )
a party with a more central policy position would likely get more accomplished, do less harm and likely appeal to a lot of Americans who are tired of the political polarization
That said, the incumbent parties are entrenched and would fight tooth and nail against a third party
A third party would also find itself isolated from the all important yet despicable lobby machine in Washington
Ross Perot tried. He had tons of $ to spread on an election attempt, yet he failed
Last edited:
If you could get some people who are true centrist/moderates, care about good government over buying votes and respectable [H Ross Perot was a bit of a twat monkey] and in it for the long term, in it to win it, I think it could take off. However it would need more than one election, and you need a base again of moderate people who can earn respect.
Of course anyone who cares about good government will probably never get elected because winning is all about pandering to special interest groups instead of what is good policy and the national interest because reasons.
Parties rise and fall, it's possible. There have been presidents from The Whigs, Democratic-Republican, a Federalist and a National Union.
Don't think Audrey Plaza is doing anything, put her in a pond, give her some swords to give out. It's an idea worth trying again.
Of course anyone who cares about good government will probably never get elected because winning is all about pandering to special interest groups instead of what is good policy and the national interest because reasons.
Parties rise and fall, it's possible. There have been presidents from The Whigs, Democratic-Republican, a Federalist and a National Union.
Don't think Audrey Plaza is doing anything, put her in a pond, give her some swords to give out. It's an idea worth trying again.
I am of the opinion that for the US to survive, something like 'a third party' needs to happen. The 2 republicans on the Jan 6 committee could be the template for the future. One is not running again, and the other will likely lose the GOP ticket. But, both of them represent people that care about doing the right thing and are willing to compromise. There are many who are right of the left and left of the right with Trump still holding power in the GOP. What would the situation be if 2, 3, 4, or 5 well known candidates ran for the Senate under an Independent ticket and won? Look what Manchen has been doing, it seems he has control over the Dems in the Senate. If 5 middle of the road people (at least) won seats in the Senate, neither the Dems or the GOP would be in control and who know, maybe compromise might be the new black!
And the people who start these third parties refuse to understand it and actually do the work required to build the conditions needed to make a "third party" (there are actually LOTS and LOTS of parties, so even the name is a misnomer, but no one wants to say "third major party") work given the constraints of the system. (Which could include massively changing the system.)
This "Forward" party?
Hard to say.
They went out of their way to point out they have no policy positions at this time.
Possibly. Ralph Nader certainly did in Al Gore, Monica not withstanding. Looks more likely the other way now though. A whole lot of fundamentally sane conservatives are looking for a home. Not many are choosing the Proud Bois these days...
You should.
At least until any of these third party bids actually focuses on what is needed within the system to make them viable.
Or at least exhibits a clear understanding that they are trying to push a discussion that will result in them being absorbed into one of the major parties after an election cycle or two. (Which can make them "meaningful" in that they will have had an impact before disappearing.)
Most people who have looked at it don't think Perot cost Bush the election. At least not in terms of "he stole votes from Bush". A bunch of his supporters wouldn't have voted at all, and the other split pretty evenly. They would have had to split about 2-1 in favor of Bush to have cost him the election. (The 96 run he had even less effect.) That said, he changed all the media narratives about the election, so who knows what fuckery the media might have come up with if they only had Bush and Clinton to play with? Clinton may have gotten a break in that Perot was the new shiny object and that let Clinton overcome some of his flaws because the media wasn't on him all the time. But given that Bush was cratering in popularity after his post-war high, maybe Bush benefited from a change in that narrative. It's hard to say.
Now that the requisite mocking of you clinging to that meme is out of the way, I do want to address the other dumb things you're saying here.
But "moderates who care about good government" is meaningless - they still have to pick actual positions on issues.
That's kind of a major point in all this.
Ever since the American Civil War, those parties have been called "Democrats" and "Republicans" even if they haven't stood for the same things or represented the same people over all that time.
That's the thing - if a "third party" is successful in the current system, it will either be absorbed into one of the two major parties (or both) or they will replace one of the other two parties and absorb most of its people (which is much the same thing as above with different branding).
Unless you change major aspects of the election system in the US, there isn't going to be a third party that lasts as a major force for more than a decade or so.
Just to use your examples.
Federalists exist in the first party system, lose out to the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans and gradually fade away, the winning party splits after a decade or so into the Democratic party and the Whigs.
National Union happens because of the Civil War and never exists before or after.
Post the Civil War you have the Republicans and the Democrats.
Those names don't change even as they shift what they stand for through multiple stages. (Post Civil War, Early 20th century, Post-Depression, Post-60s, Post-90s).
Either they represent a specific regional block or they find a specific binding issue that isn't being addressed by either party.
If they can run on that as independents and force that issue into the main conversation, one or both of the main parties will start addressing that issue and then the little block of independents will no longer have a reason to exist and be absorbed into the party that addresses it best.
Not at all, since the problem with third parties in the US is structural and has nothing to do with that in any way.
I see your political analysis is right up there in quality with Dutch Oven's legal analysis.
At least you are acknowledging it would be a long-term issue and would have to gain respect and trust.
But "moderates who care about good government" is meaningless - they still have to pick actual positions on issues.
There is also the thing where people disagree over what is good policy and what is the national interest.
That's kind of a major point in all this.
And it settles down to two parties.
Ever since the American Civil War, those parties have been called "Democrats" and "Republicans" even if they haven't stood for the same things or represented the same people over all that time.
That's the thing - if a "third party" is successful in the current system, it will either be absorbed into one of the two major parties (or both) or they will replace one of the other two parties and absorb most of its people (which is much the same thing as above with different branding).
Unless you change major aspects of the election system in the US, there isn't going to be a third party that lasts as a major force for more than a decade or so.
Just to use your examples.
Federalists exist in the first party system, lose out to the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans and gradually fade away, the winning party splits after a decade or so into the Democratic party and the Whigs.
National Union happens because of the Civil War and never exists before or after.
Post the Civil War you have the Republicans and the Democrats.
Those names don't change even as they shift what they stand for through multiple stages. (Post Civil War, Early 20th century, Post-Depression, Post-60s, Post-90s).
You are going to have to clarify what you mean by that.
They would be a small power block and then be absorbed into one of the other parties.
Either they represent a specific regional block or they find a specific binding issue that isn't being addressed by either party.
If they can run on that as independents and force that issue into the main conversation, one or both of the main parties will start addressing that issue and then the little block of independents will no longer have a reason to exist and be absorbed into the party that addresses it best.
People who pick actual positions that tend to lie in the center, and that reflect good government.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I see, so its your compulsive need to mock which is at play here
that meme is quite representative of reality. As pointed out earlier you dismiss it due to flawed logic based on a dumb assumption
Nice try
I addressed the structural issue and pointed out how despicable it is
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
Dutch Oven is far more perceptive and honest than you
you completely missed the point
In Washington it is about influence which is driven by lobbyist and money
Picking a position should be based on evaluating the interests of all, not based on ideology
The left would destroy the economy & restrict life essential energy because of pudedo science based ideology
The extreme right would restrict woman's rights to abortion due to religious 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"
And it settles down to two parties.
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 ?
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
the republicans need a different leader than Donald Trump
