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

[Valcazar]

again with the structural issues
motivation has 100% bearing on all political changes
yet you ignore it

And this is the fundamental disagreement we have.
You think the structural issues don't matter, and I think they are extremely important.

There may be nothing else to say since those positions are so irreconcilable.

Again, if it results in a less polarized political environment, and stopping the march towards economic suicide via socialism then mission accomplish

For instance this.
You keep saying this like it matters to the issue I'm talking about when it is entirely irrelevant.
Knowing you think structural issues don't matter an everything is motivation, it makes more sense that you are insisting on this point.

100% wrong
Do you think a rejection of the far left by centralist democrats would resume the same path of destruction a few years latter?

Again. Completely irrelevant to the point about third parties in a FPTP structure with Presidentialism.

an excellent example of you not explaining yourself
Am I expected to guess what you think is the cause?

And again. The cause is irrelevant to the point, but since you think party motivation and intent is what matters here, you fixate on it.

that is not aligned with "Stupid people fall for third party bullshit all the time"

It is completely aligned with it.

A group of centrist democrats alarmed by the spiral of their party into the lunacy of socialism would not be a bullshit third party

It could be depending on how they approached their third party bid.
But you are absolutely correct that they could be a very serious third party.
An actual party with an actual message wouldn't be a bullshit party.
It is, of course, not at all what Forward is since they have said they don't have policies and therefore cannot be viewed as "centrists alarmed by the spiral of their party into the lunacy of socialism".

taking the socialism & incompetence out of democrat politics is most certainly a worthwhile endeavor

The Forward party doesn't claim to be doing any of these things, though.
They claim to have no policies and they have not once said anything about taking "incompetence out of democrat politics".
Since more of the founders are ex-Republicans, if anything it seems they would be about taking incompetence out of Republican politics, but they haven't said anything about that either.

I am sure the wigs said something similar about the republicans in 1850

Very unlikely.
The Whigs were the party that was deliberately avoiding stating a policy on something important (like the "Forward" party is doing now).
The Republicans were very ideological, having been formed explicitly around their opposition to slavery and its expansion. They absorbed previous parties that had already shown strength in some local areas such as the Free Soil party. The Republicans didn't even show up until the Whigs were already in deep trouble and were immediately credible. Their leadership was not the equivalent of someone like Andrew Wang.

There has to be a number of centralist democrats who are alarmed by

1. the hard turn left
2. AOC & the other three nutjobs
3. Sleep Joes brutal performance
4. Their hopes for re-election going down the crapper

There may be.
Do you think they are going to take over the Forward party from Yang?

 

[wigglee]

you lack the stones to make a logical argument

Republicans who still believe in democracy might support this new party. The current GOP is a bunch of extremist whackos who peddle lies and bullshit conspiracies about stolen elections and want to sweep the coup of Jan 6 under the rug. Also, some Democrats who think the current Dems are too far left might move to the middle.

 

[Frankfooter]

Republicans who still believe in democracy might support this new party. The current GOP is a bunch of extremist whackos who peddle lies and bullshit conspiracies about stolen elections and want to sweep the coup of Jan 6 under the rug. Also, some Democrats who think the current Dems are too far left might move to the middle.

Lets just hope the right wing splinters into two parties, the racist Christian Nationalists vs conservatives.

 

[dirtydaveiii]

It's really too bad Trump didn't splinter the GOP and form the fringe lunatic party like he was going to until he was told their would be nobody to grift. Trump/Kanye 2024

 

[Valcazar]

Lets just hope the right wing splinters into two parties, the racist Christian Nationalists vs conservatives.

Who splinters versus who just takes over a coalition is always tricky.
That breakdown of the current groups was from 2021. The Faith and Flag conservatives are one of the two biggest groups in the Republican coalition, they could try splitting off, but why not just gun for a takeover?
And if it does lead to a realignment, who moves which way? If some kind of party united the outsider left and ambivalent right, who would join them to make a viable party? It's really not obvious what issues could be used to stitch together a new coalition right now.

 

[dirtydaveiii]

Does that mean we get to heard Dutchs grand unified theory which does not use energy ? Move over muons pions Higgs bosons and dark matter we have the Dutch particle which constitutes all matter energy and time. D=DD2

 

[Frankfooter]

Who splinters versus who just takes over a coalition is always tricky.
That breakdown of the current groups was from 2021. The Faith and Flag conservatives are one of the two biggest groups in the Republican coalition, they could try splitting off, but why not just gun for a takeover?
And if it does lead to a realignment, who moves which way? If some kind of party united the outsider left and ambivalent right, who would join them to make a viable party? It's really not obvious what issues could be used to stitch together a new coalition right now.

View attachment 162300

Interesting chart, though I would have thought the populist right is closer to the faith and flag conservatives than the committed conservatives.
The populist side that's afraid of people of colour seems to be less conservative than scared. Like its less about actual policies or politics and more about fear and grievances.

 

[Valcazar]

Interesting chart, though I would have thought the populist right is closer to the faith and flag conservatives than the committed conservatives.
The populist side that's afraid of people of colour seems to be less conservative than scared. Like its less about actual policies or politics and more about fear and grievances.

You can see more details on how they classified them here: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/the-republican-coalition/

I do think putting them on a dark blue to dark red line was a bit misleading, since the groups don't really drift linearly.

 

[Jubee]

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/

People fall for any party period. lol

 

[Frankfooter]

People fall for any party period. lol

Not so true, I have lots of friends that drift between libs, NDP and greens depending on leaders, issues and weighing their votes.
In the US its just a binary choice, its such a weird country that way.

 

[Valcazar]

People fall for any party period. lol

You have to work extremely hard to build a system that doesn't result in political parties.
It's almost impossible to do.

 

[Valcazar]

Not so true, I have lots of friends that drift between libs, NDP and greens depending on leaders, issues and weighing their votes.
In the US its just a binary choice, its such a weird country that way.

In any given riding in Canada, you almost always only have two parties who can realistically win the riding.
Very rarely you have a three way race.
People who pretend there are multiple parties in play and are voting "nationally" in the Canadian system are usually don't understand how the system actually works.

 

[Frankfooter]

In any given riding in Canada, you almost always only have two parties who can realistically win the riding.
Very rarely you have a three way race.
People who pretend there are multiple parties in play and are voting "nationally" in the Canadian system are usually don't understand how the system actually works.

True, but there are times where either of the two choices would be ok and times where you really need to vote someone out.
That lets people vote as they want sometimes, which helps fund the smaller parties.

 

[JohnLarue]

And this is the fundamental disagreement we have.
You think the structural issues don't matter, and I think they are extremely important.

There may be nothing else to say since those positions are so irreconcilable.

so anyone with a fundamental disagreement with you must be characterized as

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

?????

For instance this.
You keep saying this like it matters to the issue I'm talking about when it is entirely irrelevant.

motivation is not entirely irrelevant
you foolishly ignored it

Knowing you think structural issues don't matter an everything is motivation, it makes more sense that you are insisting on this point.

I have never stated structural issues don't matter
The all important yet despicable lobby machine in Washington would require deep pocket filled with cash
It is not insurmountable as the threat of socialism will open up wallets

Many a rich donner will be highly motivated to get the democratic party realigned away from socialism

Again. Completely irrelevant to the point about third parties in a FPTP structure with Presidentialism.

you are a strange one indeed
a few posts back you were arguing a 3rd party would not last a decade (which is irrelevant if its participation reduced the polarization and stopped the economic suicide which is socialism)
now you argue they would not affect a one off election result
do you understand the concept of vote splitting in a highly polarized environment,?

And again. The cause is irrelevant to the point, but since you think party motivation and intent is what matters here, you fixate on it.

nice try
you state you disagree with the cause of the polarization , without stating what you believe is the cause
and then you say that is irrelevant

grow a set and state your position rather than just stating I am wrong
WTF ????

It is completely aligned with it.

not even close

It could be depending on how they approached their third party bid.
But you are absolutely correct that they could be a very serious third party.
An actual party with an actual message wouldn't be a bullshit party.
It is, of course, not at all what Forward is since they have said they don't have policies and therefore cannot be viewed as "centrists alarmed by the spiral of their party into the lunacy of socialism".

"But you are absolutely correct that they could be a very serious third party."
Hardly the work of a bunch of idiots

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

?????

The Forward party doesn't claim to be doing any of these things, though.
They claim to have no policies and they have not once said anything about taking "incompetence out of democrat politics".
Since more of the founders are ex-Republicans, if anything it seems they would be about taking incompetence out of Republican politics, but they haven't said anything about that either.

irrelevant as it is the democrats who are going to be wiped out in Nov. will have a lame duck leader and who will be in need of realignment[

 

[Valcazar]

so anyone with a fundamental disagreement with you must be characterized as

Not at all.

motivation is not entirely irrelevant
you foolishly ignored it

We may as well drop it because we're working from different premises and talking about different things.

do you understand the concept of vote splitting in a highly polarized environment,?

You are going to have to specify what you mean by "vote splitting in a highly polarized environment", since there are a number of different things you could mean by that, especially in the US system.

nice try
you state you disagree with the cause of the polarization , without stating what you believe is the cause
and then you say that is irrelevant

grow a set and state your position rather than just stating I am wrong

Why?
It's irrelevant to the discussion about the structural issues inhibiting third parties.
Who is polarized and why they are polarized simply doesn't matter in that regard.

"But you are absolutely correct that they could be a very serious third party."
Hardly the work of a bunch of idiots

But that party doesn't exist except in your head.
That such a party could be a serious party if it tried is one thing, but it would need to exist and would need to put in the work.

irrelevant as it is the democrats who are going to be wiped out in Nov. will have a lame duck leader and who will be in need of realignment[

We agree that the Forward party will be irrelevant in November, yes.

 

[JohnLarue]

Not at all.

explain the difference between
anyone with a fundamental disagreement with you &
Idiotic Third Party Bid in the US hopes people don't notice they are idiots.

We may as well drop it because we're working from different premises and talking about different things.

I guess that is your way of avoiding the truth of the matter
you started a thread & took a position based on your perception of structural issues without considering motivation

You are going to have to specify what you mean by "vote splitting in a highly polarized environment", since there are a number of different things you could mean by that, especially in the US system.

you have a lot nerve asking for clarity

generally the US electorate votes 51 to 60% for either blue or red with the other side getting 40 to 49%
do you really need help figuring out the implications of a left center third party taking 10 to 20 % of the votes or securing the electoral votes for a couple of small states

Why?
It's irrelevant to the discussion about the structural issues inhibiting third parties.
Who is polarized and why they are polarized simply doesn't matter in that regard.

#1. again you seem to think the discussion has been ringfenced around structural issues despite the fact we have identified polarization / the push for socialism as the problems causing for a dysfunctional US govt
#2. if you really though the cause of the polarization was irrelevant then the was zero need to label my root cause of the polarization as wrong, yet you did
........ so not irrelevant after all

you are likely to break an ankle back peddling like that

it is obvious you do not want to state your position on the cause of the polarization
surely you recognize such a massive step to the left by the democrats is extremely polarizing by definition

but alas you lack the stones to clearly state your position

But that party doesn't exist except in your head.

Wrong
the democratic party is not unified
The criticism from within started before sleepy Joe had his presidential inauguration
Pelosi hates AOC & the other loonies & visa versa
and two weeks ago they were going to Tar & Feather Joe Manchin

That such a party could be a serious party if it tried is one thing, but it would need to exist and would need to put in the work.

we shall see after the train wreck for the democrats after November
in fighting can get very nasty once the blame game gets started

We agree that the Forward party will be irrelevant in November, yes.

I made no refence to the the forward party

 

[Valcazar]

explain the difference between
anyone with a fundamental disagreement with you &
Idiotic Third Party Bid in the US hopes people don't notice they are idiots.

That's not a complicated difference, Johnny.
The first one is you projecting your weird insecurities onto me and the second is a statement I am making about the Forward party in particular and how it is riding the wave of people hoping for a unicorn third party in inside the US system without understand the structural issues involved in working against a third major party existing for any length of time in that system as it stands.

I guess that is your way of avoiding the truth of the matter
you started a thread & took a position based on your perception of structural issues without considering motivation

Because motivation is irrelevant to the structural issues I am talking about.

generally the US electorate votes 51 to 60% for either blue or red with the other side getting 40 to 49%
do you really need help figuring out the implications of a left center third party taking 10 to 20 % of the votes or securing the electoral votes for a couple of small states

No. That is, in fact, key to my argument about why no third party will stay in existence for long. The huge disruptions that causes means there quickly results in a realignment to a new stable configuration of two parties.

(I had to be sure you weren't talking about splitting votes among different parties for different offices in the same election, which is also sometimes called "vote splitting". )

#1. again you seem to think the discussion has been ringfenced around structural issues despite the fact we have identified polarization / the push for socialism as the problems causing for a dysfunctional US govt

No. YOU have identified that as what you think the problem is and what the conversation is about.
I have been talking about what I chose to talk about from the beginning. That it upsets you I don't want to talk about your thing isn't really my problem.

That said, I am happy to start another thread about whether a third party can make any impact in the next election and why that might happen and what might motivate it since it seems you really want to talk about it but can't be bothered to make the thread yourself.

#2. if you really though the cause of the polarization was irrelevant then the was zero need to label my root cause of the polarization as wrong, yet you did
........ so not irrelevant after all

LOL.
Hilarious.
Yes. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

You can make the thread I will make for you all about that if you like, though.

you are likely to break an ankle back peddling like that

I don't think you know what back peddling means.

it is obvious you do not want to state your position on the cause of the polarization
surely you recognize such a massive step to the left by the democrats is extremely polarizing by definition

but alas you lack the stones to clearly state your position

Dude.
I have said on multiple occasions that your meme about the left being problem as you stay where you are is so laughable that I will clip it out and mock it separately in its own post.
I haven't changed that position.
I'm just not going to get into a back and forth about it when it is irrelevant to my point about third parties.

Wrong
the democratic party is not unified
The criticism from within started before sleepy Joe had his presidential inauguration
Pelosi hates AOC & the other loonies & visa versa
and two weeks ago they were going to Tar & Feather Joe Manchin

And the third party all these people are defecting from the Democratic party and voting for instead is... what?
There isn't one.

If you want to imagine one will appear in the future, cool. Feel free.

we shall see after the train wreck for the democrats after November
in fighting can get very nasty once the blame game gets started

OK, cool, this sounds like you figure this magical third party will manifest after the midterms.
Otherwise you are just talking about factions in a party fighting, which happens all the time.

I made no refence to the the forward party

Forgive me.
I thought you actually were trying to arguing about a third party in this thread about third parties.

[/QUOTE]

 

[JohnLarue]

That's not a complicated difference, Johnny.
The first one is you projecting your weird insecurities onto me and the second is a statement I am making about the Forward party in particular and how it is riding the wave of people hoping for a unicorn third party in inside the US system without understand the structural issues involved in working against a third major party existing for any length of time in that system as it stands.

The first one is what you said- odd how you think that's me projecting anything
The second one is a quote of your words- ie the threads title ,....... which you started - do you foolishly think i am projecting that as well?

Because motivation is irrelevant to the structural issues I am talking about.

Too funny
you screed up by ignoring motivation for political change and now you say it is irrelevant??

if history has taught you only one thing it should be that political change is dynamic and is driven by peoples motivation -often in response to others foolish \ actions
structural issues always exist, yet political change still happens

No. That is, in fact, key to my argument about why no third party will stay in existence for long. The huge disruptions that causes means there quickly results in a realignment to a new stable configuration of two parties.

for long ?
ie long enough to alter who gets control ?
long enough for the democrats to figure out the massive step to the left was a failed strategy?
Mission accomplished

No. YOU have identified that as what you think the problem is and what the conversation is about.
I have been talking about what I chose to talk about from the beginning. That it upsets you I don't want to talk about your thing isn't really my problem.

No you stated that my position on the cause of the political polarization was wrong
yet you lacked the stones to state what your position on the cause is
WTF ???

and you still refuse to explain your position

That said, I am happy to start another thread about whether a third party can make any impact in the next election and why that might happen and what might motivate it since it seems you really want to talk about it but can't be bothered to make the thread yourself.

knock yourself out

LOL.
Hilarious.
Yes. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

no it is not
again if it were irrelevant you had no reason to label it as incorrect

You can make the thread I will make for you all about that if you like, though.

I have taken your offer under consideration -rejected
this is about

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

odd how you did not mention structural issues when you first labelled others as idiots
The structural issues excuse only surfaced after it was pointed out to you how far the democrats had drifted left and caused the current political polarization

you admitted the current situation is dysfunctional yet you call those that view it as unsustainable as 'idiots'
you did not give this enough thought

I don't think you know what back peddling means.

you got the first three words of that statement correct then you fouled the rest

Dude.
I have said on multiple occasions that your meme about the left being problem as you stay where you are is so laughable that I will clip it out and mock it separately in its own post.
I haven't changed that position.
I'm just not going to get into a back and forth about it when it is irrelevant to my point about third parties.

your point about structural issues is far less relevant than the political polarization of the U.S.

believing otherwise is idiotic and dis-enguiniuous

And the third party all these people are defecting from the Democratic party and voting for instead is... what?
There isn't one.

If you want to imagine one will appear in the future, cool. Feel free.

Do you honestly think there will not be percussions from a Democrat wipe out in Nov
No pondering of the failed socalist experiment by the party that losses its power ?

OK, cool, this sounds like you figure this magical third party will manifest after the midterms.
Otherwise you are just talking about factions in a party fighting, which happens all the time.

the mid-terms or possibly the mess which will be the democrats ticket in 2024
The Democratic implosion could come latter.. sooner if they continue to embrace socialism
The current inflation nightmare is what defines the current democrats & it is going to persist through Sleepy Joes administration & will be worn by who ever is the on the 2024 ticket.
inflation is political kryptonite - you should know this to be true

Forgive me.
I thought you actually were trying to arguing about a third party in this thread about third parties.

you should ask for forgiveness

you brought up the forward party, I am under no obligation to comment on the forward party one way of another
again it is the current political polarization & the motivation for changing a dysfunctional current situation which is the relevant issue not 'structural issuers"

 

[jcpro]

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.

A third party might be formed, if the Dems get thumped in November by a large enough margin. It really depends who ends up doing the post election clean up. If it's Pelosi and Schumer, things might get ugly.

 

[Frankfooter]

A third party might be formed, if the Dems get thumped in November by a large enough margin. It really depends who ends up doing the post election clean up. If it's Pelosi and Schumer, things might get ugly.

As of now the dems will win the senate.
The house?
Give it another month or two.