The problem is that "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" has weak support in the US population. (It is very popular in media commentary, though.)
Joe Biden ruled as too incompetent to face charges
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
To be DJTs VP you have to be willing to be humiliated and fully bow at his feet. Pence did but thankfully listened to conservative legal scholars at the end.
Tim Scott did show he's willing to be humiliated. DeSantis is starting to show, as is Haley, that they won't be humiliated. Starting. Let's see how they end.
Dems swallow their pride too. But they don't have the pres candidate humiliate them.
Yup.
People tend not to realize just how much things were getting torn up politically in the 1850s.
The 1856 election had three parties with the rise of the Republicans and the final appearance of the Whigs as a formal party.
1860 had four parties winning states with the Southern Democrats splitting off to be more pro-slavery and the Constitutional Unionists as the last gasp of the whigs.
1864 was still during the war and Lincoln runs on a unity ticket.
You still get some wobble in the two party system for a while after that, until the populists rise up briefly in the 1880s.
The Bloc is a bit of a weird unique case because it grew out of the movement to the referendum in the 90s.
Once that failed and started to fade, it has been kind of bereft of identity.
It vaguely reflects being "pro quebec at the federal level" but that means it is somewhat ideologically incoherent.
I think in a parliamentary system, regional parties have a place, but there are two forms of that.
One is a purely regional party, focused on the region itself.
The other is a federal party that reflects a regional sensibility. Think of it as being a stronghold for that party.
That can sometimes lock that party out of power because it can't expand, but it can also act as a nursery to give it some local power and a stronghold to fall back on if it loses steam, without vanishing. It can then either gradually expand nationally or it can fuse with another party (either being swallowed or become a new entity entirely). The Conservatives in Canada are the result of that kind of splitting, retrenchment, and rebirth.
You missed the part where a large % of Haley's vote indicated that they would not vote for Trump in November.
Nah. You never know quite what garbage you find there. The Schlapps are a good example.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.
Mercedes Schlapp | C-SPAN.org
www.c-span.org
It's not a good idea to go dumpster diving on Twitter.
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.
Yes, It's a major factor.
Election results show deep divide between rural and urban Canadians: experts - National | Globalnews.ca
The federal election divide was very clear in Ontario where the Liberals picked up almost all the seats in the urban ridings and the Conservatives flipped some rural ridings.
globalnews.ca
See my earlier post.
I think it is doable in the US, but it isn't going to happen just to happen.
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 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.
I can see something like that.
Border states with an immigration policy and maybe water rights/land use rights focus.
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.
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.
There's no one serious running for the third slot who could draw significant support, as far as I can see.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
