General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWould a progressive third Party help the Democrats more than the Republicans?
Because with the support of the third Party coalition, neither Party could get a majority to pass anything. Also, it would tend to pull the Democratic Party more to the left. Would that be such a bad thing?
Before we hit the alert button, maybe we should think of the advantages of third Parties? Not only the aforementioned but also, they could be more representative of the voices of the people.
Unless, of course, you think the two-Party system is doing just fine and our Democrats are looking out for our best interests? Personally, I am not so sure about that?
If you think this is unacceptable to discuss, then go ahead an alert it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)is set up for a two party system. To make a third party work you have to have a parliamentary system.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)A very small coalition could impact either side to go either way. It would tend to unblock the gridlock, in my opinion.
cali
(114,904 posts)and they've been around for quite some time. They hold seats in both the VT House and Vt Senate and bless them, but I don't think they've made much of a difference- except as individuals.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)270 is not divided by two.And the repubs own the house so if it went to house, repubs would win.
A vote for Ralph Nader in NH in 2000 caused Al Gore to not be seated.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)How convenient!
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Gore would have attracted more votes if he would have aggressively taken more liberal and progressive positions.
The fact that he selected a Republican-Lite candidate as his running mate speaks volumes.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)Ideologues could care less about issues, they just care about being right. No Thanks. Keep the Democratic Party democratic. 
kentuck
(111,110 posts)But they had the effect of pushing the Republican Party even farther to the right. We Democrats did not have a response to that.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts) kentuck
(111,110 posts)I'm not sure where you are coming from?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)what it is. Some "progressives" lost their fucking minds when this president was elected the first time, and his reelection seems to have caught some of them off guard. I fucking hate the Greens now, whereas I used to be sympathetic. I fucking despise them, and that's my right as an American.
I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I don't think the party should entertain any kind of alliances with people who seem bent on the destruction of the Democratic Party. I don't know if it's this president in particular, or if it's the party in general, but some "progressives" have lost their fucking minds. I have absolutely no time, or empathy for anything they espouse at this point.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)...that it would need to be corrected? Or do you have complete faith in the present direction the Party is going?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)In answer to your question, politically speaking, I have more faith in Democrats than anything out there. Say what you will, but a lot of Democrats are still smarting from the 2000 debacle created, in part, by the Green Party.
They have a lot to answer for. The good news, for Democrats anyway, is that they seem to have been a total non-entity in this election cycle. I mean, even Ralph Nader managed to pull more than 0.03% of the vote.
Fuck Greens, and any other third party attempting to co-opt the Democratic Party. Build your own fucking infrastructure, and leave us the hell alone.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)I cringe when I hear Ralph Nader's name because of his running on the green ticket. He destroyed his credibility by trying to be a spoiler.
We have to work within our constitutional system, and right now our system only is suitable for two parties.
In praise of your honesty, you make no secret of being a nasty authoritarian follower and conservative corporate whore at the extreme right wing of DU.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)Green Party campaign. If I respected, or even gave a shit what you thought about me, I might feel hurt, but alas......
tama
(9,137 posts)I thought you were proud of your reactionary political views and your Turd Way conspiracy succeeding in hijacking and turning Democratic Party into another corporate fascist RW party, which you expect all DUers to Loyally Obey Without Questions and forget all progressive ideals and issues. 
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)Fight The Power! 
And was fun to blow some steam.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)while the Republican Party is in danger of becoming obsolete. It takes decades to move a nation. The GOP had been at it for over 30 years, when they grew over-confident and blew it all by revealing just how extreme they have become.
Most of the nation are centrists and the political cycles take them from center/left to center/right and back again. It is the job of more liberal or progressive members of the Democratic Party to continually nudge and remind those in congress that they are to the left of the Republicans. It is not their job to create a tea party like rebellion that ultimately destroys the party.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)After all, they were a minority party from 1932 to 1946 (when they won mid-term elections), gained the House but lost it again under Eisenhower (and wouldn't regain it until 1994), and held the Presidency for only 8 years between 1933 and 1969. And the historical trends do not favor the Democrats in either 2014 or 2016. That is, with only two exceptions, the party in the White House has lost Congressional seats in mid-term elections, and the Democrats have won 3 or more back-to-back presidential elections only during one period (FDR/Truman years) since the Civil War (actually twice, given that the 2000 election was stolen from Al Gore).
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)The Republican Party is growing by leaps and bounds, it is a big tent party and more and more 21st century Americans identify with the party and its ideology. There are no extremists within the GOP moving it ever rightward. How's that?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)People back in the '30s were saying that the Republican party was on its last legs, and it was in a pretty moribund state for most of the 3 or 4 decades after that. But it rebounded with a vengeance with first Nixon (who was elected in landslide in '72 despite his shady background), and Reagan, who was waaaaay to the right of Eisenhower, and yet was elected in a landslide not once but twice. Then there was Dubya, who was everything a presidential candidate shouldn't be, yet he was able to occupy the White House for 8 years.
And today, even with Obama's re-election, the Republicans still control the House, and 60% of the governorships, not to mention numerous state legislatures. So I think it's just wishful thinking to believe that they will become obsolete, because there is still a huge element that will support them, not matter what cockamamie things they do. Just look at Romney-- he fumbled the ball on nearly every play during the campaign, yet he still got nearly 48% of the popular vote.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)The Democratic Party of today is nothing like the party of FDR's era. Politics in the US is cyclical...the nation, as a whole is center/right or center/left, thus we seem to move, every 40 years or so, from one side of center to the other and back again. Every move is precipitated by "overreach" When one party becomes over confident and thinks it has a mandate to satisfy its most extreme base.
I said the GOP was in danger of becoming obsolete... I never said it is well on the way to being so. Democrats were very lax about the elections following 1996. In 1998, Jeb Bush ran for governor in FL and changed the entire map of the state after the census of 2000.
That's why Obama can carry Florida and yet we are sending 17, out of a total of 27, Republican representatives to D.C. for the 113th
congress. That model is happening all over the nation. However, I don't believe a majority of people will continue to support a cockamamie GOP... some yes, a majority no. And, as long as the big prize is the WH, republicans will continue to covet it and will have to change their ways or become merely regional representatives. My bet is that they will begin by changing their message....Have you heard Rubio lately? But if the deeds don't match the words, they will still have trouble winning national elections.
Nixon was elected by the "silent majority", people who were sick of the war in Vietnam but even more sick of the demonstrations. The chaos outside of the Democratic convention, that year, became a powerful meme. Nixon ran on ending the war with honor and then spent the next 5 years making excuses for why we were still there.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Time for kickboxin!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)
msongs
(67,438 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)diverse ideas and agendas would have to work against the vacuum of obstructionists and racketeers .
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Sounds like a good idea, but this Nation is already divided, do we need 1/3rd's? I say the Progressives & Liberals rally for more sway in the Dem party and let the GOP go the way of the dinosaur (its current trajectory).
Blasphemer
(3,261 posts)than just a third party. Since the system favors two parties, there's too much pressure to align with one of the major parties to make a third party viable in the longterm. However, two splinter parties might work better. I envision the GOP losing the extreme right first, thereby opening up the possibility of a fourth party on the left. All sorts of interesting coalitions would be theoretically possible.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts) This has been EXACTLY my thoughts on this right up through the Republicans splitting first. In fact I'm not sure that there will ever be a Dem split WITHOUT the Republican split first. Although, if the Dems cave on Social Security ESPECIALLY, there will be HUGE pressure for a "Progressive Worker's Party" on the left. If the "cave" happens there will be nowhere to go for people who aren't Republicans because the Democratic Party will have BECOME a version of the Republican Party.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)There are competitors. Period.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)come together to solve a specific problem, now it means Franchise .
Hekate
(90,779 posts)... although the ignorant who cast votes to "show them" often act as though we do.
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)and in some areas more. And so far they have hurt the Democratic Party more than the GOP, as well as themselves. Remember 2000?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)GOP shilling.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)Is this opinion based on any actual fact, or just your own emotionally-addled opinion?
I'm willing to listen.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)She is and has always been a get along, sell us out, Sam Nunn Democrat, look at her votes through the last Ten years . Instead of talking about her as head of congress again to piss it away, she like Sam should come out of the closet .
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It is getting harder and harder, and in some places it is virtually impossible, to run for national office without deep corporate pockets backing you. Big money donors select candidates with their checkbooks, and they WILL use those deep pockets to either co-opt or target with barrages of expensive negative advertising any upstart who tries to take on their choice.
And the elections commission, which has been taken over by the two major parties, severely curtails access to debates, deliberately limiting the national conversation to the two corporate-sponsored messages. Most Democrats don't realize the extent to which limiting third party access to debates hurts not only the third party candidates, but OUR OWN candidates, as well...because it keeps them from being pressured to respond to voters rather than their big-money donors. If the only other guy running is corporate, too, there is no reason to appeal to voters' interests, because those voters have nowhere else to go.
It is a Third Way canard to say 'just run liberal candidates." We have a deep, deliberately corporate-created structural problem that has corrupted the very foundation of the democratic process.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Excellent response. There is NO incentive for these corporate cronies to listen to or respond to liberal concerns. In the current "two-party system" one gets to vote for Corporate Whore A (D) or Corporate Whore B (R). As Carlin said, that's not choice, that the illusion of choice.
Spike89
(1,569 posts)So right there you are forming the 3rd party out of predominantly the Democratic party. What you'd have left is at best two minority parties left to face the Republicans who'd stay at about 47%. Of course, the house and senate would quickly become virtually all republican as the two liberal parties split the vote. It would be a major train wreck for any progressive/Democratic hopes.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Republican Party is so small - this can work. But in most of America the dividing line between Democratic victory and Republicans victory is so narrow - I can not envision any scenario where on the national level a progressive third party would not take far more from the Democrats than from the Republicans.
The American system is simply configured around the two-parties - the last time a new party emerged on the scene and remained a permanent and viable fixture was the late 1850's when the country was on the verge of civil war. Even third parties that had sizable followings led by major figures such as Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party or Eugene Debs and the Socialist or Robert M. La Follette who actually carried the state of Wisconsin in the general election or the former Vice President Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party in 1948 - these all withered and died even though they had major followings led by national political figures and charismatic leaders. - Our system just is not configured that way. It would take being on the verge of another civil war such as the country faced in 1860 to create the climate suitable for a major and permanent political party to emerge. We are still a long way from that.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)How could they take anything away from the Democratic Party? That doesn't make sense??
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Florida would not have mattered had Nader not lied and said both parties the same.
New Hampshire and its 4 electoral were all Gore needed to 270.
everything else happened AFTER election and would not have mattered once Gore got 270.
Anyone thinking otherwise has their own angerenda
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)stopped the ballots from being counted. Why bother voting if the SCOTUS is going to stop ballots being counted?
That's called a "bloodless coup d'etat" and Ralph Nader had absolutely nothing to do with it.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Scotus had nothing to do with NH
that came later
and btw- the right would have said Al Gore stole THEIR election if reverse was true and Florida court called it for Gore, and save 9-11, either man was a one term do nothing president had that happened.
Which is why historically and for the love of the country, Gore did not continue a shadow government afterward.
One just figured he would easily defeat a do nothing Bush in 2004, but stupidly, he was tossed in the river after.
Thanks Ralph Nader-100% of the blame is YOU YOU YOU
scotus came later
Get the timeline straight please.
Election night happened PRIOR to Scotus ruling a month later.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)statement, denies the facts and let's the real culprits of the 2000 stolen election completely off the hook. Like your hatred of Elizabeth Warren, you let your personal vendettas get in the way of logical thinking and it just ends up making you look, well, willfully uninformed, much like Faux Nooz viewers.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)YOU are the one without logic or linear thinking
POINT A comes before Point H.
POINT A was election night
POint b was 270
POint c was 267 (what Gore got)
Point D was NH and 4 votes
Those 4 votes equal POINT E 271
voila
POINT F WINNER
POINT G 12/12/2000 because points c d e f did not occur
POINT H is the recount fight.
Point I is the 7 to 2 decision by SCOTUS
Point J is the 5 to 4 decision same night by SCOTUS
Your blind loyalty to Ralph the traitor Nader wants to absolve the fact that he was an egotistical idiot who claimed for years the environment was important than bloviated and was paid for by the Bushies to unelect Al Gore, the #1 enviornmentalist of all time at that time
(of course, those scenerios you spew show hatred for Al Gore himself, as most people seem to fixate and blame Mr. Gore).
silly silly silly if you ask me
And your love for 3rd parties belongs on a different thread
THE MOTTO OF DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND IF YOU LOOK IN THE RULES CLEARLY STATES-
THIS SITE IS TO ELECT DEMOCRATS AND NOT THIRD PARTY PEOPLE, CEPTING IN THE VERY RARE INSTANCES, LIKE FLORIDA 2010 WHEN THE DEM CANDIDATE IS A CAN'T WIN AND THE THIRD PARTY(CHARLIE CRIST) COULD HAVE STOPPED RUBIO
but keep loving Ralph Nader and Ron Paul and any other idiotic 3rd party that wants to say the democrats and republicans are one and the same
pity you 3rd party lovers gave us George Bush.
of course there were shenanigans in 2000, but so there were in every other election prior to that too, especially 1960.
It's like bad calls in baseball.
At the end of the game, it equals out.
as President Obama (4th greatest president ever after Lincoln/FDR/LBJ) said FORWARD
stop fixating on the past.
Gas will never be 20cents a gallon again either
and work to elect ONLY democrat so that SCOTUS can be 8 to 1 or 7 to 2 shortly.
and not one issue candidates like Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern who were great souls, but who never in a million years would have won the Presidency
same as Kucinich will never be president
and the tooth fairy and Santa Claus aren't real either btw.
Winning. It's all that matters.
BTW-would YOU be whining if it was found out JFK defeated Nixon by stealing votes?
I bet not.
and never change the electoral vote system now that we learned how to game it.
Politics ain't pretty but that is how it is played. By grownups in a grownup world.
10% of something is better than 100% of nothing
sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, goodtime Charlie's got the blues(c)Danny Okeefe writer and singer
We want to win
everyone has their place
and inaguartion day is the show
and yea, I got an angle, same as everyone else here. That is what is called POLITICS.
and life itself. We all want things and don't want other things.
I don't want Jeb. Do you? Ralph Nader gave us W and would probably not mind Jeb either.
After all, Nader's biggest days happened when Nixon was President.Same as Rush Limbo's biggest days were when Clinton and Obama were President.
Best to play off the opposite they claim to be.
Nader and Limbaugh are very similiar jesters in the court yard.
BTW-why didn't Nader run for congress or senate? So he could be a policymaker not bloviater.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I tried hard but couldn't get past your hysteria culminating with that line so, for my final interaction with you, I'll elicit one of my favorite Thomas Payne quotes: "To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."
May you find enlightenment sometime in your lifetime.
LTH
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)The ones on your side are louder, however, common sense shows A comes before H
You can quote everyone
try Jefferson ALL are created equal, except for blacks, women and any other non-Jefferson that there was.
Quotes are meanignless..
Show me a person who hates drones
Then ask them if drones existed when Hitler was starting out
and you could save 6 million Jews and 10 million others, would you hesitate even a second to drop a bunker busting drone ontop of old Adolf.
unless one has an angle against the 16 million lost lives, 100% would agree getting rid of Hitler would have been the answer
case closed
Nader caused Gore not to be seated.
Nothing after that changes that fact.
Be free to post on a Ralph Nader board your views, many shall follow, and again, I am sure Nader would be happy with Jeb instead of Hillary.
to quote Ed Norton, Hey Ralphie Boy
and to add
how do you like what YOU did now..
kentuck
(111,110 posts)And you keep repeating it as if it were Gospel.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Gore was seated
and nobody would have given a fluck about Florida.
because it no longer would have mattered as NH has 4 electoral votes that went to bush and Gore would have won with just these.
toodles.
newblewtoo
(667 posts)shout out from time to time I feel compelled to mention it would have been every bit as great a Gore victory had he been able to carry his home state. Do not mistake this for an agenda it's merely a statement of fact.
[link:http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2000/11/14/tennessee-blues-how-gore-lost-his/|
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Al Gore really had not been a Tennessean in 12 years prior and the state moved hard right.
Had Bill Clinton been side by side, of course it might have been different, but Clinton was shunned totally and kept off the team, much like the Dems tossed Carter and JOhnson in the past off the team. (two of the most progressive presidents ever.)
In retrospect, a really stupid move, thankfully not duplicated this year.
We welcome Bill Clinton and his become a team player, and we the vast majority of Democrats and the USA in general, will recipricate in 2016. Loyalty is a two way street.
Even if there are angles being played.
But all that deflects the simple issue NH caused Gore to lose the right to the seat, thanks to Ralph Nader.
Especially btw, NH ends earlier in the evening than Tenn. So had NH gone blue instantly, well, the election would have ended right then and there.(befoer Tenn. votes came in)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Nader caused George W. Bush to become President. Of course I agreed far more with Nader on the issues than with Gore. How could any progressive not? Sure there was cheating in Florida and there were other issues - but that does not change the reality that Ralph Nader caused George W. Bush to become President. This is reality rearing its ugly head. It would be irresponsible to create self-deceiving delusions that ignore this.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)No Perot and it is highly plausible there would be no Clinton.
He may have needed Perot to beat an incredible uncharismatic Dole as well but I lean toward near certainty that without that split Poppy would have eked out a second term.
I think it just depends on the bent of the third, so in this argument you are correct at least in the short term.
The long term benefit of a real split where it is obvious there is no such number to capture from the right forces the party to choose to recapture the left.
A very hard line would have to be taken, I expect a minimum of three cycles to break their will and make folks see the light.
I would hope like hell that no such extremes would have to be taken to sound an alarm that can be heard by the "movers and shakers" to something akin to serving the needs of the people.
It takes no special insight to understand that we have some problems that cannot realistically be managed in a tenable for the people fashion in the current framework that is set on wheels that lock up after moving forward one foot and then must move back five at a random angle. So, you can get whole new horrible shit to fix that is opened up by silly or unsavory tactics and reasoning.
No one is expected to cure all the world's ills in a fell swoop but you can limit slogs in quicksand and that has to be understood.
Chasing the TeaPubliKlans into oblivion is beyond empty as well.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)and hurt the Republicans. Although polling at the time did indicate Clinton would have won without Perot. The political splits were very different then. But there was still no doubt that Perot took away more Republican votes than Democratic votes. But there is a big difference between a right-wing populist like Perot who would obviously take away primarily votes from the Republicans and a left-wing populist candidate who would for absolute certainty and beyond any shadow of a doubt take away votes from the Democrats. In 2000 - 2004 and 2012 the difference in votes have been so close - neither side can afford a loss of 3% or 4% of the vote. That would mean the virtually certain loss of the election.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)won Florida, no matter what rules were followed for counting (according to surveys completed by major media on September 10, 2001).
The SCOTUS promulgated a bloodless coup d'etat and Gore conceded to it. (No one held a gun to his head and forced him to do it.)
Try as I might, I can't find Nader anywhere in that constellation of events.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Scotus had nothing to do with NH WHICH HAPPENED ELECTION DAY.
Nader took Al Gore's 4 votes away.
Scotus on 12/12/2000 came later
and btw- the right would have said Al Gore stole THEIR election if reverse was true and Florida court called it for Gore, and save 9-11, either man was a one term do nothing president had that happened.
Which is why historically and for the love of the country, Gore did not continue a shadow government afterward.
One just figured he would easily defeat a do nothing Bush in 2004, but stupidly, he was tossed in the river after.
Thanks Ralph Nader-100% of the blame is YOU YOU YOU
scotus came later
Get the timeline straight please.
Election night happened PRIOR to Scotus ruling a month later.
and it was 5 scotus that proved Ralph Nader to be alying sack of traitorism because Al Gore would not have nominated the 5 that made the second ruling the night of infamy 12/12/2000
and would not later have picked Roberts, Alito and the crony he tried to pass off that ended up removing her name from consideration.
NADER,NADER,NADER 3 party caused 2000 to be close and have the judgement call later on.
BTW-remember too the first SCotus ruling 12/12/2000 was the correct one- 7 to 2 to go back to Florida.
It was pages in the ruling later that showed the 5 to 4 fuck you Gore by the 5
Also remember when saying Scotus-it was 5 of them,.NOT ALL OF THEM
4 remained true to the constitution.
Since then, one died a painful cancer death, one twists and turns at night knowing she did wrong (OConnor who was forced to retire by Bush shortly after so he could name Alito and Roberts) Scalia and Thomas and A.Kennedy.
The other four were heroes to America.
especially David Souter who spit in the Bush's faces many times over.
union_maid
(3,502 posts)New Hampshire and making it close enough to steal Florida. And you could see it coming before election day. Third parties are for the math challenged. That would be the Republicans.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)The Supreme Court ruling would not have even been an issue without this. Gore would have received the vast majority of Nader votes and that would have been the end of the story. Al Gore would have been President and the world would have been spared George W. Bush. Nader was George W. Bush's unwitting king maker. Ralph Nader who I still admire and still think had a far greater and much more far sighted program and obviously a far more progressive agenda than Al Gore - made George W Bush President of the United States. The Supreme Court could have never done it without him.
I wish it was possible to back a progressive third Party. In fact I had been involved back in the late 70's and early 80's with three different attempts; the Citizens Party (a forerunner to the Green Party then led by Barry Commoner), the Socialist Party USA and the California Peace and Freedom Party. But I decided that the election of Ronald Reagan was too dear a price to pay. No matter how one tries to spin it - with the electorate so close to an even divide that a difference of a a few percentage points or even much less than that would mean a Fox News lead Republican president and congress - it would be simply irresponsible to take that risk. When historic circumstances change and it becomes possible to support a real progressive party without throwing the election to these right-wing nuts - I will be the first to join. Until then - at least on the national level - I would consider it immoral to even try given the reality of the current alternatives that exist in the real world.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Do you know or do you care?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)we know your meme, but a linear line is not being followed
267 plus 4 equals how many?
It means the keys to the white house
but going ahead, believe Gore would have nomnated the Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/AlitoKennedy current court
I got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Gore's home state.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But Nader should be given a pass for his effect in purple states?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)included.
The SCOTUS promulgated a bloodless coup d'etat when it refused to allow the vote recount to proceed.
Blame lies with SCOTUS, not with Nader.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)Debs was jailed, Victor Berger was denied twice his congressional seat even though he was elected both because they opposed the war.
Wallace's Progressive Party and its supporters were the original victims of McCarthyism and some of the hardest hit.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)and silenced by far more draconian methods. But they still emerged as major political entities in spite of incredible repression- way beyond McCarthyite tactics. The dynamics in America simply are not the same. Even so - even the right-wing political parties such as the American Independent Party which were established after the 1968 Wallace campaign withered and died. No political party has become a viable national force and remained so for more than a few decades since the Republicans emerged in 1860.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)If a prgressive party could get a Governor'smansion, in the fashion of what the reform party did with Jesse Ventura, then they might have a chance, but only if they get people at the state house or federal level.
LTR
(13,227 posts)Skip Humphrey was the DFL candidate, and he was a bit of a schmuck. The Republican candidate was Norm Coleman - need I say more?
While Humphrey and Coleman were smearing the snot out of each other while also boring Minnesotans to death, Ventura came along with a fresh approach and campaign and beat them both.
So, the winning formula in this case was a)be a populist folk hero. and b)outshine the lame-ass major party career politicians.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if the result is producing unelectable General Election candidates, ala the Tea Party ... It would hurt.
If when they it becomes clear that they cannot win in a particular election cycle, they withdrew and full-throatedly endorse, support and work for the Democratic candidate, it would help, as it would pull the Democratic candidate more to the left, but not over the electable edge left.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Did you not notice that the electorate is nearly evenly divided?
Plus, I'm a dem through and through. I don't need a third party choice. Ad yes, I believe that dems are looking out for my interests.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)out for 'your' interests? Yikes.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)lift everyone out of poverty.
Change comes slowly and progress is being made. For example, people at the poverty level and above will have access to healthcare, often at no cost to them, as well as wellness care. Your health is the most valuable thing for each and every person. More people will be healthy from the ACA.
We dems believe in pursuing a more perfect union and not throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I doubt you even care about people who are impoverished. It's just an abstract talking point for you, and I'm done arguing with a signpost.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)Do something constructive instead of constantly complaining and finding fault.
There are a lot of good people in the Democratic Party who spend each and every day working on solutions to America's problems.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Hekate
(90,779 posts)
Um, no and hell no. There are no coalitions in our form of government, unfortunately. The founding fathers did not see fit to give us a parliament. If you want to actually help the Democratic side, I suggest you help form a 3rd party on the far-right wing of the GOP. Seriously, please do that.
Hekate
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)be a great goof and pay those Rape-publi-scum back for Watergate and Iran Contra.
Sort of like the 'Yes Men' but without the broad winks and nods that give the game away.
Question for you: an overtly racist and misogynist party would capture how much Rape-publi-scum support? I'm guessing at least 50-60%, but I'm obviously biased.
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)Can't figure out why these third party goofs don't start their own website?
Don
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)They are lazy, and intellectually dishonest, which is why they continue their attempts at destroying and/or co-opting the Democratic Party infrastructures, instead of getting off their lazy asses, and building their own.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)No, it would NEVER help Democrats more than Republicans.
It's an absurd idea.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)It is a really bad idea that I once tried. It would be hard to overstate how really bad this idea is.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)By which I mean it would help real Democrats but probably not the increasingly corporatist-co-opted Democratic Party. We have a lot of Democratic Party office-holders that are by any metric other than "the right label" bad Democrats or not-really Democrats at-all. It'd help to be able to run to the left of those weenies.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)Can you explain that statement??
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Every vote that would go to a third party would be one taken away from either the Dems or the Repubs.
We saw how this happened when Nader ran on the Green Party ticket in 2000. In Florida alone, he got 95,000 progressive votes, and he didn't do that to help Gore win. (Gore lost by less than 500, by the way.)
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)allow all the ballots to be counted.
How in the world is that Nader's fault?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Those votes added up to many more than the Rethugs drained away through all their tactics. Nader did more to hurt Gore's candidacy there than all the other factors combined.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)that, having decided to vote, they would have voted for Gore (rather than some other 3rd-party candidate).
I have never seen any post-election analysis\exit poll that either supports or disproves that assumption. Seems to me the same argument could have been made about Pat Buchanan's 3rd-party candidacy, the so-called 'Butterfly ballots', and the votes Buchanan mysteriously aggregated in a predominantly Jewish county at Gore's expense.
Are you saying that Nader had no right to run for office? Or are you saying he should have not exercised his right in the interest of not diluting the Gore vote? Should he, in your opinion, have endorsed Gore (even though the basis for his candidacy was that there was little substantive difference between Gore and Bush)?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's reasonable to believe Gore could have received that tiny fraction of Nader's vote.
And that's pretending it's all up to Florida. Nader also cost Gore other states. NH Nader voters vote for Gore and Florida is irrelevant.
No, we're saying he's a hypocritical tool who somehow only manages to attack Democrats and gives a pass to Republicans.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Right?
As the Senators from Vermont and Maine go with the Democrats. How many independents can you cite that vote with the Republicans??
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)with its "first past the post" system and a closely divided electorate - where the differences of ideological divide are so close to even and the differences between winning and losing are so close to even - it would be absolutely impossible for any sane and rational person to deny that a strong progressive third party on the national scale under current conditions would do anything except absolutely guarantee a Republican victory. Anyone who would deny that is the current state of affairs is not living in the world of reality.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)To make the party heads listen if they continue to be deaf, it would take a serious chunk, at least 15% of our vote and maybe a third. The numbers have to be beyond the piddling few the party can hope to pull from the right by moving closer to the TeaPubliKlans.
Can't sit home either, have to stay in the count and be clear on where you stand.
Anyone that wants to avoid this pass and giving the regressives the power for several cycles and having more damage to undo with less resources should be demanding the Democrats in office serve us "small people" and fight the radical regressives tooth and nail.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Lots of moderate Republicans exist in the electorate, and they're not fond of the insanity of their party. It would be very easy for the Democrats to keep moving right and capture those votes. The Republican party would fade away, and the Democrats would move into the place the Republicans used to occupy.
There's no reason for the Democrats to fight for the left in your scenario. It would be a fight. Better to take the easy stroll.
And as a result of this process, we'll get lots and lots of right-wing policy as the Democrats settle into their new ideological position, and the "new" left wing party slowly ramps up.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)based on policy, if it was true they'd be Obama voters. What has he done that an actual "moderate Republican" would be offended by? Bringing back Poppy Bush's. Cap and trade, GingrichCare, keeping up the drug war, being tough militarily, the coddling of the predator class, or the Republican and DINO nominations?
What are they going to do to capture those votes? Go anti-choice? Anti-immigrant? Endorse theocracy? Funnel wealth to the top as well as TeaPubliKlans? Start more wars? Hamstring the government with more debt than the opposition?
There is no unlimited license to go right from most people in this party, at some point you loose more than can be captured and at some point there is fool's gold why did all these people become Democrats if Republican was just as good?
If all these "moderates" (moderate on what we don't know,-Revolution era garb, bearing small arms at political events, bigoted signs, and spelling, I reckon) then how is it the reactionaries run the show and what policy differences do they have.
I'm well aware that some right wingers hate the radical right Tea Party types but it isn't policy driven but rather powered by the fact that know nothing blow hards are embarrassing them and are too serious about their social issues to get out of their own way in gaffling the money and avoiding taxes.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The moderate parts of the Republican party and the blue dog Democrats would drift to where the Republican party was in the 60's or 80's.
That party doesn't need tea party votes. That 20% of the electorate would be told to pound sand.
They already are Obama voters - a significant portion of moderate Republicans voted for Obama in the last election.
Again, the crazy would continue to vote for the Republicans. And as a whopping 20% of the vote, they'll lose. There's no need to cater to them.
If there was a sane Republican party, yes. There isn't a sane Republican party.
So you think the extreme right of the Republican party are the moderates? Please don't be so stupid. There is a danger that the Democrats will keep drifting to the right as the Republican party implodes. That would be very bad for those of us left-of-center. Pretending that all Republicans are insane tea partiers will help make it happen.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)As for the tail end, until moderation is defined in positions, I can't really entertain it and am hard pressed to pay it much mind when it supports highly radical policy and politicians. Not off center but radical. They have Birchers and beyond top to bottom and all in between.
Moderation in what application, even approximately? I'm not talking the ones voting Obama and maybe Kerry before too. I'm talking the 47%. What going right can be done and not be treading water, at best?
Who's ox do you think you can gore enough to switch those guys and hold by fear?
What is holding them back that is worth trading to get them? What are you giving and what do you get for it? This isn't a dial, it translates to policies that impact real people.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Moderates. Progressives must start developing a bench at the local level, with one consideration, if it is clear that a Moderate candidate can win in a general, the Progressive must not blow that person up. I was born and raised in an extraordinarily conservative locale, that area over the years became less conservative and now trends Moderate-conservative, still not great, but much better than my childhood. The point that I am making is that one day, Progressives will be the most likely to win if they have well thought out political proposals. The trend in american opinion on hot button social issues and on wealth itself points to the country slowly becoming more Progressive, but it can't be shocked into that direction.
moondust
(20,002 posts)I've been told the left in Canada is fragmented while the right continues to march along more or less in lockstep and win elections they would otherwise lose.
Hekate
(90,779 posts).... to wield power out of proportion to their small numbers.
Got it?
Hekate
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)we have a two-party system- so a third party takes votes away from the party on the same side of the aisle- in the case of a progressive party- it would split the left side, and take votes away from Democratic candidates. in 1992, Ross Perot ran and took votes away from poppy bush, allowing Clinton to be elected. and of course there are still people who blame ralph nader for Gore's defeat in 2000.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)1)instant runoff voting for presidential elections instead of the Electoral College(or, if we MUST have the EC, make it proportional by the overall statewide total);
2)instant runoff voting for gubenatorial and U.S. Senate elections elections;
3)multi-member Congressional and state legislative districts elected by pr;
4)removal of the arbitrary 435 seat limit on the size of the U.S. House, so that it once again offers true representation-by-population;
5)total public financing of all elections, with equal time requirements for campaign ads on television for all parties;
6)National voter referendums on any decision to declare war(it's still too damn easy for them to do it as things stand now).
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)your proposals would have elected Romney. Do the state by state math on your first proposal. Congressional seats are awarded by a fixed number of voters, nothing would change if population is considered, what our party has to do is develop and maintain a permanent presence in the South, while protecting our Blue flank. The South and western Southwest can continue to be a problem for us, or we can turn the western Southwest Blue (it's trending there, we need to speed it up) and some southern states like South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana blue. The four southern states that I listed voted more than 40% for President Obama.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)since large states would no longer be underrepresented either in Congress or in the E.C. (the propoprtional EC proposal, though, was a back-up if the EC couldn't be abolished.
union_maid
(3,502 posts)Not without major changes to our electoral system. First. Before a progressive third party manages to increase Republican power. Just no. Don't we ever freaking learn anything?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Although I don't think saying so means that you think that the two-party system is fine and that Democrats always have our welfare at heart.
It's just reality that we don't have a Parliament. It takes grassroots effort to pull the D party left, but that's always been a feature of American politics.
We can't just vote and hold our breath waiting for politicians to read our minds. They are the conduit through which we can try to get our needs met, we have to be present and active to make sure this happens.
Although I sympathise with some Green positions and have voted Green for very local stuff on occasion, the reality is that they do consider themselves an opposition party to the Democrats, not the Republicans.
That doesn't do us any good on a national scale. Look on the bright side, at least with a two Party system, the answer to "Which side are you on?" is pretty easily broken down at this point when you look at who is voting for whom.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)How'd that work out for ya.
IDoMath
(404 posts)How about we stop with blaming everybody Nader and do a little self-reflection. You act like the DP owned something Nader stole. Ask yourself why he was able to draw people away if, indeed, he did.
Ask what was wrong with the Dem message and image instead.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)An election he had no chance of winning. Reflect on that bit of reality.
IDoMath
(404 posts)You can keep harping on that myth or face reality but the latter means changing the DP and we can't have that can we?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)popular wars. (The wars were still popular at the time)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
IDoMath
(404 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)a rational decision to vote for the candidate that most closely reflect their political point of view. Nader voters voted for a guy that didn't have a chance in an election where the race was well within the margin of error in all polls leading up to the election. In effect, those Nader voters elected a man whose policies were almost the exact opposite of their view to teach a person who was much closer to their view a lesson.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Do you really think that all 97,000 of those Nader voters would have sat home, or more importantly vote for a man (Bush) who they had dramatic policy issues with? If you do, then I think you have made the point of some posters in this thread that the far Left isn't logical when it comes to strategic voting, keep in mind that I respect your policy proposals.
IDoMath
(404 posts)...due to the layout of the ballot.
Other studies have shown that the Nader votes actually would have split in 3 with approximately equal amounts going to Gore and Bush and the rest voting for some other third party.
The Florida vote had many, many flaws including the legal strategy Gore pursued and Gore's premature capitulation.
In 2004, Kerry refused to fight the Ohio debacle even though the Ohio Congressional Delegation challenged the Ohio results.
Blaming Nader for shortcomings of the Democrats and DP is foolish and arrogant at best.
If Dems want to continue to point fingers and lay blame they only show that they aren't really mature enough to govern. That's exactly what the GOP is doing now.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)If the goal is purely partisan, then maybe not, at least not in the short term.
If the goal is about issues rather than partisanship, then...no.
We already have progressive 3rd parties, and in the 2-party system, they struggle for relevance.
Unless you are suggesting a way to disband the 2-party system and open the door to progressive 3rd parties on an equal playing field; I'd support that.
I have long supported 100% public financing of campaigns, REAL debates where all candidates answer the same questions and get equal "talk time," and IRV. Those things would go a long way towards leveling the playing field.
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)You better get off your ass and do something because if Social Security or Medicare are put on the chopping block and the Bush tax cuts are extended, for those making $500K or more per year, then you can count on the left deserting this Party. Count on it. What are you going to do about it? Which side are you on? Just blame the liberals? That's not going to get you very far.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)I'm sick and tired of this game. We just got off our asses and voted. Now we have to call and raise hell? Bullshit! That's just an excuse to go back on everything they ran on in the last election and you're buying it and helping to sell it.
We just had an election where the people spoke loud and clear. If the people we elected decide to screw us and go back on their promises it's not our fault for not calling and raising hell. It's our fault for putting our trust in the people and the party we voted for.
kentuck
(111,110 posts) Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)Sorry I wasn't feeling good yesterday afternoon.
PoliticalBiker
(328 posts)I've long thought that the current iteration of party make-up does not serve the people. Neither party has OUR best interests in mind. Those in congress are watching out for those in congress and the few at the top of the socio-economic spectrum. That is one of the main reasons the Tea Party got its start. Their frustration with how congressional foot-dragging slowed any benefit to the American people struck a chord with many on both sides of the isle.
There eventual and rather speedy alignment with the right and the money involved there created another voice that soon became the norm for the republicrats. The TP, with financial support from Neo-Cons and those like Grover Norquist primary any republicrat with a moderate voice. Because of radicalism of the TP (but still call themselves republicrat) types and the fear among moderate republicrats served one purpose... to slow government unless the conversation and hence, agreements, went further and further to the right. This has to be countered somehow. We are not a conservative country. We are a progressive country, with liberal ideals and thoughts toward the future.
The left needs something to counter that action. Something similar to what the TP is doing needs to happen on the left. However, unlike the TP, the party on the left, something like the Progressive American party or some other name needs to drive the conversation back toward the left... more to where the majority of Americans are without the coersive and damaging tactics that the TP uses. Primaries may be necessary, but instead of the incindiary name-calling typical of the right, the primary campaigns of the left needs to be discussions of substance; thus differentiating us from the childishness of the right. If we have discussions in our primaries about issues dear to real Americans, we would not be seen by the people as a radical wing of our party, rather a sensible alternative with focus on Americans, their plight, their worries, concerns and looking for REAL solutions.
We need to stay positive and not regress into negativity and name-calling to gain election. We have to grow as a people and schoolyard games have no place in the politics that effect us as a people. Not responding to the republicrat name calling and red-meat throwing dog whistles needs to be of paramount importance. Force them to DISCUSS, not throw dirt by not responding to their infantile games.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)in a popular election...the Platform/Primary solution.
But for this decade, other than the obvious Nader, electoral college debacles et al, the miserable fact that it continues to take more and more extreme amounts of cash to get "a hat" let along throw it into the ring. It also gives the two party leadership the parallel escalating influence in who will run on either ticket.
My take is that the Citizen's United debacle outweighs all the other factors, thus far. And how we got there is not as relevant as how we undo that, if possible.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The Republican party would wither away and the Democrats would become the new right-wing party.
Before you get too excited, you should keep in mind our government would be chaos and "Third Way" for quite a while while that transition happened.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)We have the Green Party, the Socialist Party, and the Communist Party. Or do you mean that you wish Democrats would defect and join one of those parties? Or would you like to add another ineffectual "third party?"
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)You're back! Yay!
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)the great majority of voters. One day one or more of the third parties on the Left will appeal to large numbers of voters because I think the country as a whole is moving toward being more progressive.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Party to drift further Right without complaint. Anything else would be *disastrous* for this country. I mean, what with the election coming up and all...
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)For example, Alan Grayson wouldn't have had a prayer of getting elected in his district of Florida 15 years ago. Heidi Heitkamp wouldn't have not gotten elected and North Dakota would not have two democratic Senators. Patrick Murphy couldn't have beaten West in Florida 15 years ago, even with West being a jackass. North Carolina wouldn't have been a battleground state that if the economy was better, President Obama would have won again this year. Florida would not be a pretty reliable blue tinted swing state. Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arizona and Texas would not have voted over 40% for a Black man to lead the country. If you were right, there would not be a majority of americans wanting equal rights for Gay people, abortion rights, equal pay for women, or immigration reform.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)There is NO upside to this and it would cost us the Senate.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Knowing the person that Al Gore was after losing in Florida (barring his infidelity, which may have resulted from him being too close to Bill for too long), do you think that there would have been a better chance of getting a more Progressive President in 2008? My view is Gore was pretty progressive on the environment and I think he opposed war.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Yes!
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)who was a founding member of the DLC, said he agreed with Governor Bush over and over, who felt the need to run away from Clinton, and the guy that wanted to put Joe Lieberman a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
He may be the same guy but he did not behave the same in many years of public life when he was in the moment.
I believe the model you extrapolate from is too simple to know much of anything. I have no doubt that he'd be a much more competent President than Bush, I don't know if he'd be some standout from any other Democrat including his VP. It is possible but cannot be supported by observation a voter could evaluate at the time. There was no war position to judge nor any Inconvenient Truth to throw into the calculation.
You don't win and then more importantly motivate to action beyond voting by virtue of hindsight, especially hindsight from an alternate reality that show a man in very different circumstances and no longer actively seeking the brass ring.
In event, I voted Gore as did Kentuck, I believe, but he had me screaming at the TV to stop hitting himself and trying to shrink the separation between himself and Bush, for running away from Clinton (and as as a consequence himself to a large degree) and mostly for elevating fucking Joseph Looserman which resulted in taking a clothespin for my nose to the poll and this was when I was much more moderate compared to the party as a whole. It wasn't long ago that folks like us were maybe the left hand side of the mainstream in the party and not that long before that the new Democratic mainstream would have been acceptable to the mainstream of the Republican party.
tama
(9,137 posts)Recent progressive democratic revolutions in many countries have involved and required getting rid of both main political parties, which have been equally corrupted.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)What makes you think that Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run? I think the more likely outcome was that these people wouldn't have voted at all, leaving things status quo.
BTW, NOT a Nader supporter here. He's WAY too far to the right for me.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)I would like to see someone answer that? Why do they think the Nader voters would have voted for Gore? That's quite an assumption, I think. The problem was with the conservative Democrats, who voted more for Bush than Gore. Actually more than voted for Nader also. I have never bought the argument that Nader defeated Gore.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)But, instead of a 3rd party, we're stuck with the 3rd Way which makes a 3rd Progressive Party necessary.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,170 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)with different labels on it that will result in the same kinds of secret back room deals to get anything done.
The truth about "3rd party" proposals is that they are just another version of the SAME shell-game with an additional shell or two on the table.
The honest solutions include:
- Public financing of campaigns
- Or at least transparent campaign finance
- Voters' guides of the type used in Oregon delivered to everyone's homes
- Instant-run off paper ballots
- Marked by hand & providing the voter an encrypted receipt
- On a national voting holiday that starts on a Friday and ends the following Tuesday morning
- Ballots counted in public, allowing however long that takes to complete the count
patrice
(47,992 posts)to acquire some power, which power will prove pathetically inadequate to accomplish anything other than further balkanization of this country, which, also, I must admit appears to be the true basic goal of those who propose 3rd party anything under the current electoral system.
hay rick
(7,636 posts)A progressive third party would put pressure on the Democrats to be traditional Democrats, not just less-repulsive-than Republicans corporate lackeys.
0rganism
(23,967 posts)Instead of pushing for a national 3rd party, we'd be better served by showing up at our local Democratic party meetings and working for change there. Get a dozen or so of your more liberal friends to come with and you can probably take over. In 2000 I thought along the lines you're thinking, and ended up feeling the burn for 8 long years.
