2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI have a prediction... We will have 4 parties after November
That get federal funding - Dems, R's, Greens and Libertarians. The Greens and the Libertarians will both get over 3% of the vote.
Conservatives that dislike Trump will vote for Gary Johnson, Liberals unhappy with Clinton will vote for Jill Stein.
I see it as inevitable given the candidate choices the primaries have given us.
4 parties could only be an improvement over our silly 2 party system.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And probably not.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)...Damn me to Hell...
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)PJMcK
(21,916 posts)FSogol
(45,355 posts)Neither the greens nor the libertarians will reach 3%.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)Johnson is 'highly' appealing given his pro-marijuana stance, Stein appeals to many Dems that are deeply concerned with climate change, war, fracking....
It's gonna happen....
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)FSogol
(45,355 posts)get excited about him, but it will be less than 3% nationwide. No different for the greens. Any Dem not voting for HRC, probably wasn't going to vote anyways. Johnson and Stein will play NO role in the elections. Bookmark it.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)...and well liked. As for ppl that do not vote for Clinton as non-voters... that is a clueless statement. I know at least 6 hard core Dems over 50 that will not vote for her, but always voted. 2 have already said Stein.
brooklynite
(93,834 posts)I remember when people told us Bernie was going to win...
Reter
(2,188 posts)Just asking.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)no need for name-calling ,gol
Bob41213
(491 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)That's the usual pattern - they poll well very early, then drop off as the race nears the end.
This cycle will probably be similar to the last few.
FSogol
(45,355 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)crapshoot with any option. door number 1, 2, or 3. the minorities will stay with Hill, but everyone else is sick of party swill.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)as evidenced by the fact that we really have just one party, the establishment party, that happens to have two names. I personally welcome additional options.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)you a white cane and a seeing eye dog.
Urchin
(248 posts)doesn't make it worth two cents.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)Billions of dollars GOP oligarchs have donated to help beat the other party that supposedly doesn't exist. I guess it was all just an elaborate ruse?
Sigh....So many crackpots/nut bags on DU these days. Unfortunately most are beyond help.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I choose none of the above.
cyberpunk
(78 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)for whatever reason, he didn't and now the Democratic Party is supposed to change their entire platform to accommodate his agenda? Why?
If he was so confident that he was indeed starting a "revolution", then he should have been confident enough to do it on the Independent ticket, not co opt the Democratic ticket and then bitch and moan when Democrats actually vote for the Democrat.
thesquanderer
(11,953 posts)He has confidence in the appeal of his ideas, but he knows that he wouldn't win as an independent because of the way our system is stacked. I can't believe you really think he should have run as an independent. He's smart enough to know that that would increase the chance of a Trump presidency. He wouldn't take that risk, and I'd be surprised if you wanted him to.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)and the attitude of his supporters over this primary. The fact that the registered Democrat won the Primary doesn't mean that it was rigged, etc.
NJCher
(35,422 posts)for whatever reason, he didn't and now the Democratic Party is supposed to change their entire platform to accommodate his agenda? Why?
They have to accommodate the causes of Bernie supporters ecause Bernie has consistently shown he has people power. People = Power, even in this corrupt, circling the drain joke of a democracy. You know this. At rallies across the country, he drew more people than the candidate who supposedly "won." If we had a fair media and an electoral system that was accountable, Bernie would be the winner.
If he was so confident that he was indeed starting a "revolution", then he should have been confident enough to do it on the Independent ticket, not co opt the Democratic ticket and then bitch and moan when Democrats actually vote for the Democrat.
JMO, but I don't think even Bernie knew how popular his ideas would be.
At any rate, neither choice would have been good. A new party is what we need. The Democratic party is too far gone, and I speak as a person in a state entrenched with corrupt Democrats. Time for a challenge; time for change.
Cher
swhisper1
(851 posts)partys
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)You realize this is Democratic Underground, right?
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)We never would have known that, if you had not blessed us with your wisdom, m'lord.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The current system is utterly fubar.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Bernie followers will blame Gary Johnson.
Jackilope
(819 posts)It is long over due.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)and a Yuuuge party in January with Hillary Clinton as the first woman to win the presidency. Can't wait until that moment.
postatomic
(1,771 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Need more candidates for sure ..(and better ones)
athena
(4,187 posts)Is that what you want?
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)That being said - Almost half of Dems are deeply dissatisfied with our candidate - one who does not espouse 'true, old-school' Democratic ideals. And Trump is an ass..... WHAT do u think will happen?
I think it is obvious.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)alittlelark
(18,886 posts)Perhaps I live in an ulterior universe - but that's what I'm seeing/hearing.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)alittlelark
(18,886 posts)....cuz I think what I predicted is gonna be your new reality - and the chocolate fondue fountain is gonna dry up.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)The plural of anecdote is not data. Your personal relationships are representative of nothing more than your personal relationships. It's a big country with infinite political variety.
swhisper1
(851 posts)no tide, no enthusiasm. it is stagnant
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have read/understand the US Constitution on how elections will be decided?
But, I'm sure it sounded really good on that blog they read ... though it probably didn't mention the US House of Representatives.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)And we will have 4 parties.....
I honestly cannot see another outcome w/o blatant election fraud.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)alittlelark
(18,886 posts)It's gonna happen.
DLCWIdem
(1,552 posts)totodeinhere
(13,034 posts)Personally, and this is just a gut feeling, I think that Hillary would win a four-way race.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)I'm talking about 2 new Nationally recognized with Federal funding parties....
3catwoman3
(23,812 posts)...how they do it in England?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)only prime minister
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)k8conant
(3,030 posts)The current system no longer serves the needs of the people.
Instant runoff voting could salvage the situation with a relatively small investment in restructuring.
Cher
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,916 posts)Civics 101 is too long to get into here--as much as it is needed
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But as I mentioned above ... the idea sounded really good on that blog ... though it probably didn't mention the role the U.S. House of Representatives would play in this fantasy.
postatomic
(1,771 posts)There will be thousands of parties after November. Already planning mine.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)alittlelark
(18,886 posts)Given how unhappy people are with their 2 Party system choices I think it's a given.....
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)From the FEC:
"Since no third-party candidate received 5% of the vote in the 2008 presidential election, only the Republican and Democratic parties were eligible for 2012 convention grants, and only their nominees were eligible to receive grants for the general election once they were nominated. Third-party candidates could qualify for public funds retroactively if they received 5% or more of the vote in the general election."
http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)may choose the President with some regularity.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)But I do know that if a party gets 3% of the vote they get federally matching funds - and a lot of press.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that to win you need 270 electoral votes period. And that is 1 more than half. It doesnt work to only receive more electoral votes than the candidates of the other three parties in a four party race. If the 270 electoral vote tally is not reached by anyone, the election is thrown into the congress with the House selecting the President and the Senate selecting the Vice President.
The more parties you have winning electoral votes, the higher the probability that no one will get to 270 and the people dont end up choosing the President.
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)...cuz I can't see this not happening.
Shemp Howard
(889 posts)...if there were a Constitutional amendment requiring a run-off if no candidate won a majority of the electoral votes.
But there is little chance for such an amendment. The establishment (both D and R) doesn't want to give any smaller parties any chance whatsoever.
jaceaf
(89 posts)to celebrate Hillary's win.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Been hearing this for years.
valerief
(53,235 posts)alittlelark
(18,886 posts)The Libs and Greens as they get more and more support through this election cycle. They will not report on the #'s of ppl supporting them, and will do their best to make them look foolish...... Kinka like they did with Gen. Wesley Clark, H. Dean, Kerry.... etc.
I think enough of us are 'awake' to see thru it (I hope).
valerief
(53,235 posts)DLCWIdem
(1,552 posts)If it happens it wont last long. If nominee gets to 270 the nod goes to Congress. That is why Perot supposedly bowed out in 1992.
swhisper1
(851 posts)inside- Progressives
The more competition, the better for the people
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Good luck getting to 3% with her. More like .3%.
Disaffected Bernie Bros will be hard to find in November. And those millennials who didn't bother coming out for "free college" Bernie ain't coming out for Jill who?
brooklynite
(93,834 posts)...since there's a Primary and the Green Party convention isn't until August.
Remember when people got outraged at the suggestion that Hillary Clinton was the "presumptive nominee"?
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)There has been talk of the Greens nominating Bernie. Of course if he accepts that he is done as a democrat and will find the senate a very lonely place once he loses.
Wouldn't it prove a certain point though if Bernie waltzed in to the Green Party at the last minute to take the nomination from a qualified female candidate who has been laboring for years in the service of her (perfectly good) causes?
Betcha the Bros would be all for that. But the Green Party might write off women's votes for a generation.
The Green party got half a percent of the popular vote in 2012, a high water mark for them. Add a few million pissed off Bernie diehards and you maybe get her to 2%.
It's starting to look like that won't matter one bit to Clinton's chances, especially as most of the Green vote is in states she will win easily for the EC. Florida and Ohio and Georgia and the midwest are hardly Green Party territory at all. So even as a "spoiler" a Green result of -- let's be generous -- 2-3% in a few states would not make a whit of difference given current dynamics and polling.
Most people are very pragmatic in the privacy of the booth. That's partly why we have two parties. They are generalist parties, divided by culture as much as ideology. I am serenely sure the vast majority of Bernie voters, confronted with President Trump as the alternative, will choose wisely in the end.
The ones that won't vote weren't likely to vote anyway. And the ones that vote third party won't make any difference unless they combine in support of the Libertarians with disaffected conservatives (as some will, I suspect), which will help defeat Trump so yay.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:50 AM - Edit history (1)
The disaffection with both presumptive major-party nominees is so great that the two leading minor parties can expect a good year. The Libertarians (about one percent of the vote in 2012) will pick up some traditional Republicans who can't stand Trump; the presence of Weld on the ticket will help that process. The Greens (about one third of one percent of the vote in 2012) will get some progressives who can't stand Clinton.
A big difference is that Clinton had the overwhelming support of the party establishment, while Trump ran against his party's establishment. As a result, with a significant bloc of Republican elected officials ranging from lukewarm support to express denunciations, it will be easier for rank-and-file Republicans to decide to defect. I think the Libertarian Party has a shot at hitting 5%, but the Green Party is very unlikely to, especially with Bernie endorsing Clinton.
Now, getting back to your OP... none of the above matters. Even if the Libertarians reach 5%, they will not elect the President anytime in the next several decades, and the Greens are even less likely to do so. As a practical matter, we will, in 2020, have two parties that have any realistic chance of winning the White House. The only significance of the minor parties will be in pulling off votes and thereby indirectly influencing which major-party nominee will win.
On edit: Here's a link to the FEC page giving the 5% figure.
MFM008
(19,776 posts)like i think he will.
IM going to have 4 parties, maybe in one night............
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)alittlelark
(18,886 posts)brooklynite
(93,834 posts)...whether or not they hit the threshold to get Federal funding, or even ballot access, there will only be two Parties with a chance of winning.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)and will seek it directly rather than having to petition people who are acting on their personal prejudices. Not all prejudice is racial, it is natural to have personal preferences, to like some not others--so what we seek is accurate representation that reflects the actual demographics and protects citizens from being usurped by moneyed classes who are using wedge issues to divide and control us.
It is perfectly natural to seek direct representation, no one should hold it against us. We need to agree to disagree where necessary--and agree on issues where we have common ground, and if this means reorganizing parties that reflect our ideologies so be it.
Americans have been divided into the RED team and BLUE team to run elections like a horse race--reducing our life and death issues into a sport. WE are the ones that define who we are, NOT the PTB, they cannot tell us who and what we are, who is 'in' and who is 'out', what groups WIN and what groups LOSE. So sorry, you don't get to be represented this time around, so sorry, you LOSE YOUR LIFE. This kind of discourse belongs in junior high school, and many Americans are bone tired of being treated like stupid children.