Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alittlelark

(18,886 posts)
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:50 PM Jun 2016

I 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.

90 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I have a prediction... We will have 4 parties after November (Original Post) alittlelark Jun 2016 OP
Fine by me (nt) bigwillq Jun 2016 #1
*Prediction. Agschmid Jun 2016 #2
Perdition? MineralMan Jun 2016 #3
NO objection here! One Black Sheep Jun 2016 #4
The more the merrier! (n/t) PJMcK Jun 2016 #5
No, only dumbasses will vote for Stein, Trump, or Johnson. FSogol Jun 2016 #6
I am positive they will... alittlelark Jun 2016 #7
Yes because marijuana legalization is the only important issue. Agschmid Jun 2016 #9
He's still better than Trump (for a real conservative voter, not a nativist racist asshole) JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #76
Johnson is a frigging clown. Sure, some emotionally stunted Ayn Rand fans FSogol Jun 2016 #10
He was our Gov TWICE here in NM... alittlelark Jun 2016 #30
"it's gonna happen..." brooklynite Jun 2016 #85
So the only smart ones are the Hillary voters? Reter Jun 2016 #61
Appears that way....... alittlelark Jun 2016 #63
The liberals right now are at 12%, and all of those partys probably think you a fool too swhisper1 Jun 2016 #71
Not to mention, if he can get to 15%, he appears at the debate. Bob41213 Jun 2016 #72
I think it is healthy to have a third voice in the debates, if he is allowed to talk swhisper1 Jun 2016 #73
Probably not. In 2012, Johnson was polling 8%, ended up with 1%. Stein got 0.35%. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #8
+1 n/t FSogol Jun 2016 #11
obama was too strong. Both the nominees have dismal favorables this time around and people will swhisper1 Jun 2016 #74
The two party system clearly isn't working NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #12
If you think we have "one party" and can't see the difference between the two, someone needs to give SFnomad Jun 2016 #13
Just because a penny has two faces, Urchin Jun 2016 #27
Yeah and there's the little matter of the money CorkySt.Clair Jun 2016 #46
Of course there is a difference. We now have conservative and crazy right-wing conservative parties Live and Learn Jun 2016 #50
"An eagle cannot fly with two right wings." eom cyberpunk Jun 2016 #90
And yet the parties are more polarized than at any point since Reconstruction mythology Jun 2016 #16
Bernie had a choice to run as an Independent... tallahasseedem Jun 2016 #21
There's a difference between confidence and foolhardiness. thesquanderer Jun 2016 #26
I'm more irritated at his attitude tallahasseedem Jun 2016 #28
here's why NJCher Jun 2016 #48
the revolution was more important If he went indy, he would have won easily, but vilified by both swhisper1 Jun 2016 #75
If you believe that, you're probably on the wrong site. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #39
Is it really? Fuddnik Jun 2016 #80
Can't happen any too soon! Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #14
Hillary will still win wyldwolf Jun 2016 #15
Given the growing Independent registrations Jackilope Jun 2016 #17
Let's hope so. The "Good Cop/Bad Cop" game is no longer fooling anyone. n/t arcane1 Jun 2016 #18
I predict over 40,000 parties in November, lots and lots of celebrating defeating the Repukes L. Coyote Jun 2016 #19
Sorry. Didn't mean to copy your post. Should have read up. nt postatomic Jun 2016 #38
I copied and pasted your OP to compose my post title above. L. Coyote Jun 2016 #58
We wil need them Old Codger Jun 2016 #20
In a four-party system, Trump would be president. athena Jun 2016 #22
I am not insane... Only the insane would vote Trump. alittlelark Jun 2016 #31
No, "almost half of Dems" are not "deeply dissatisfied with our candidate" at all. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #35
uhhh, yeah... where do you live? alittlelark Jun 2016 #42
In reality, where the Greens and Lolbertarians aren't going to become relevant parties. -nt- Lord Magus Jun 2016 #47
Are you riding unicorns to drink at the chocolate fountain? alittlelark Jun 2016 #56
"where do you live?" TwilightZone Jun 2016 #53
magnus is absolutely right, and she is not winning indys either. there is no bubble swhisper1 Jun 2016 #77
I wonder if those "predicting" and advocating for this ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #34
I stand by my prediction... Both will get 3%+ alittlelark Jun 2016 #52
I'm sure you do; but, the outcome will not come out well. 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #55
That could certainly be the case.. but I still think alittlelark Jun 2016 #59
yes I just stated the same didn't read your post. DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #69
I haven't seen any polls that confirm that. If you have one please share it. totodeinhere Jun 2016 #51
Hillary will win no matter what - the PTB want her.... alittlelark Jun 2016 #60
How about a vastly shortened campaign, such as... 3catwoman3 Jun 2016 #23
and no president Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2016 #25
We already have them Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2016 #24
I'd like Instant Runoff voting in all elections nt k8conant Jun 2016 #29
Me, too NJCher Jun 2016 #49
I'll let history argue with you. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #32
Yeah ismnotwasm Jun 2016 #33
Yep ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #36
Wrong. postatomic Jun 2016 #37
BWUHAHAHA! You don't start national parties from the top down. Win some local races first, maybe. BobbyDrake Jun 2016 #40
All it takes is 3% of the vote...... alittlelark Jun 2016 #64
Actually, it takes 5% of the vote. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #83
Four parties under the electoral college system are not an improvement. It means congress stevenleser Jun 2016 #41
I admit to not being 'up to speed' on this issue - alittlelark Jun 2016 #43
The problem with multiple parties under the electoral college system is the requirement stevenleser Jun 2016 #44
Sounds like sane liberal people need to take over Congress.... alittlelark Jun 2016 #45
It would be an improvement... Shemp Howard Jun 2016 #54
I am going to have 4 parties too! jaceaf Jun 2016 #57
Uh, no GulfCoast66 Jun 2016 #62
You have no faith in the billionaires who own our government. nt valerief Jun 2016 #65
But I DO!!! I DO!!! I believe they will attempt to marginalize alittlelark Jun 2016 #66
They like their two-party system--center and right. nt valerief Jun 2016 #67
the electoral system DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #68
yes, and there might be a 5th tho they will attempt to throw the DNC back to democracy from the swhisper1 Jun 2016 #70
Jill Stein rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #78
Amazing how many people assume Jill Stein will the Green Party nominee... brooklynite Jun 2016 #86
Lol funny rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #87
The threshold is 5%, not 3% Jim Lane Jun 2016 #79
If Rump loses MFM008 Jun 2016 #81
Are you part of the psychic friends network? pdsimdars Jun 2016 #82
No, but I play one on DU.... alittlelark Jun 2016 #89
We'll still have a two Party system... brooklynite Jun 2016 #84
People simply want representation felix_numinous Jun 2016 #88

FSogol

(45,355 posts)
6. No, only dumbasses will vote for Stein, Trump, or Johnson.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:53 PM
Jun 2016

Neither the greens nor the libertarians will reach 3%.

alittlelark

(18,886 posts)
7. I am positive they will...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:56 PM
Jun 2016

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....

FSogol

(45,355 posts)
10. Johnson is a frigging clown. Sure, some emotionally stunted Ayn Rand fans
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:02 PM
Jun 2016

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)
30. He was our Gov TWICE here in NM...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:43 PM
Jun 2016

...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.

 

swhisper1

(851 posts)
71. The liberals right now are at 12%, and all of those partys probably think you a fool too
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 12:20 AM
Jun 2016

no need for name-calling ,gol

TwilightZone

(25,342 posts)
8. Probably not. In 2012, Johnson was polling 8%, ended up with 1%. Stein got 0.35%.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:00 PM
Jun 2016

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.

 

swhisper1

(851 posts)
74. obama was too strong. Both the nominees have dismal favorables this time around and people will
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:24 AM
Jun 2016

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)
12. The two party system clearly isn't working
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:04 PM
Jun 2016

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)
13. If you think we have "one party" and can't see the difference between the two, someone needs to give
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:07 PM
Jun 2016

you a white cane and a seeing eye dog.

 

CorkySt.Clair

(1,507 posts)
46. Yeah and there's the little matter of the money
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:24 PM
Jun 2016

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)
50. Of course there is a difference. We now have conservative and crazy right-wing conservative parties
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:42 PM
Jun 2016

I choose none of the above.

tallahasseedem

(6,716 posts)
21. Bernie had a choice to run as an Independent...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:46 PM
Jun 2016

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)
26. There's a difference between confidence and foolhardiness.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:29 PM
Jun 2016

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)
28. I'm more irritated at his attitude
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:35 PM
Jun 2016

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)
48. here's why
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:33 PM
Jun 2016

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)
75. the revolution was more important If he went indy, he would have won easily, but vilified by both
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:29 AM
Jun 2016

partys

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
39. If you believe that, you're probably on the wrong site.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:02 PM
Jun 2016

You realize this is Democratic Underground, right?

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
19. I predict over 40,000 parties in November, lots and lots of celebrating defeating the Repukes
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:40 PM
Jun 2016

and a Yuuuge party in January with Hillary Clinton as the first woman to win the presidency. Can't wait until that moment.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
58. I copied and pasted your OP to compose my post title above.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:59 PM
Jun 2016
My OP is a play on yours, just looking ahead to the parties that actually matter.

alittlelark

(18,886 posts)
31. I am not insane... Only the insane would vote Trump.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:48 PM
Jun 2016

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.

alittlelark

(18,886 posts)
42. uhhh, yeah... where do you live?
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:12 PM
Jun 2016

Perhaps I live in an ulterior universe - but that's what I'm seeing/hearing.

alittlelark

(18,886 posts)
56. Are you riding unicorns to drink at the chocolate fountain?
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:56 PM
Jun 2016

....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)
53. "where do you live?"
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:52 PM
Jun 2016

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)
77. magnus is absolutely right, and she is not winning indys either. there is no bubble
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:32 AM
Jun 2016

no tide, no enthusiasm. it is stagnant

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
34. I wonder if those "predicting" and advocating for this ...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:54 PM
Jun 2016

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)
52. I stand by my prediction... Both will get 3%+
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:50 PM
Jun 2016

And we will have 4 parties.....

I honestly cannot see another outcome w/o blatant election fraud.

totodeinhere

(13,034 posts)
51. I haven't seen any polls that confirm that. If you have one please share it.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:49 PM
Jun 2016

Personally, and this is just a gut feeling, I think that Hillary would win a four-way race.

alittlelark

(18,886 posts)
60. Hillary will win no matter what - the PTB want her....
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:07 PM
Jun 2016

I'm talking about 2 new Nationally recognized with Federal funding parties....

NJCher

(35,422 posts)
49. Me, too
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:36 PM
Jun 2016

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

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
36. Yep ...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:57 PM
Jun 2016

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.

alittlelark

(18,886 posts)
64. All it takes is 3% of the vote......
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:41 PM
Jun 2016

Given how unhappy people are with their 2 Party system choices I think it's a given.....

TwilightZone

(25,342 posts)
83. Actually, it takes 5% of the vote.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:31 AM
Jun 2016

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)
41. Four parties under the electoral college system are not an improvement. It means congress
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:09 PM
Jun 2016

may choose the President with some regularity.

alittlelark

(18,886 posts)
43. I admit to not being 'up to speed' on this issue -
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:15 PM
Jun 2016

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)
44. The problem with multiple parties under the electoral college system is the requirement
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:18 PM
Jun 2016

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.

Shemp Howard

(889 posts)
54. It would be an improvement...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:54 PM
Jun 2016

...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.

alittlelark

(18,886 posts)
66. But I DO!!! I DO!!! I believe they will attempt to marginalize
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:53 PM
Jun 2016

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).

DLCWIdem

(1,552 posts)
68. the electoral system
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 12:04 AM
Jun 2016

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)
70. yes, and there might be a 5th tho they will attempt to throw the DNC back to democracy from the
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 12:17 AM
Jun 2016

inside- Progressives

The more competition, the better for the people

 

rjsquirrel

(4,762 posts)
78. Jill Stein
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:32 AM
Jun 2016

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)
86. Amazing how many people assume Jill Stein will the Green Party nominee...
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:42 AM
Jun 2016

...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)
87. Lol funny
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:56 PM
Jun 2016

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)
79. The threshold is 5%, not 3%
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:52 AM
Jun 2016

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.

brooklynite

(93,834 posts)
84. We'll still have a two Party system...
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:38 AM
Jun 2016

...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)
88. People simply want representation
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:03 PM
Jun 2016

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I have a prediction... We...