Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Third Party Set To Win

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 5:29:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
... in New York's 23rd District (http://en.wikipedia.org...), especially after the Republican candidate bowed out of the race and endorsed the Democrats (http://www.politico.com...).

The third party in question is the little-known Conservative Party of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org...), a right-wing party (obviously) which has or had several seats in the state legislature, but as far as I know, never any seats federally.

What, exactly, will this do to the national psyche of the US, and especially the Republican party, which is all but standing on its own legs? Given that there may be a successful and popular alternative to them, if the Conservatives are able to get popular leaders and ideas (this may be their first step), could we see a slight reorder of American politics? Or even if the Conservatives are not the answer, will the effect of seeing the Republicans falter in the face of a minor party damage their reputation enough to send traditional supporters to other federal parties already established, such as the Constitution Party?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 5:40:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Conservative Party is generally run by Republicans when they don't like their candidate who is representing them. So for the most part, the Conservative Party is an extension of the Republican Party.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 5:41:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 5:29:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
... in New York's 23rd District (http://en.wikipedia.org...), especially after the Republican candidate bowed out of the race and endorsed the Democrats (http://www.politico.com...).

The third party in question is the little-known Conservative Party of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org...), a right-wing party (obviously) which has or had several seats in the state legislature, but as far as I know, never any seats federally.

What, exactly, will this do to the national psyche of the US, and especially the Republican party, which is all but standing on its own legs? Given that there may be a successful and popular alternative to them, if the Conservatives are able to get popular leaders and ideas (this may be their first step), could we see a slight reorder of American politics? Or even if the Conservatives are not the answer, will the effect of seeing the Republicans falter in the face of a minor party damage their reputation enough to send traditional supporters to other federal parties already established, such as the Constitution Party?

He is more republican than anything....

His views are a mix between rep. and lib., therefore he chose Indi.

It is all good, i liked the rep. better, she felt like the more conservative one.
He is more moderate, but hey it shows the power of palin.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 5:51:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 5:40:26 PM, mongoose wrote:
The Conservative Party is generally run by Republicans when they don't like their candidate who is representing them. So for the most part, the Conservative Party is an extension of the Republican Party.

I don't know about that... they may be run by former Republicans, but former Republicans doesn't equal Republicans, aye. It equals disaffected conservative supporters who don't like the current incarnation of the GOP, and rightly so.

If this is just one strain of disaffected Republicans, where will the rest go?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 5:52:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
to second commoncents

I heard that the lady who dropped out was a very moderate rep. whose only real claim to fame amongst rep.s was being pro gun. The other guy was a disgruntled conservative rep. who got other repubs. disgruntled, and they were going to split the vote, so she dropped out, probably with pressure from the repub. party.

This can hardly be considered a breakthrough of a third party being that conservatives have had massive influence in the republican party for a good long while.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 5:54:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
oops that wasn't commonsense, I meant mongoose.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 5:58:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
ooh, but she endorsed the dems. that's interesting...

I'd say that that is more of a split than the conservative guy, for as I said she was probably under lots of pressure from local repb. heads to drop out.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 9:48:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 6:29:08 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Good to know that the 'absolutely crazy' section of New York is being represented.

Hey, Americans wished they had our Conservative Party. Hence why they copied us.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 9:50:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 9:48:04 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/3/2009 6:29:08 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Good to know that the 'absolutely crazy' section of New York is being represented.

Hey, Americans wished they had our Conservative Party. Hence why they copied us.

I do kinda wish we had it...
I do not think the republican party we have is Conservative... more moderate with extreme radical towards religion.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 9:52:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 9:50:11 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 11/3/2009 9:48:04 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/3/2009 6:29:08 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Good to know that the 'absolutely crazy' section of New York is being represented.

Hey, Americans wished they had our Conservative Party. Hence why they copied us.

I do kinda wish we had it...
I do not think the republican party we have is Conservative... more moderate with extreme radical towards religion.

Hence there claim of conservatism with in the republican party, but being religious does not make you an American political conservative, it just makes you a pushy religious radical.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 10:07:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 9:50:11 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 11/3/2009 9:48:04 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/3/2009 6:29:08 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Good to know that the 'absolutely crazy' section of New York is being represented.

Hey, Americans wished they had our Conservative Party. Hence why they copied us.

I do kinda wish we had it...
I do not think the republican party we have is Conservative... more moderate with extreme radical towards religion.

They're certainly socially conservative, just go ask any queer on the street and ask what the the Republican party has done for them lately.

However, I should point out, that there are a few clever ducks (especially on this forum) who are socially libertarian, and still right-wing economically. I don't agree; but good on you. However, if anyone is under the illusion that this new breed of far-right wing wackos are ushering in a new age of civil liberties and freedom, you have another thing coming.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 10:16:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The problems with the Republicans is that they started drifting from being a sensible centre-right party, to a paleoconservative and neo-conservative ideology. The success of the GOP depends on their ability to recapture independents and moderate, pro-business voters. I've not seen any moves towards that, though, which just means that they're carving out that niche of right-wing ideological minorities for themselves.

Well, if they can't learn, then good riddance - let them rot in that niche.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 11:18:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
What I think would make things really interesting, and is not totally impossible, is if America became a 4 party system. There are certainly disaffected fringes of both parties, and I think that a split could actually give America four equal parties.

Progressives have already had a shot at the presidency with Teddy Roosevelt (mind you, they were slightly different progressives.) They speak to the urban and forward-thinking areas of the country; anti-war, pro-corporate taxation, pro-healthcare, pro-gay marriage, etc. Would certainly be a regional party.

The Democrats could survive by being centrist and losing the left-wing of their party. I would hazard a guess and say that they would lose anywhere between 40%-60% of their current Congressmen to the progressives, but they could certainly stick around. Their views could be more tempered so as to appeal to independents.

Republicans could go back to being somewhat centrist (John McCain-ish.) Might lose a lot of their current congressmen to new conservative party, but would likely survive in the long run.

A newly-branded Conservative party could go one of two ways; completely-friggin-nuts right-wing who are anti-anything that doesn't fit with their idea of a white Judao-Christian family and hate having government do anything, yet would never dream of giving up their medicare. This party would be bad for -everyone.- They would exist solely in the Bible belt and would be run by people like Glenn Beck. They would be extremely dangerous and would resembled the logical conclusion of where the GOP is going now.

Or it could change to a sensible quasi-libertarian party that could appeal to those sucked in by the crazy right and those intelligent conservatives. This party might actually have appeal outside of the Bible Belt, but would likely never win the presidency.

This is all conjecture, of course.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 11:35:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
While an interesting hypothesis for sure, Kurtz, I don't think such a thing would occur, at least not with the Democrats.

There simply isn't enough support for "Progressives" in the country, and lets be honest, "Progressive" is just a euphemism for social democrats. You may get some areas like inner-city New York, Chicago and etc. to fold to the Progressives - much in the same way downtown Vancouver and Toronto goes to the New Democrats, but unlike the NDP, Progressives would have little support outside of these major urban centers, because they wouldn't have that rural, agrarian, populist base the NDP had.

A true liberal Democratic Party would maintain most of its former left-wing voters, because that tends to be the major demographic of the Dems; socially liberal moderates. And in all honesty, because of the nature of the American political arena, if the smaller Progressive vote cannot gain any major footholds, then there wouldn't be a reason for existence. They could wield much more influence in the Democrats.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 12:03:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 11:35:22 AM, Volkov wrote:
They could wield much more influence in the Democrats.

This one sentence pretty much sums up why there would not be a split between the two groups.

I used to think the same about conservatives and moderates in the Republican Party. More than likely there will be no change for the same reason. But they are at each others' throats right now... A rise of Glenbeckistan?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 12:11:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 12:03:54 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 11/3/2009 11:35:22 AM, Volkov wrote:
They could wield much more influence in the Democrats.

This one sentence pretty much sums up why there would not be a split between the two groups.

I used to think the same about conservatives and moderates in the Republican Party. More than likely there will be no change for the same reason. But they are at each others' throats right now... A rise of Glenbeckistan?

Well, the difference between left-wing parties and right-wing parties is the ability to compromise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a definite individualist, but I know when working together collectively is better to advance my individual interests; most left-wing ideologues, whether liberal, social democrat or whomever, feel the same. The ability to compromise and work together is there.

Right wing parties... not so much. The thing with right-wing ideology is that it is all about individualist, make-your-own-way, leave-them-to-the-wolves, partisanship. Compromise is hardly a strong suite of the GOP. And come time when there is a serious split in the party's ideological bases, that is going to hurt them.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 12:19:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 11:18:36 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
What I think would make things really interesting, and is not totally impossible, is if America became a 4 party system. There are certainly disaffected fringes of both parties, and I think that a split could actually give America four equal parties.

Progressives have already had a shot at the presidency with Teddy Roosevelt (mind you, they were slightly different progressives.) They speak to the urban and forward-thinking areas of the country; anti-war, pro-corporate taxation, pro-healthcare, pro-gay marriage, etc. Would certainly be a regional party.

The Democrats could survive by being centrist and losing the left-wing of their party. I would hazard a guess and say that they would lose anywhere between 40%-60% of their current Congressmen to the progressives, but they could certainly stick around. Their views could be more tempered so as to appeal to independents.

Republicans could go back to being somewhat centrist (John McCain-ish.) Might lose a lot of their current congressmen to new conservative party, but would likely survive in the long run.

A newly-branded Conservative party could go one of two ways; completely-friggin-nuts right-wing who are anti-anything that doesn't fit with their idea of a white Judao-Christian family and hate having government do anything, yet would never dream of giving up their medicare. This party would be bad for -everyone.- They would exist solely in the Bible belt and would be run by people like Glenn Beck. They would be extremely dangerous and would resembled the logical conclusion of where the GOP is going now.

Or it could change to a sensible quasi-libertarian party that could appeal to those sucked in by the crazy right and those intelligent conservatives. This party might actually have appeal outside of the Bible Belt, but would likely never win the presidency.


This is all conjecture, of course.

Good hypothesis. However, I see the Republicans drifting to the Bible belt and centrists fringes like McCain going to the Libertarian party.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 12:22:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 12:19:14 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Good hypothesis. However, I see the Republicans drifting to the Bible belt and centrists fringes like McCain going to the Libertarian party.

If you want to talk about fringe, the Libertarian Party is a good place to start.

If anything, conservative moderates like McCain and etc. would stay with the Republicans, as the more mainstream a party is, the more likely it is to moderate (over time). The paleoconservatives of the GOP would drift to another party, more than any moderates would.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 12:23:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Whoa! Where did that quote come from, Volkov? The one in your sig. That is HILARIOUS (all caps). Please tell me he was being serious.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 12:25:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 12:23:56 PM, JBlake wrote:
Whoa! Where did that quote come from, Volkov? The one in your sig. That is HILARIOUS (all caps). Please tell me he was being serious.

He was, and here is the thread: http://www.debate.org...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 12:45:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
To add here;

This FiveThirtyEight post sums up pretty well what is going on for the GOP: http://www.debate.org...

It is a test of three different strategies for the Republican Party and conservative ideology in the US. I predict McDonnell, the candidate for Governor of Virgina, to have the winning strategy; reform the GOP from the inside to appeal to those crucial moderate voters.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 12:58:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Panda, a centrist in the Libertarian Party who has any idea what he's doing is about as likely as a centrist in the Communist Party who has any idea what he's doing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 3:25:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think the GOP needs to focus around Rush Limbaugh.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 4:19:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 3:25:44 PM, mongoose wrote:
I think the GOP needs to focus around Rush Limbaugh.

I think the GOP needs to send Rush Limbaugh to a work camp in Siberia.

At 11/3/2009 11:35:22 AM, Volkov wrote:
While an interesting hypothesis for sure, Kurtz, I don't think such a thing would occur, at least not with the Democrats.

There simply isn't enough support for "Progressives" in the country, and lets be honest, "Progressive" is just a euphemism for social democrats. You may get some areas like inner-city New York, Chicago and etc. to fold to the Progressives - much in the same way downtown Vancouver and Toronto goes to the New Democrats, but unlike the NDP, Progressives would have little support outside of these major urban centers, because they wouldn't have that rural, agrarian, populist base the NDP had.

A true liberal Democratic Party would maintain most of its former left-wing voters, because that tends to be the major demographic of the Dems; socially liberal moderates. And in all honesty, because of the nature of the American political arena, if the smaller Progressive vote cannot gain any major footholds, then there wouldn't be a reason for existence. They could wield much more influence in the Democrats.

I disagree to some extent. First off, if you accounted for all of the left-wing Democrats from urban centers plus the one-off senators like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, you'd find that they account for a very sizable, popular media-present chunk of the Democratic party (Alan Grayson, Anthony Weiner, Barbra Boxer, etc.)

Beyond that, you'd find that real progressives would be more interested in running if they know they had a party that actually backed up their beliefs. This would allow for a serious dialog on the different ways to tackle and issue, not just the black-and-white of the GOP-vs.-Dems. Furthermore, the progressive party would ultimately be less beholden to corporate interests and may be able to brand themselves as a new breed of politicians, much in the same way Obama did so successfully.

And even if they did not account for a huge party, they could certainly still caucus with the Democrats when need be and vote with them if they felt so obliged. The difference is that it will end this ambiguity of people voting for one party because they encompass an entire side of the political spectrum. This disaffection exists because the margin of error between what people and what their congressperson supports is just too vast.