Really, really, seriously - is it time for a third party? I always thought

[patricia92243]

it was silly and a waste of time to vote anything but Democrat or Republican - one or the other of these two parties will win and anything else is a protest vote or whatever. I'm not so sure anymore. In fact, I feel rather desperate about the whole political future.

I think we are about to the point of "What have we got to lose"? I really don't think the Democratic Party will EVER WIN AGAIN. Our nation needs a two-party system. It is not good for us to have one party having all the power.

The new party would replace the Democratic Party. I don't know how long it would take to form something like this or who would do it. I think Howard Dean possibly could, but he won't. Even if the new party lost at first - what are we out of - we're losing now.

I'm not good at stating what I mean, but I feel very strongly about this and very frightened for the future unless some drastic action is taken.

[Iris]

1. You know when people started talking about the Dems moving

right, I had for a brief moment the idea that a third party might actually work. If you could split off enough of the Republican-light types and have them vote Democrat, then maybe you could water the 2 parties down enough to give a 3rd party a chance.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. It has now been 16 days...

Since the last election.

I am not going to panic. We all have time to WORK on this.

Panicking is just what the repukes want us to do.

Time to get focused. Cold, cruel and calculating. Just like them.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

8. Well stated!!

[sangh0]

3. You're little late

but you might have enough time to start and 5,342nd party :-)

[emulatorloo]

4. Conason: Democrats lost the battle, not the war

Please read for some historical perspective. . .well worth watching the stoopid commercial you have to watch to get a salon day pass. Unless of course you are a salon subscriber, and if so I salute you.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/11/06/history/index_np.html

<snip>

Democrats lost the battle, not the war
Only people suffering from historical amnesia could believe this election proves that liberalism is dead.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason


Nov. 6, 2004 |

In the dark post-election mood that lingers, the defeated should find history both restorative and instructive. Restorative because the past reminds us that both victors and vanquished tend to mistake the dimensions of the immediate event, whose true significance cannot be known until years or even decades later. Instructive because the past tells us so much about how the conditions of our present distress came to exist -- and, most important, how we can change them.

So for the moment set aside the triumphal proclamations from the Republican leadership and their echoes in the media, along with the petty recriminations against John Kerry, who has devoted his life to public service and deserves admiration for the honorable campaign he waged against unscrupulous opponents. As a presidential candidate he had his virtues and flaws, which obviously differed from those of George W. Bush -- and will surely differ from those of the next Democratic nominee.

<snip>

[Sterling]

21. liberalism? no it's not dead. the party however....

that is another story. Right now it's a dead duck. Can it be brought back to life, probably not. I do think it will make a nice middle of the right party once a real oposition party has established itself.

[imenja]

5. Let the Republicans start one

to split their vote, not ours.

[Guava Jelly]

6. No its time to fix our party..

we lost because of votes either stolen or diluted.
divide and conquer never works

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

7. If you "don't think the Democratic Party will EVER WIN AGAIN"...

...Then you need to get out of politics altogether, because you simply can't handle it.

No offense intended, but that's the simple truth.


And if you REALLY think any kind of 3rd party is viable, then you're either nuts or lying to yourself. Again, no offense intended...Just MHO.

[elperromagico]

9. The two party system's so entrenched, you would need

a person with A. a lot of money and/or B. national fame.

The third-party candidates who have done the best usually had one or both of those things going for them:

Perot, filthy rich and eccentric enough to get news coverage
Wallace, famous throughout the country for his segregationist stance
LaFollette, a nationally prominent Progressive senator
TR, a former President

Still, none of them won. Perot was close early-on. But even TR didn't have a chance, because he split the GOP.

[American Tragedy]

18. None of them could have won

I can't picture the House of Representatives of that time selecting Ross Perot. They would make the final decision, since it is highly unlikely that he would have gotten more than half of all electoral votes.

[Warpy]

10. I keep hoping for the Greens to grow up

and hammer out a coalition party with all the other left splinter parties, from Labor to New Party and on into the Trotskyist Socialist Workers' Party. After all, progressives have more in common with each other than we do with either the DLC Democans or Republicrats.

Only when this starts to happen will the left be able to start to muster the numbers sufficient to budge either party.

Since the Greens have steadfastly clung to their own little fiefdoms and disdained the other progressives out there, I suppose the only hope on the horizon is the distingctly non left but also distinctly non DLC DFA effort of Dr. Dean.

I'll be supporting the DFA movement. I will not be supporting the Democratic Party until they manage to wake up to the fact that moving right and becoming pallid imitataions of the pubbies is not a winning strategy and that they're going to have to engage in the fight of their lives if they want to survive and restore any integrity to the electoral process.

[Cheswick2.0]

11. I am not in favor of another third party... we have so many to chose

from now.

But if you would like to join us in transforming the party we already have into a more liberal populist party which stands for our traditional values... DFA would love to have you.

[elperromagico]

12. Furthermore, electing a third-party President wouldn't be enough.

You'd have to elect candidates at every level - Senate, House, governorships - if you expected the guy or gal at the top to get anything done.

Let's say a third-party candidate were elected with, oh, 34% of the popular vote. Now let's say the Congress is Republican. What do you expect to accomplish in those first four years? And how good do you think your chances of holding on come next election are?

Think it was hard for Clinton to get anything done with a Republican Congress? Imagine what it would be like for a third-party candidate.

[JohnKleeb]

13. oh my god, common sense!

[QC]

37. Common sense??? Are we allowed to do that here??? n/t

[American Tragedy]

17. No, it's much, much harder than that

If no candidate reached 270 electoral votes, the House votes in state-by-state delegations between the top three. Thus, the third party candidate would not only need to attain enough electoral votes to disrupt the majority requirement, but they would also have to have the support of most of the House of Representatives. I do not forsee that ever happening unless the Constitution is changed.

[Lorien]

14. I feel as you do

if the Dems don't reform and break away from the DLC, then there's no point in staying with them any more. I always thought third parties were a losing strategy, but I'm beginning to change my mind on that one.

[elperromagico]

15. Where do you pull votes from?

Moderates? Oh, wait, you don't want those.

Disaffected Republicans? No Republicans allowed, right?

Fence-sitters/Undecideds? No, they don't exist.

New voters? Yeah, we relied on them this time. Really came through for us, eh?

Young voters? See "new voters."

So you're left with liberals. Okay then. Kerry got the bulk of the liberal vote this time. He still came about 3 million votes short. Clinton and Gore both got the bulk of the liberal vote. Still didn't break 50%.

So, okay, you've got the liberal vote. Let's say that's 20% of the total vote. You can win with that... if there are 5 or 6 major candidates in the race.

Forgive the skepticism. I'd just like to hear the winning formula.

[Lorien]

22. The winning formula is simple

a charismatic candidate can take votes from anywhere. Look at Arnold; he won easily in the very blue state of California, he took millions of 'liberal" votes. Obama can up from almost no where, and won by a landslide. Americans will ALWAYS vote for the guy they "just like" over the guy who shares their political beliefs. Worked for Reagan, Clinton,Jesse Ventura and to some degree, Shrub (though I believe he stole both elections). The biggest obstacle is the media; they prop up or destroy the candidates based on how well they-the wealthy corporate interests-will be served. To fight the media, you must fight their sponsors, and even dems don't have the political will to shut off the television and boycott in numbers that will make a difference (look at "activism and events' or "Economic activism and Progressive living"; those forums would be on fire if we were serious about "fighting for our country").

We won't win with the current formula; we used it in 2000, 2002, and 2004, with progressivly more disasterous results. I would prefer it if the Democratic party underwent a revolution from within to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes, but right now it doesn't look very probible (though I pray that I'm wrong about that). Starting from scratch may be the only way, and finding a charismatic leader is the first step towards any possibility of success.

[elperromagico]

23. Okay then. Who's your charismatic leader?

And how do you maintain your purity when your candidate has broad-based support - from Republicans, Independents, and (GASP!) even moderates?

[Lorien]

28. There isn't one

that's the problem. He or she has to be identified, appear, be born from the head of a God...whatever. Without THE candidate, a third party can't hope to compete. Ralph Nader wasn't it and never will be.

Look, I made the same arguments you are making-right up until Nov. 3. Tell me then; isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results every time? Unless the Dems can pull their act together, get real about unverifiable voting, and run a candidate that's at least somewhat charismatic and to the left of the right of center, nothing will change.

[elperromagico]

31. I don't want the Democratic Party to do the same thing every time.

We have lessons to learn from our defeat the same as we did in '68, '72, '80, '84, and '88, and every other time we were handed a loss.

Are we going to write off the Democratic Party every time we have a setback? I don't think we should. I think we must dig in, analyze our mistakes, and work to correct them.

People have been writing off the Democrats for years. We've always come back. We'll come back again.

And the charismatic leader stuff works for the Democrats too. Look at Clinton. But Clinton didn't win by casting out moderates and anyone who wasn't a solid blue liberal. He won by bringing them together. We can do the same. We just need to work at it.

[Telly Savalas]

32. So then why is a third party necessary?

Rather than creating a new party from scratch, the charismatic candidate could just run as a Democrat. For the reasons you just gave, such a candidate would dominate in the primaries then win the general election by a landslide.

[American Tragedy]

16. Well, in order for an independent candidate to become president

they would have to capture enough electoral votes to prevent any party from reaching 270, which in itself is a challenge. Then, unless that candidate attained 270 electoral votes, he or she would have to have a majority of supporters in the House in order to win the presidency, and that is highly unlikely.

Until third parties demonstrate that they are at least able to compete on the local and state level, any presidential bid is merely a vanity campaign.

[elperromagico]

27. Exactly right. Want a viable third party? Start at the bottom.

Make your party organization strong on the state and local level, and then build it from there.

One of the problems with third parties is that they never establish themselves locally. They leap in at the national level and then burn out pretty rapidly. The Greens seem to have this problem; yes, they've elected some people on the local level. But there's not one Green governor, Green senator, Green representative... The local organization just isn't strong.

[Telly Savalas]

35. I beg to differ

The Greens have something like 300-400 elected officials at local levels. They seem to understand that this number will have to grow quite a bit before they can realistically compete for governorships or Congressional seats. They run a presidential candidate to gain national exposure, but the whole Green philosophy is geared towards local activism.

[elperromagico]

36. They need more. They need Representatives.

They need Senators. They need governors. They don't have any of that. They don't have anyone holding a statewide office, if I'm not mistaken.

What they're doing now is perhaps a good start. But it's going to take a lot more before they can compete nationally.

And national exposure must not be doing much for them. Cobb got something like 0.3% of the vote this time. Compare that to Nader, who got nearly 3%.

[Telly Savalas]

39. Like you say they gotta work slow...

They're not going to elect anyone to a higher office like the Senate or a governorship until the cultivate a base that can win more local offices. If you go to their webpage, you can see that they tout their local successes. The Green Party in the U.S., and worldwide, is a ground-up organization. Decentralization of power is one of the cornerstones of their philosophy.

Also, I'm fully aware that Cobb didn't win very many votes. That's not the point. The purpose of the Cobb campaign is to let people know that the Green Party is out there and offering an alternative. This is especially useful in areas where there isn't much of a party infrastructure. Just because the campaign didn't win many votes, it doesn't mean that it failed at its purpose of bringing attention to the Green Party name. Unlike the Nader '04 crowd, most would-be Green voters were smart enough to vote for Kerry to stop Bush, and while they're in the booth maybe they pulled the lever for some local Green candidates at the bottom of the ballot. Furthermore, even if the gains from Cobb's bid were minimal, they're still better than not running a presidential candidate.

I'm totally hip to your critique of 3rd party strategy, I'm just saying it doesn't really apply to the Green Party.

[Lefty48197]

19. We've gotten the most votes 3 out of the last 4 Pres. elections

get a grip.

[The Revolution]

20. Things aren't as they seem

The republican party is not as strong as they seem. Sure, they seem impressive now, but remember that their party is basically a small cabal of criminals and lunatics held together by lies. They've gained their support through tricks and deceit. That's not a strong party.

Our party has a strong, intelligent base fighting for real and noble causes. We believe in equality, freedom, peace, and democracy for all the people of the world. Our support wasn't gained by exploiting ignorance or hatred. It was gained because people really want to make the world a better place.

I think we do need a little work, but I also believe we're stronger than we've ever been. A new generation of leaders is just beginning to emerge, and our message is reaching people. Things like Air America have been on less that a year and they are already reaching people coast to coast. We're becoming better organized and more active. Just look at the work we've accomplished at this site alone. Don't buy into the media hype about mandates and morals.

We'll win in the end.

[Walt Starr]

24. Look at it this way, how can a third party do worse than the Dems?

:shrug:

The Dems continually lose on the national level and so do third parties, so voting third party is no different from voting Dem.

[struggle4progress]

25. We need some serious left-pressure on the Democratic Party ...

... or the DLC people will have us all trying to outflank the Repubs from the right.

[shance]

26. I agree Patricia. Its time to step outside of a broken box.

I didn't think I would ever say or believe that, but I don't think there is any choice now. I know people get afraid of change, however the option is for things to continue to go the same direction (which of course means to the right*), if we don't create an organization that works differently than the "one" party we have now.

[evilqueen]

29. hmmm...

Well, I, for one, am seriously looking at the Libertarian Party... especially if DLC leadership is going to remain out of wack with what the regular working people in this party seem to want. I haven't jumped ship yet, but I am taking a wait and see attitude and in the meantime, educating myself about the foundations of this party and comparing it to what this party seems to stand for today. I don't think shifting to the Right is an option, especially since the Repubs are already shifted so far to the Right as they are. We need to be supportive of working people, labor unions, civil rights, etc.

Watched a documentary today on www.freedom-tv.net in which Badnarik was talking about this two party system. He says it's basically a battle of control: Republicans want to control our minds vs. Democrats want to control our money. In some ways, he's right, although the "safety net" I thought we always supported seems to extend wider and wider, and most people I know would really like to have more of a say-so over how their money is spent.

[Lorien]

30. Dems want to control our money?

seems to me the REPUGS have been doing that very well. What of the past four years? What of the Reagan era? Our money is being funneled into the pockets of their contributors at a stunning rate, and if that ain't control, I don't know what is!

[evilqueen]

33. True...

the "cheap labor regressives" (as I like to call them) are also after our money, though they would say they want less of it in the form of taxes. They more than make up for that in other ways, though.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of repug economics... statistically speaking, our economy is in much better hands when there is a democrat in the white house. The Clinton era surplus and even wall street during his presidency did just fine.

I think what Badnarik meant is that the people themselves should have more of a voice in what our money gets spent on. You have to admit, there are a lot of pork barrel spending bills no matter which party is in office... stupid studies on the flow rates of catsup come to mind, but there are probably better examples out there. I'd rather more money was spent on more important things like healthcare or environmental cleanup or alternative energy and energy independence projects, etc. Fiscal responsibility and accountability are supposedly repub values, but as you can see, that's a myth.

[DuaneBidoux]

34. Yes, a Republican party and a Christofascist party

Let's let them fight it out and split first, then we can consider it.

[QC]

38. Yes, because the best response to a unified, radical, hegemonic Right

is a fragmented, quarreling Left.

:eyes: