I hate having only two political parties.

[Cant trust em]

The democrats are likely going to get their asses kicked in November if what all of the pundits are saying is true. What sucks even more than that is that the only other alternative is the Republicans who deserve to be in power even less than the democrats. It seems ridiculous that they're going to be in power again, but I guess that's the system we've chosen.

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

1. Nine months prior to an election, buying into the meida/GOP party line

makes you an easily led individual.

But here, take a dunk.
the water's warm and they need you there!

[Cant trust em]

Just wait...it's not going to be pretty. nt

[Cant trust em]

15. Nevermind....

I don't want to break any DU rules here.

[FSogol]

2. The Democrats will win big in November. Today seems to be "advocate for a 3rd party day" on DU.

:shrug:

[Hutzpa]

4. This crap happens when they know they've lost

all talking points. No surprises.

[DevonRex]

9. Just the Naderites trying to scare up votes again. Or maybe hte Socialists.

:shrug:

[damntexdem]

3. Two political parties? Who has two political parties?

The Dems don't act like a political party.

And the Repukes act like a religious crusade.

[FSogol]

8. I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat - Will Rogers

:party:

[Echo In Light]

20. "America has one political party with two right wings" Gore Vidal

[treestar]

5. It is not official

And the parties have shifted before.

There have to be enough people supporting the third party to make the third party viable.

[DevonRex]

6. There ARE more than 2. Why don't you go join one of them?

And your vote will be meaningless since we don't have a parliamentary system and can't form coalitions.

[Cant trust em]

12. I don't need to join a party.

The whole apparatus is overrated.

[MineralMan]

17. Then what do you suggest as a replacement?

Or are you just complaining to hear yourself complain?

I'm serious. First, you say you wish there were more than two parties. When it is pointed out to you that there already are, you say the whole system's no good.

So, tell us what you really want, OK? Otherwise, this is just boring.

[Cant trust em]

21. I want to have multiple viable parties.

If it takes voting third party and "wasting a vote" then so be it.

Moreover, the sentiment of my post is for those people out there who don't like what the democrats have been doing, but will vote for the republicans instead. While I do think that the democrats are feckless, I don't think that giving power back to the republicans is a good idea either.

[MineralMan]

24. Well, good luck with that. Bringing a third party up to anything

like parity with the other two is going to be a long, grueling process. If you want it, you have to be willing to do it. Nobody else is going to do your work for you. That's the real problem. Political work is hard, thankless, and likely to fail.

Still, that's the only way to get what you want, so sharpen your writing and speaking skills and get started.

Or, were you hoping someone else would do all that work so you could just follow along? That trick never works.

[Cant trust em]

26. The political work isn't something I'm afraid of.

Yes, it will take time, but if it's something that is necessary then that's where we'll have to go.

I think the best opportunities for 3rd parties to take hold are in local races. It's more about the candidate than the label, so I'll just work with the candidates that most appeal to me.

[reggie the dog]

29. I voted Democrat

my vote is already meaningless...At least when I vote left here in France I ACTUALLY GET LEFT WING POLITICIANS!

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Back in January, those same pundits said healthcare was all but dead...

Back in September 2008, those same pundits said McCain/Palin were surging and positioning for a huge win in November.

Back in May 2008, those same pundits said Hillary Clinton was going to take the primary fight to the convention and force bedlam.

Back in March 2008, those same pundits were starting to say Obama's presidential campaign was imploding.

Back in 2007, those same pundits gave Obama no chance of winning the Democratic nomination, let alone the presidency.

My point? The pundits don't know anything more than you and I. They certainly don't know what will happen in November.

[zipplewrath]

14. Um 2006

About this time in 2006, the GOP knew they were screwed. About the only guy preaching that they weren't was Rove, who was disasterously wrong.

In the spring of 2008, Hillary was commenting that whomever won the democratic primary "most likely would win in November". Most folks knew that the GOP was in trouble.

I know you can find polls and articles that said otherwise, but again, it was generally known or "believed" anyway. They knew it was coming in '94 too. It was only a matter of magnitude. That's where we are now. Everyone "knows" that the dems are going to lose in November, the question is how big.

Personally, I don't think it will be enough to lose either chamber. But they can't scare up a majority in the House now, it will be much worse then. The only sliver of hope I see is that the dems that do win might be a collection of more progressive candidates. Although everyone will wring their hands over the lost seats, the political operatives won't miss who actually won and lost, regardless of how many. If the "winners" were those moving left, that won't go unnoticed, regardless of how the general election goes. It could be the end of the "dive right" strategy of the democratic party.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. Um...

I don't ever recall the media saying it was going to be the slaughter it turned out to be back in 2006. In fact, it was a surprise at how big of an ass kicking the GOP took. Now I'm not saying it won't happen to the Democrats, but it IS a crapshoot.

In 2003, John Kerry was written off by the pundits and Howard Dean was at the top.

Things flipped rather quickly.

In 2002, no one predicted the Democrats would get the beat down they eventually saw.

Especially THIS far out.

2006 also had different circumstances than 2010. Most importantly, that was the worst year of the Iraq War in terms of military casualties.

Now I'll agree that if the economy is still shaky by November and the unemployment rate hasn't decreased, then the Democrats are fucked.

But this far out? No one can say. Not you. Not me. Not the pundits. And you're a damn fool if you actually think you can predict what will happen. The Democrats most likely will lose seats - but I'm not buying just yet it'll be a landslide of epic proportions.

[zipplewrath]

18. I agree on the DEGREE

As I said, I don't think they'll actually lose either chamber. And what no one knows this far out is the degree, or magnitude. But what we do "know" is that we're gonna lose, barring something like a 9/11. The only real question is how bad.

[Drunken Irishman]

19. But that's normal.

Generally the incumbent president loses seats. So I'm not going to freak out about it like the OP.

I am still skeptical that it will be similar to 1994.

[zipplewrath]

23. I don't think it will be '94 either

I think what's really going to happen is that alot gains that were made from the 50 state strategy are going to be lost. The whole red state/blue state problem again.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. Probably...

Since much of those gains came in conservative districts/states.

[zipplewrath]

28. We've lost the independents

The hope and change thing really sold with them. Seeing the same old crap getting promoted and passed by Obama has really turned them off.

[Mari333]

10. one party in this country imo, called the corporation party

both dems and repubs in it.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. When has what the pundits said been "true." Pundits spin...that's what they do...

that's all they do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. There will only be two as long as we're dumb enough to keep voting for them.

As for me, I don't waste my vote for politicians who don't represent me.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[Cant trust em]

22. Bingo. nt

[2Design]

27. it would be less terrible if the election cycle was short like canada

then they wouldn't have time to spend so much money

[dkofos]

30. Looks like only one party to me.

The Corporatist party.

[Individualist]

31. We only have one - the republicans and their enablers.

[jonathon]

32. No. We have one party.

With two heads...

Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dumb.

I can't believe what people let pass for representation.

[tuvor]

33. If Canada had only two political parties, Harper wouldn't be PM.

We Canadian left-leaners have more than one choice; the right-leaners don't.

[pnorman]

34. "Two Parties"?? That may be an overestimate. More like one point two.

Having voted for Nader over Lieberman in 2000, I (and my fellow Naderites) got much FLACK on DU over that. I'm understandably puzzled at how good a press Ralph is getting lately here.

My question is this: Is this from the same "purists" who, not that far back, would positively EXPLODE over mention of Ralph's famous quote: "There's not a dimes worth of difference between........"