Plan B Forum

A new political party for moderate Americans. Good idea or bad idea?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/28/politics ... index.html

It could be interesting; personally, I would rather see a legitimate left of center party (and that's not the democrats), but a viable third party could improve things by bringing more issues into the open.

Disaster. Trumpian Reptiles will continue to support people like him. Many Democrats (sick of minority rule) will be syphoned away. Result will be majority T-Reps in Congress and WH

I could be wrong now

Meade - you were right in 1863 and you're right today.* Bad idea now and in the foreseeable future.



* (no comment as to whether you've ever been wrong in between those 2 dates)

This "new" party is simply the old pre-trumpian Republican Party; it is not being formed by a "group of Republicans and Democrats," but Old Guard never-Trump country-club Republicans (Christie Whitman, David Jolly) and Andrew Yang (not an actual Democrat). If they actually get this thing off the ground (and I have serious doubts they will) I think they'd do more harm to the Trumpublicans than to the Democrats. The Dems have a bad habit of thinking they'll win general elections by being more like Republicans; I think they misjudge what the people actually want. (Exhibit A: Unabashed progressive John Fetterman kicked the "centrist" establishment Dem's ass in the PA Senatorial primary in May.) Nobody thinks more Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema is a good idea.

ETA:

Also, Christie Whitman is probably not the marquee name needed for an effort like this. She was a middling governor of my state who fell for some gimmicky financing schemes as a band-aid fix for an underfunded government and provided frankly uninspiring leadership. As New Jersey Republicans go, she's no Millicent Fenwick.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 7:02 pm

Disaster. Trumpian Reptiles will continue to support people like him. Many Democrats (sick of minority rule) will be syphoned away. Result will be majority T-Reps in Congress and WH

I could be wrong now

No, you're correct.  The old adage of "divide and conquer" still holds true. And unfortunately, the way our political winner-takes-all system works, any support for third parties is merely assisting with the 'division' portion of the dictum.

Fascism in any form, even if it does hide behind terms like "patriotism" and catchphrases like "Make America Great Again", must never be allowed to take hold in America.  Didn't we learn anything from the 1930s in Europe?  Political forces need to be united against it to prevent its rise, or — as we saw with regard to Germany and the National Socialists in the 1940s — it will become necessary to unite physical forces against its tyranny in a far more destructive and bloody fashion.

-"BB"-

If they actually get this thing off the ground (and I have serious doubts they will) I think they'd do more harm to the Trumpublicans than to the Democrats.

Odds are that the upstart "third party" will not-start. And it could well harm the right more than the left.

One of the historical features of "new party" in the Anglo world is that when one does succeed (Labour in the UK; Whig and then Republican in the USA), an existing party dies. Of course, the "new" is rather a mutation of what was "old".

The majority of people may express support for a "third party" but they are absolutely divided in their idea of what that party should be. The problem of the centre (or the center, either one) is how to attract a sufficient number of supporters who will put up with things they do NOT support.

Since the art of compromise (along with civility and knowledge) is dying the death here in the USA, is there even a true desire of possiblity for a centre party to exist?

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:59 pm

Since the art of compromise (along with civility and knowledge) is dying the death here in the USA, is there even a true desire of possiblity for a centre party to exist?

I think not, and I think the idea of "centrism" is bad to begin with -- it's really just propaganda aimed at maintaining the status quo for those who already hold power. The reason there is so much dissatisfaction with the political duopoly we have now is that people don't feel their individual concerns are being addressed, largely because the major parties have too many competing interests internally. (In this regard, at least the Democrats ostensibly have a policy program, whereas the GOP has literally no platform except "not that" and "whatever Donald says.") The USA is long past due for a truly multi-party system operating more along the lines of other democratic parliamentary governments. Extremists could then align themselves with extremist parties and their views could get the attention they deserve, rather than holding one of two major parties hostage through their primary elections process. It's certainly not a panacea, but if we had four or five parties that needed to form coalition majorities to govern, or a system of proportional representation, I think we might actually get more responsive government.

More parties might well help. And so would a true limit on money collecting and expenditure. Wish we could ban TV ads....


As long as the people voted for must live in their own area AND be voted on only by people living in that area, then

Certainly we must avoid "here's a list of the people nominated by each party - choose one list (no substitutions)"

A form of proportional representation might work on some level, but I just can't imagine how large Congress would have to be (let alone the Amendments needed) to accommodate a couple of thousand pols from California alone

More parties
Ranked choice voting
Open primaries
Limited time for election campaigning
Campaign finance reform
Constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:58 pm

More parties
Ranked choice voting
Open primaries
Limited time for election campaigning
Campaign finance reform
Constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United

Ranked choice voting especially appeals to me

In other words: you want the end of the 1st Amendment.

I don't follow, Jarl. You think the end of Citizens United and campaign finance reform are First Amendment issues?

speech
1. the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.
2. a formal address or discourse delivered to an audience.

So I'd guess not. It would be nice to buy the SCOTUS a dictionary

Burning a flag or a bus or a house isn't speech
Giving money to someone isn't speech
Many things are not speech - such as t-shirts with Fuck on them

Yrs
Cranky old geezer

Speaking of which, I miss rubato

Citizens United is lots of fun for the GOP. A corporation is a person and can spend its stockholders' money on political issues. But the GOP leaders in Florida are pleading 'there oughta be a law' when a corporation actually speaks or writes about a political issue, such as abortion or trans rights.

Politics used to be the art of compromise. Now it is the performance of who can shout the loudest.

snailgate

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:58 pm

More parties
Ranked choice voting
Open primaries
Limited time for election campaigning
Campaign finance reform
Constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United

Non-partisan redistricting process

A new voting rights act that prescribes uniform requirements and procedures for voting (ID requirements not intended to confer partisan advantage, preferably universal mail voting, if not, more accessible polling places)

ex-khobar Andy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:21 pm

I don't follow, Jarl. You think the end of Citizens United and campaign finance reform are First Amendment issues?

Of course they are. Claiming they're not is ridiculous.