Marjorie Taylor Greene to resign in January

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Sure. Trump is the GOP's Nancy Pelosi.

One cult imitates another and claims to represent democracy. How lucky we are as American!

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

No, MAGA republicans pretty much have only had one red line and one deal-breaker, that being, you have to worship the ground Trump walks on... They seem to be flexible and fluid on some of the other social issues.

Whereas, the Dems will kick you out for reasons including:
"you're not anti-Assad enough and don't support intervening in Ukraine, peace out" (Gabbard)
"you don't share our views on abortion, you're gone" (Dan Lipinski)
"we don't like your vaccine stances, bye bye" (RFK Jr)
"You're not sufficiently pro-LGBT and voted with republicans one too many times, adios muchacho!" (Manchin)
"You didn't go along with the build back better plan, how dare you...hit the bricks sister!" (Sinema)


Meanwhile, on the inverse:
GOP still have several hawks who support intervening in Ukraine, several pro-choice people, a mix of pro and anti vaccine types, dozens in congress and senate who support gay marriage... none of which have been ran out of town with pitchforks for those positions.

Everything you've mentioned is correct.

But do you know what the real issue is?

About 40% of Americans identify as Democrats, and another 40% as Republicans. The country is so polarized that people often can't acknowledge when their own side makes mistakes. Instead, they tend to justify these errors by pointing out faults in the opposing side—a habit known as "whataboutism."

 

[BCP1928]

No, MAGA republicans pretty much have only had one red line and one deal-breaker, that being, you have to worship the ground Trump walks on... They seem to be flexible and fluid on some of the other social issues.

Whereas, the Dems will kick you out for reasons including:
"you're not anti-Assad enough and don't support intervening in Ukraine, peace out" (Gabbard)
"you don't share our views on abortion, you're gone" (Dan Lipinski)
"we don't like your vaccine stances, bye bye" (RFK Jr)
"You're not sufficiently pro-LGBT and voted with republicans one too many times, adios muchacho!" (Manchin)
"You didn't go along with the build back better plan, how dare you...hit the bricks sister!" (Sinema)


Meanwhile, on the inverse:
GOP still have several hawks who support intervening in Ukraine, several pro-choice people, a mix of pro and anti vaccine types, dozens in congress and senate who support gay marriage... none of which have been ran out of town with pitchforks for those positions.

Don't forget Bernie and the Squad for not being neoliberal enough. That cost them the labor swing vote.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No, MAGA republicans pretty much have only had one red line and one deal-breaker, that being, you have to worship the ground Trump walks on... They seem to be flexible and fluid on some of the other social issues.

Having defined policy positions is, IMO, a far better base for your political party than sycophancy.

Whereas, the Dems will kick you out for reasons including:
"you're not anti-Assad enough and don't support intervening in Ukraine, peace out" (Gabbard)
"you don't share our views on abortion, you're gone" (Dan Lipinski)
"we don't like your vaccine stances, bye bye" (RFK Jr)
"You're not sufficiently pro-LGBT and voted with republicans one too many times, adios muchacho!" (Manchin)
"You didn't go along with the build back better plan, how dare you...hit the bricks sister!" (Sinema)

I think you're grossly oversimplifying at least some of these. RFK and Gabbard revealed themselves to be nuts. Lipinski was extremely socially conservative - anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, voted against the ACA - and got primaried. Manchin and Sinema decided to be policy roadblocks while Democrats held a very narrow majority.

Meanwhile, on the inverse:
GOP still have several hawks who support intervening in Ukraine, several pro-choice people, a mix of pro and anti vaccine types, dozens in congress and senate who support gay marriage... none of which have been ran out of town with pitchforks for those positions.

And what happens when Trump is out of the picture? What will be the unifying factor for Republicans without their messiah?

 

[7thKeeper]

Sure. Trump is the GOP's Nancy Pelosi.

Huh... Didn't expect you to make that accusation about the Republicans.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Having defined policy positions is, IMO, a far better base for your political party than sycophancy.

You can have some "defined positions", but the rigidity to which those are enforced can be self-sabotage.

And that gets more and more risky, the more things get added to the "dealbreakers" list.


The reason why?, it's because it ignores the regional component that exists in our politics.

We have situations where, on some social issues, a democrat from the South could be more conservative than a New England republican.

Likewise, there are situations where a Republican from certain parts of California could be more socially progressive than a Democrat from Montana.

...so parties can't enforce strict "deal-breaker" buy-ins based on isolated regional bubbles in a manner that's without risk.

There's a reason why certain polls and certain state primaries were always considered extra important.

Iowa and New Hampshire used to be heavily leveraged to make some of these decisions despite being states that don't have huge populations or carry a lot of electoral votes. There were good reasons for that (that aren't just confined to "who gets to go first"). It's also because those states have something of the "sweet spot" blend that tends to factor in those dynamics I mentioned via some "retail politics"

Seeing how a candidate performs in those states can provide a lot of useful information because between the two, it covers a decent sized cross-section of those combinations I mentioned.

Democrats need to get back to that rather than just going with whatever the Californians and New Yorkers want.

And what happens when Trump is out of the picture? What will be the unifying factor for Republicans without their messiah?

Ultimately, whatever united them before he was around...

Probably low taxes, guns, and anti-regulatory attitudes like before if I had to venture a guess.

Or the new wave of economic populism could push them more toward the center on the economic stuff.

They found ways to win elections before Trump was around, they'll figure out ways to do it again after he's gone.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Everything you've mentioned is correct.

But do you know what the real issue is?

About 40% of Americans identify as Democrats, and another 40% as Republicans. The country is so polarized that people often can't acknowledge when their own side makes mistakes. Instead, they tend to justify these errors by pointing out faults in the opposing side—a habit known as "whataboutism."

Much of that could be solved with a robust and competitive 3rd party (Canada's population is much smaller than ours, and they have 3 parties that are well represented in their legislative branch)

The roadblock we have in that regard, is that the rules for things like public campaign funding and access to the debates are defined by the 2 in-power parties, and they craft the rules in such a way that it's basically a "climb the ladder, and then pull it up after so nobody else can use it" type of thing.

A healthy 3rd option would force both major parties to curb some of their excesses and actually force them to win, as opposed to purely mudslinging to make the other guy lose.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Don't forget Bernie and the Squad for not being neoliberal enough. That cost them the labor swing vote.

They made a huge mistake by not going with Bernie.

Obviously they didn't actually "run him out of the party", he's technically not in their party, but he caucuses with the Democrats as an Independent.


I touched on it my previous post. I mentioned how there's a regional component to politics

We have situations where, on some social issues, a democrat from the South could be more conservative than a New England republican.

Likewise, there are situations where a Republican from certain parts of California could be more socially progressive than a Democrat from Montana.

...so parties can't enforce strict "deal-breaker" buy-ins based on isolated regional bubbles in a manner that's without risk.

There's a reason why certain polls and certain state primaries were always considered extra important.

Iowa and New Hampshire used to be heavily leveraged to make some of these decisions despite being states that don't have huge populations or carry a lot of electoral votes. There were good reasons for that (that aren't just confined to "who gets to go first"). It's also because those states have something of the "sweet spot" blend that tends to factor in those dynamics I mentioned via some "retail politics"

Seeing how a candidate performs in those states can provide a lot of useful information because between the two, it covers a decent sized cross-section of those combinations I mentioned.


Bernie got 2nd place in Iowa and 1st place in New Hampshire. (whereas Biden got 4th place in Iowa, and dead last in New Hampshire)

That was a strong indicator for Bernie, because it defined two things.

His economic positions were still palatable with the New England types in one of the "redder" new england states, and he was hands-off enough on the social issues, that it wasn't off-putting to the types of voters in Iowa (which offers a somewhat unique blend of "kinda midwestern, kinda southern'ish"

 

[BCP1928]

Much of that could be solved with a robust and competitive 3rd party (Canada's population is much smaller than ours, and they have 3 parties that are well represented in their legislative branch)

The roadblock we have in that regard, is that the rules for things like public campaign funding and access to the debates are defined by the 2 in-power parties, and they craft the rules in such a way that it's basically a "climb the ladder, and then pull it up after so nobody else can use it" type of thing.

A healthy 3rd option would force both major parties to curb some of their excesses and actually force them to win, as opposed to purely mudslinging to make the other guy lose.

So long as it's not the DSA, right? I think your problem is that you're sore at Democrats for not living up to the monolithic cultural Marxist juggernaut you're trying to paint them as.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So long as it's not the DSA, right? I think your problem is that you're sore at Democrats for not living up to the monolithic cultural Marxist juggernaut you're trying to paint them as.

I would think it'd have to be some sort of part that was between the two existing ones, otherwise it just has the effect of vote splitting on one half of the spectrum.

What we need is a party that has the capability to siphon votes off of both parties equally so that it keeps both on their toes.

The DSA becoming a major player in federal politics would be tantamount to a permanent "Ralph Nader Effect"


I actually did like the idea of the "No Labels" thing that they tried to get off the ground, it didn't included any "charged rhetoric" that would be patently off-putting to members of either existing party, and included some familiar faces who were formerly from both teams.


As far as "being sore at the democrats", it's not because they "weren't living up to cultural Marxism"...in fact, it's a little bit of the opposite. They tried too hard to lean into that facet, and blew it, and handed Trump a second term.


You mentioned Bernie before...and I've always been somewhat generous in my takes on Bernie. Not because I agree with him on everything, but because I think embodies what I've been talking about as a winning strategy for democrats (and they basically rigged things against him at their own peril)

He taps into economic populism sentiments that seem to have pretty broad appeal, and famously stays away from polarizing social stuff. (in that one interview with Maher where Bill was trying to get him to weigh in on some of those "woke" issues, Bernie said "No, I'm not going to give an opinion on that" and Bill said "so you don't have a position on XYZ?", to which Bernie replied "That's not my area of interest, I'm interested in getting Americans health care and paid family leave and doing things that help the workers get a living wage"

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Much of that could be solved with a robust and competitive 3rd party (Canada's population is much smaller than ours, and they have 3 parties that are well represented in their legislative branch)

The roadblock we have in that regard, is that the rules for things like public campaign funding and access to the debates are defined by the 2 in-power parties, and they craft the rules in such a way that it's basically a "climb the ladder, and then pull it up after so nobody else can use it" type of thing.

A healthy 3rd option would force both major parties to curb some of their excesses and actually force them to win, as opposed to purely mudslinging to make the other guy lose.

While some suggest that establishing a third or even fourth political party could be a solution, it is evident that many proponents lack a long-term strategy or the patience necessary for such an endeavor. To effectively compete with established parties like the GOP or DNC, a new party must begin with local positions, such as city mayor or other municipal offices, gradually advancing to state-level roles—including gubernatorial races—and then securing representation in Congress or the Senate before aspiring to the presidency. Building this type of party requires significant time, strategic planning, and financial resources. Frequently, advocates for third-party solutions prefer immediate presidential campaigns without dedicating effort to foundational growth and development. For instance, Jill Stein pursued the presidency without first seeking other elected offices, prompting questions about readiness and qualifications for such a high position.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

While some suggest that establishing a third or even fourth political party could be a solution, it is evident that many proponents lack a long-term strategy or the patience necessary for such an endeavor. To effectively compete with established parties like the GOP or DNC, a new party must begin with local positions, such as city mayor or other municipal offices, gradually advancing to state-level roles—including gubernatorial races—and then securing representation in Congress or the Senate before aspiring to the presidency. Building this type of party requires significant time, strategic planning, and financial resources. Frequently, advocates for third-party solutions prefer immediate presidential campaigns without dedicating effort to foundational growth and development. For instance, Jill Stein pursued the presidency without first seeking other elected offices, prompting questions about readiness and qualifications for such a high position.

I think people tend to view that as a bit backwards... I'll explain why.

I'll use the Libertarian party as an example.

While the label/party itself hasn't had anyone in office at the federal level (apart from Justin Amash from Michigan in the House)

The two guys on the ticket were seasoned multi-term Governors. (one of which was a former US Attorney, and an Attorney General)

Two people with a combined 30+ years of experience in various positions (that they held when they were formerly with a major party) being perceived as having "less readiness" than a newcomer who just happens to be flying the flag of one of the major parties seems counterintuitive...to me at least.

Our current House of Reps has quite a few people in it who, this job was their first ever elected position.

I think we need to be careful not to conflate "RNC/DNC blessing" with readiness, as that just plays into the duopoly I mentioned before.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Much of that could be solved with a robust and competitive 3rd party (Canada's population is much smaller than ours, and they have 3 parties that are well represented in their legislative branch)

Of note, that third party is a product of the Quebecois being extremely...French...rather than any sort of natural development of a third party. It really only works because of Quebec's strong independent regional identity - there isn't anything analogous in the US.

The roadblock we have in that regard, is that the rules for things like public campaign funding and access to the debates are defined by the 2 in-power parties, and they craft the rules in such a way that it's basically a "climb the ladder, and then pull it up after so nobody else can use it" type of thing.

The largest roadblock is our voting system.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I think people tend to view that as a bit backwards... I'll explain why.

I'll use the Libertarian party as an example.

While the label/party itself hasn't had anyone in office at the federal level (apart from Justin Amash from Michigan in the House)

The two guys on the ticket were seasoned multi-term Governors. (one of which was a former US Attorney, and an Attorney General)

Two people with a combined 30+ years of experience in various positions (that they held when they were formerly with a major party) being perceived as having "less readiness" than a newcomer who just happens to be flying the flag of one of the major parties seems counterintuitive...to me at least.

Our current House of Reps has quite a few people in it who, this job was their first ever elected position.

I think we need to be careful not to conflate "RNC/DNC blessing" with readiness, as that just plays into the duopoly I mentioned before.

Advocates for third-party candidates in presidential elections sometimes view grassroots efforts as backward, failing to appreciate the workings of U.S. democratic institutions. Many mistakenly believe that electing a president who aligns with their ideology will allow for sweeping reforms and an overhaul of the system overnight. However, the structure of our government does not permit such unilateral change; the president's authority is limited. Enacting reforms beyond executive orders requires collaboration with Congress, as well as support from state and local elected officials.

I presume that the governors you are referring to within the Libertarian Party is Gary Johnson. For the sake of discussion, let us consider a scenario where he won the 2016 presidential election, with the House controlled by the DNC and the Senate by the GOP. In such a situation, his ability to accomplish significant legislative goals through Congress would have been severely limited, rendering him effectively a lame-duck president from the outset.

In my experience, those who advocate for a third-party candidate to win the White House often express impatience with the current system and seek to radically overhaul the foundations established over the past 250 years. They lack a comprehensive understanding of the American political process at the national, state, or local levels, and believe that significant reforms can occur overnight through a top-down approach. Frequently, they reference the success of third parties in other countries without recognizing that many such parties abroad have been established for over a century, built their presence through local elections, secured seats at the national level, and gradually effected changes within their respective systems.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Of note, that third party is a product of the Quebecois being extremely...French...rather than any sort of natural development of a third party. It really only works because of Quebec's strong independent regional identity - there isn't anything analogous in the US.

I was referring more to the NDP (that at one point was carrying 25 seats)

The largest roadblock is our voting system.

I'm certainly receptive to the concept of an AV/Instant Runoff type system

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure it could... if they played it right.

Disenfranchised Southern voters have switched teams before when they felt slighted by the mainstream members of their party.

There's the opportunity for a "Southern Strategy 2.0", but instead of being rooted in racism like the first one, version #2 could be rooted in economic populism.

Too bad that ain't gonna work in Margorie's district, not unless the Dems embrace the spirit of the original southern strategy -- racism.

Russia and Assad weren't the subject either, and you brought those up, so figured "undesirable foreign entanglements" was fair game.

Only because you held out Tulsi like she was some how a failure of the Dems to keep on their side. She wasn't. She acts like a foreign asset.

The Dems do have unrealistic purity standard.

Ezra Klein (who's Democratic) has referred to it as a "toxic purification process"

Klein? LOL

Oh wait you were serious. Too bad he is a joke.

Just as an example:

I can point to several Republican House reps, Governors, and Senators who are pro gay marriage.

Can you name any Democratic Reps or Senators who are against SSM?

I'm pretty sure Dan Lipinski and Joe Manchin were two of the last ones left... they ran Manchin out of town (for that and his opposition to Biden's Build Back Better plan), and primaried Lipinski and got him out of there due to his views on those types of issues.

On the flip side, when the Respect for Marriage act of 2022 came up
39 republicans voted for it


And on issues like abortion, there are pro-Choice republicans at high levels of politics... I'm pretty sure Henry Cuellar is the last remaining pro-life democrat in congress, as the rest have been pretty much purged.

The democrats seem to have a longer list of red-line "dealbreaker" issues, evidenced by them running someone like Kyrsten Sinema out of town as well.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I was referring more to the NDP (that at one point was carrying 25 seats)

Ah.

I will say that third parties do tend to work better in parliamentary systems, where the government head (Prime Minister) is chosen by the majority party or a coalition of minority parties rather than being elected by the citizens. Since there's less attachment to a party figurehead, legislators have more room to be themselves. The NDP also has significant presence at the provincial government level, unlike any of the US third parties, so they have that baseline name recognition on their side.