Also fatigue with a party is only really helpful if most of the electorate is willing to vote for your or just stay home. I'd say that with Presidential elections, the current GOP can't really count on either. Much of what they push is very unpalatable to most of the electorate. Given the difference in turnout between Presidential years and midterms, it seems like a fair chunk of the electorate can and will motivate themselves to show up once every four years.
Both major parties should be thankful that the third parties suck at playing the game. Things are getting ripe enough that a third party could easily move in and claim large swaths of the electorate at the expense of both parties. I think ultimately, that would doom the GOP because they are increasingly out of step with the American public, minimum wage increases won in deep red states after all and they had to do mental gymnastics in Kentucky, to claim that Kinect wasn't part of ACA. If I were a serious third party, I would be looking at the data and then I would make some test runs in the states that will be holding state and local elections fall of 2015. Ideally to fine tune strategies, while also hopefully, getting some seats and strongholds to point to future runs. In fact, if I were a third party, I would ignore wasting resources on the Presidency in 2016, since those would be better spend trying to win seats away from the two current major parties (I think a left leaning party would be a bigger threat to the democrats, but the democrats also run republican-lite, so there are likely a a fair number of GOP held seats, which ended up that was as a result of apathy).
No third party is ever going to matter in the political system we have, nor have they ever mattered. It's just not how it works. It would be an opportune time if we lived under a multiparty parliament, but we don't. Under our system, third parties can only ever A) be irrelevant or C) hand elections over to their major party opponent. So most people don't vote for them (as they are small and can only ever screw you over), so they just stick with irrelevance. I mean, Christ, the Greens can't even get one of the 11 members of my city legislature. And I live in San Francisco, where the GOP is hopelessly weak.
If you want to move policy, you have to change one of the parties, or wait for one of the parties to collapse. Since the last collapse was over 150 years ago (and the last Democratic collapse was "never"), the smart move is to change one of them. Which is good, because they change all the time. Look at the "Tea Party". They're just the latest wave of the decades-long effort by angry hard-line white right-wingers to take over the GOP, just with good branding. But that's your model (or the progressive/New Dealer takeover of the Democrats from the 20s-60s, if you want to feel better). Don't try to destroy the system, you'll fail. Take over the system, then you can use it to your advantage. That's what the centrist wing of the Democrats is doing, because the left ceded the party to them decades ago and has largely forgotten how the system works.
You're right that the left should start local and work its way up. School boards. County party committees. City governments. But it should do it with candidates running as Democrats, because otherwise they won't accomplish anything but theater.
The two party system makes it really hard for the two top dogs to die, if they are able to adjust with the times. It by no means makes them immortal; especially, if they refuse to adapt with the times. We had the Whigs, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists as parties in the past.
I would love to see the Democratic party move to the left and stop running away from any of their leaders or policies are are deemed liberal. I don't really care if that is accomplished by the left showing up at the primaries and get their people through those or if the left opts to organize a coherent party and actually take a serious route (where they start local and move up).
I will not buy into this notion, that the two party system means that this country will be saddle with the Republican and Democratic parties until that system changes or the country ceases to exist, regardless of what either party does. Eventually, they'll have to adapt to the times or someone is going to beat one or both to the punch.
The Democrats have not been able to make such a unified compromise internally, and have repeatedly fallen victim to their own bickering. This is why they were unable to get much of the desired reforms passed when they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2008. They had a supermajority in the Senate, but still only passed one of several major pieces of legislation they had campaigned for (health care).
Just to clear something up, because I see the supermajority bandied about fairly frequently. Yes, they had one. For about 60 days of that two years, due to various circumstances. There was a recount issue in Minnesota that took over 6 months to resolve, leaving the Senate at 59-41 until April because the Republican Senator held the seat. In April, Senator Kennedy took ill, and left the Senate, 58-41 effectively, as Kennedy no longer participated. Frankin finally was confirmed the victor over 6 months into the year (after April), putting it at 59-40. So no supermajority until after Kennedy died and was replaced in September of 2009, and then the Senate adjourned in October with the Democrats having a supermajority for about 11 working days. The primary work they did, ACA and budget appropriations, happened in several short special sessions near the end of the year. And then Democrats had a supermajority for about 10 days in 2010.
About 60 days total in a 2 year timespan, most of that in special sessions, and almost a 4th of that in lame duck.
The dream: Bernie Sanders runs in 2016 and young voters elect him and show the country what they keep saying is true about what they want.
Reality: If he runs independent, Bernie probably takes enough votes from Hillary or whatever other garbage corporatist moderate democrat follows Obama that the republics win 2016.
Maybe he'll just run for the democratic nomination and lose it, but at least then we'll get an idea of how much voter support there really is for far left policy.
How common are other parties in the local races? Whilst the two parties dominate the various federal congress roles, is there some similarity to UK politics where a third party (Lib Dems) and minor parties (Greens/UKIP/BNP occasionally) quite often have members on local councils?
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
The Democrats have not been able to make such a unified compromise internally, and have repeatedly fallen victim to their own bickering. This is why they were unable to get much of the desired reforms passed when they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2008. They had a supermajority in the Senate, but still only passed one of several major pieces of legislation they had campaigned for (health care).
Just to clear something up, because I see the supermajority bandied about fairly frequently. Yes, they had one. For about 60 days of that two years, due to various circumstances. There was a recount issue in Minnesota that took over 6 months to resolve, leaving the Senate at 59-41 until April because the Republican Senator held the seat. In April, Senator Kennedy took ill, and left the Senate, 58-41 effectively, as Kennedy no longer participated. Frankin finally was confirmed the victor over 6 months into the year (after April), putting it at 59-40. So no supermajority until after Kennedy died and was replaced in September of 2009, and then the Senate adjourned in October with the Democrats having a supermajority for about 11 working days. The primary work they did, ACA and budget appropriations, happened in several short special sessions near the end of the year. And then Democrats had a supermajority for about 10 days in 2010.
About 60 days total in a 2 year timespan, most of that in special sessions, and almost a 4th of that in lame duck.
Nitpick: Coleman didn't retain the seat, he refused to let it be filled at all. His term was over in January, and he wasn't occupying the office. (Leaving all the constituent services to Klobuchar, among other things.)
The dream: Bernie Sanders runs in 2016 and young voters elect him and show the country what they keep saying is true about what they want.
Reality: If he runs independent, Bernie probably takes enough votes from Hillary or whatever other garbage corporatist moderate democrat follows Obama that the republics win 2016.
Maybe he'll just run for the democratic nomination and lose it, but at least then we'll get an idea of how much voter support there really is for far left policy.
While I'm a big fan of my congressman, I'd rather keep him there.
The dream: Bernie Sanders runs in 2016 and young voters elect him and show the country what they keep saying is true about what they want.
Reality: If he runs independent, Bernie probably takes enough votes from Hillary or whatever other garbage corporatist moderate democrat follows Obama that the republics win 2016.
Maybe he'll just run for the democratic nomination and lose it, but at least then we'll get an idea of how much voter support there really is for far left policy.
While I'm a big fan of my congressman, I'd rather keep him there.
I'd say the dream is probably Warren, anyway...
Warren is in the same boat as Sanders for me: Far more useful to the Senate.
The two party system makes it really hard for the two top dogs to die, if they are able to adjust with the times. It by no means makes them immortal; especially, if they refuse to adapt with the times. We had the Whigs, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists as parties in the past.
I would love to see the Democratic party move to the left and stop running away from any of their leaders or policies are are deemed liberal. I don't really care if that is accomplished by the left showing up at the primaries and get their people through those or if the left opts to organize a coherent party and actually take a serious route (where they start local and move up).
I will not buy into this notion, that the two party system means that this country will be saddle with the Republican and Democratic parties until that system changes or the country ceases to exist, regardless of what either party does. Eventually, they'll have to adapt to the times or someone is going to beat one or both to the punch.
modern leftism doesn't really work at a local level, and only in a really limited way at the state level. it's really oriented around the idea of top-down central control of large-scale programs, and scales down poorly.
the better small-bore leftist programs are basically good-governance groups (conservatives used to refer to them dismissively as "goo-goos") that push government accessibility and transparency and accountability measures etc, but they've really receded as leftist politics have become more about jockeying interest groups and identity politics.
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I really wish a frozen piss ball would fall off an airplane and knock some since into him.
You know, at terminal velocity.
[nitpick about the definition of terminal velocity]
The really scary thing to me is that I don't think he's actually this stupid. I think he knows the people who support him are and he's just cashing checks.
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
A couple have mattered (Republican and Progressive, notably).
Republicans were never really a third party. They did exist simultaneously with Whigs, yes, but were largely a coalition. The early Republican Party was formed not really as a party identity, but as a movement and a driver for change. One anecdote I remember from the Lincoln biography Team of Rivals: in New York's 1855 state party meetings, the Whigs were sharing a building with a group of former Whigs who were discussing the creation of a New York chapter of the brand new Republican Party. A lot of powerful Whigs started asking Seward (powerful Whig, mostly controlled the party in New York) which door they should enter. He responded that it didn't matter what door they entered, since they would all leave through the same. And, unsurprisingly, after the conventions started the Republicans chilled out for a few minutes before the Whigs started streaming in, having voted to dissolve the party in the state. The NYS Republican Committee was formed on the bones of the NYS Whig Committee. While that's the only state I know of where the transition occurred exactly like that, other states were similar enough. The GOP was less a new party, more a rebranding and reinvigoration of the Whigs as they changed their political focus and absorbed a lot of third parties like the Anti-Masons to present a united front against Democrats.
With the Progressives, they didn't fill that much of a role different from modern independent and third party candidates. They did have some measure of success, but having a handful of House candidates who can't even make a swing vote doesn't make a big difference. It doesn't help your case that they were basically just a pissed off faction of the GOP that ended up rejoining a few years later. They were successful enough that they did matter in the sense that they altered the political dynamic, but Morat's point was more that third party candidates don't get elected, they just make it harder for whatever party's vote they're splitting. In the case of Progressives, that's exactly right.
"Never" is a long time to make political prediction, but I think it's far more likely we'll see the voting system change before we see a real three party dynamic.
Then you're not talking about an independent party, you're talking about movements within the two majors. That's a different story and it's exactly what Morat was suggesting as the alternative to third parties.
A couple have mattered (Republican and Progressive, notably).
Republicans were never really a third party. They did exist simultaneously with Whigs, yes, but were largely a coalition. The early Republican Party was formed not really as a party identity, but as a movement and a driver for change. One anecdote I remember from the Lincoln biography Team of Rivals: in New York's 1855 state party meetings, the Whigs were sharing a building with a group of former Whigs who were discussing the creation of a New York chapter of the brand new Republican Party. A lot of powerful Whigs started asking Seward (powerful Whig, mostly controlled the party in New York) which door they should enter. He responded that it didn't matter what door they entered, since they would all leave through the same. And, unsurprisingly, after the conventions started the Republicans chilled out for a few minutes before the Whigs started streaming in, having voted to dissolve the party in the state. The NYS Republican Committee was formed on the bones of the NYS Whig Committee. While that's the only state I know of where the transition occurred exactly like that, other states were similar enough. The GOP was less a new party, more a rebranding and reinvigoration of the Whigs as they changed their political focus and absorbed a lot of third parties like the Anti-Masons to present a united front against Democrats.
With the Progressives, they didn't fill that much of a role different from modern independent and third party candidates. They did have some measure of success, but having a handful of House candidates who can't even make a swing vote doesn't make a big difference. It doesn't help your case that they were basically just a pissed off faction of the GOP that ended up rejoining a few years later. They were successful enough that they did matter in the sense that they altered the political dynamic, but Morat's point was more that third party candidates don't get elected, they just make it harder for whatever party's vote they're splitting. In the case of Progressives, that's exactly right.
"Never" is a long time to make political prediction, but I think it's far more likely we'll see the voting system change before we see a real three party dynamic.
I think a Democratic majority is a pretty big "if" we lose Nevada in 2016. It means Democrats will need to pick up five seats (six if Democrats don't win the White House). There are still clear paths for those five (probably Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio) but if it's going poorly enough that Reid loses, then Republicans are probably having a pretty good night.
I'd rather just see the GOP decide to toss out the filibuster and then Dems retake the Senate in 2016 without bringing the filibuster back. I doubt the GOP would do that, but it's a much more realistic fantasy than a Reidless Senate Majority that can pass an even slightly progressive agenda against the GOP majority. Especially since the GOP will still control the House, so we're only really talking about things like appointments anyway.
With regard to the discussion about third parties, here in Maine there is an effort to get instant runoff/ranked choice voting on the ballot next year (which will very likely succeed if the current numbers are any indication). If it passes (which is significantly less likely, but not impossible) it would apply to the governor, our federal representatives and senators, and the state legislature. The fact that our past two gubernatorial elections were three way races between a center-left Democrat, a centrist independent, and a hard-fucking-core right wing Republican (the infamous Paul LePage) which both resulted in the crazy guy winning has convinced many people that changing the electoral system is necessary.
I think the general feeling of disgust that Americans have toward their government makes this the perfect time to attempt systemic changes of this sort. I collected IRV signatures for hours on election day, and when I framed the issue as a way to break the two party system, the vast majority of people I spoke with were supportive and eager to sign. This would probably be less true outside of Maine, where people like to think of themselves as "independent," but I could see such an initiative being possible in Vermont, and perhaps some other states.
First past the post is a stupid system. Strategic voting sucks, and severely undermines the "representative" part of "representative democracy." IRV would be far from a panacea to the political problems of our nation, but at the very least a multi-party democracy would be less prone to gridlock and polarization.
The Democrats have not been able to make such a unified compromise internally, and have repeatedly fallen victim to their own bickering. This is why they were unable to get much of the desired reforms passed when they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2008. They had a supermajority in the Senate, but still only passed one of several major pieces of legislation they had campaigned for (health care).
Just to clear something up, because I see the supermajority bandied about fairly frequently. Yes, they had one. For about 60 days of that two years, due to various circumstances. There was a recount issue in Minnesota that took over 6 months to resolve, leaving the Senate at 59-41 until April because the Republican Senator held the seat. In April, Senator Kennedy took ill, and left the Senate, 58-41 effectively, as Kennedy no longer participated. Frankin finally was confirmed the victor over 6 months into the year (after April), putting it at 59-40. So no supermajority until after Kennedy died and was replaced in September of 2009, and then the Senate adjourned in October with the Democrats having a supermajority for about 11 working days. The primary work they did, ACA and budget appropriations, happened in several short special sessions near the end of the year. And then Democrats had a supermajority for about 10 days in 2010.
About 60 days total in a 2 year timespan, most of that in special sessions, and almost a 4th of that in lame duck.
My bad, I was under the impression that they held it for around nine months.
A couple have mattered (Republican and Progressive, notably).
Republicans were never really a third party. They did exist simultaneously with Whigs, yes, but were largely a coalition. The early Republican Party was formed not really as a party identity, but as a movement and a driver for change. One anecdote I remember from the Lincoln biography Team of Rivals: in New York's 1855 state party meetings, the Whigs were sharing a building with a group of former Whigs who were discussing the creation of a New York chapter of the brand new Republican Party. A lot of powerful Whigs started asking Seward (powerful Whig, mostly controlled the party in New York) which door they should enter. He responded that it didn't matter what door they entered, since they would all leave through the same. And, unsurprisingly, after the conventions started the Republicans chilled out for a few minutes before the Whigs started streaming in, having voted to dissolve the party in the state. The NYS Republican Committee was formed on the bones of the NYS Whig Committee. While that's the only state I know of where the transition occurred exactly like that, other states were similar enough. The GOP was less a new party, more a rebranding and reinvigoration of the Whigs as they changed their political focus and absorbed a lot of third parties like the Anti-Masons to present a united front against Democrats.
With the Progressives, they didn't fill that much of a role different from modern independent and third party candidates. They did have some measure of success, but having a handful of House candidates who can't even make a swing vote doesn't make a big difference. It doesn't help your case that they were basically just a pissed off faction of the GOP that ended up rejoining a few years later. They were successful enough that they did matter in the sense that they altered the political dynamic, but Morat's point was more that third party candidates don't get elected, they just make it harder for whatever party's vote they're splitting. In the case of Progressives, that's exactly right.
"Never" is a long time to make political prediction, but I think it's far more likely we'll see the voting system change before we see a real three party dynamic.
Right. The Republicans formed as the Whigs fell apart, because the Whigs couldn't agree on the question of slavery. Northern Whigs, Know-Nothings, and (some) anti-slavery Democrats joined the GOP (with some border-staters going Constitutional Union briefly to continue to punt on slavery). Pro-slavery Whigs had a couple of failed elections as the American Party before being absorbed into the Democrats. I mean, if lefties want to wait for the Democratic Party to fall apart until they get anything done, I can't stop them. But if they have enough oomph to become the new dominant second party then, they'll have enough power to take over the Democrats a hell of a lot sooner than that. And then they can move policy without waiting on the world to change, as that stunningly terrible song argued.
As for the Progressives, the peak of the party was inadvertently making Wilson president. But the peak of the movement was probably the New Deal. The 1912 Progressive platform called for, e.g. social insurance, a securities commission, an eight hour workday, ban on child labor, farm relief, minimum wage, and the unification of federal public health departments. All were accomplished under FDR. Most of the remainder, such as women's suffrage, primary elections, direct election of senators, national income tax, a Department of Labor, federal pensions, etc. were done under Wilson. And yes, the progressives were very important to that happening, but Progressive Party was not. It's in reverse order to how the environmentalists got a lot done in the 1970s when they were powerful in Congress (including overriding Nixon's veto of the Clean Water Act!), but the Green Party's biggest accomplishment to date was putting George W. Bush in the White House.
If we had a multiparty parliamentary system with some sort of proportional voting system, sure, go nuts for small parties. Form coalition governments, fine. But in those places, the party leadership decides who gets to be a candidate, and they often decide how MPs vote (with conscience votes as the occasional exception). So if a party resists doing what you want, you pretty much have to form an alternative. But in the US, you can just run in a primary, and if you win, you are the official Democratic or Republican candidate for that office. It doesn't matter if the party leadership doesn't like you, they have to deal with you. And if you get elected, you can pretty much vote how you like. The only exception I can think of concerned a congresscritter who voted for the other party's candidate for Speaker of the House. And because the parties are so decentralized, if you want to move policy, you move the parties. If you've got the votes and organization, the leadership can't stop you (and pretty soon you'll be the leadership).
Morat242 on
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
modern leftism doesn't really work at a local level, and only in a really limited way at the state level. it's really oriented around the idea of top-down central control of large-scale programs, and scales down poorly.
the better small-bore leftist programs are basically good-governance groups (conservatives used to refer to them dismissively as "goo-goos") that push government accessibility and transparency and accountability measures etc, but they've really receded as leftist politics have become more about jockeying interest groups and identity politics.
Yep yep yep! The American Left has receded way, way back into identity politics, helped by a slew of new professors and majors (think sociology/gender studies) and has basically surrendered to the Right on everything else. When was the last time a college economics course taught that unions were beneficial to the economy? When was the last time the "free trade is always beneficial" way of thought was fought against? When was the last time environmentalism came up in the news, as opposed to "buying organic" and "animal rights"?
The Left's foreign policy is mainly composed of howling "AMERICA IS IMPERIALIST" whenever foreigners complain. It has no economic policy, no grand ideas, no coherent policy on anything (except gay marriage and marijuana legalization) and mincingly allowed threatened Democrats to hold back policy rather than dragging them into line and making sure they vote the party line.
And last but not least, the Left has nothing, nothing like this, at least not that I know of. Leadership courses, help winning local/state elections, debating tactics, bringing free workshops to campuses to help conservative student organizations, all the while purity-testing the hell out of the people who sign up for it.
modern leftism doesn't really work at a local level, and only in a really limited way at the state level. it's really oriented around the idea of top-down central control of large-scale programs, and scales down poorly.
the better small-bore leftist programs are basically good-governance groups (conservatives used to refer to them dismissively as "goo-goos") that push government accessibility and transparency and accountability measures etc, but they've really receded as leftist politics have become more about jockeying interest groups and identity politics.
Yep yep yep! The American Left has receded way, way back into identity politics, helped by a slew of new professors and majors (think sociology/gender studies) and has basically surrendered to the Right on everything else. When was the last time a college economics course taught that unions were beneficial to the economy? When was the last time the "free trade is always beneficial" way of thought was fought against? When was the last time environmentalism came up in the news, as opposed to "buying organic" and "animal rights"?
The Left's foreign policy is mainly composed of howling "AMERICA IS IMPERIALIST" whenever foreigners complain. It has no economic policy, no grand ideas, no coherent policy on anything (except gay marriage and marijuana legalization) and mincingly allowed threatened Democrats to hold back policy rather than dragging them into line and making sure they vote the party line.
And last but not least, the Left has nothing, nothing like this, at least not that I know of. Leadership courses, help winning local/state elections, debating tactics, bringing free workshops to campuses to help conservative student organizations, all the while purity-testing the hell out of the people who sign up for it.
And yet two parties who aren't just bodies marching in lockstep to their leadership seems healthier for the country than two who are.
Yeah, I would love to have preferential voting. I think run-offs are pretty dumb, for the same reason that jungle primaries are fucking stupid because you can pretty much end up with the side having the least popular ideas winning because they were the least divided, which is in some ways worse than FPTP in places like VA (you can count on at least getting a Democrat if they choose to contest a seat in a blue or purple district, instead of CA crazy jungle primary where you could end up with 2 republicans during the general because only two ran during the jungle primary, while the left had 5 different candidates).
I fully agree that it would be quicker if Progressives showed the fuck up in all elections and wrested control of the Democratic Party from it's currently inept bland republican lite leaders during the primaries. The left's thing is suppose to be grassroots, but that doesn't work well if the left leaning voters choose to not show up, even when they do have the opportunity (let's be honest, there are a ton that don't vote and don't have one damn good reason for that). Though I do wonder if they are going to need to do some stuff on their own because it really does feel like the Democratic party is conceding way too many seats. I feel like someone should take a look at all those left leaning referendums, that did well in red states and see how many places they could contest if they ran hard on that kind of stuff.
I mean it's really frustrating because large parts of the party and base, will not admit they are part of the problem here. The party rolls over too easily, doesn't get a consistent message and doesn't focus on the stuff that sells to the base, instead they try to be republican light and no one wants a radical centrist. At the same time, too much of the base is so self-enamored with their own ideals, that they let perfect be the enemy of better and don't show up when they don't get the best of the best candidate.
modern leftism doesn't really work at a local level, and only in a really limited way at the state level. it's really oriented around the idea of top-down central control of large-scale programs, and scales down poorly.
the better small-bore leftist programs are basically good-governance groups (conservatives used to refer to them dismissively as "goo-goos") that push government accessibility and transparency and accountability measures etc, but they've really receded as leftist politics have become more about jockeying interest groups and identity politics.
Yep yep yep! The American Left has receded way, way back into identity politics, helped by a slew of new professors and majors (think sociology/gender studies) and has basically surrendered to the Right on everything else. When was the last time a college economics course taught that unions were beneficial to the economy? When was the last time the "free trade is always beneficial" way of thought was fought against? When was the last time environmentalism came up in the news, as opposed to "buying organic" and "animal rights"?
The Left's foreign policy is mainly composed of howling "AMERICA IS IMPERIALIST" whenever foreigners complain. It has no economic policy, no grand ideas, no coherent policy on anything (except gay marriage and marijuana legalization) and mincingly allowed threatened Democrats to hold back policy rather than dragging them into line and making sure they vote the party line.
And last but not least, the Left has nothing, nothing like this, at least not that I know of. Leadership courses, help winning local/state elections, debating tactics, bringing free workshops to campuses to help conservative student organizations, all the while purity-testing the hell out of the people who sign up for it.
And yet two parties who aren't just bodies marching in lockstep to their leadership seems healthier for the country than two who are.
But, see, the Tea Party/Moral Majority/whatever hasn't been marching in lockstep with the leadership. They're starting to now, because the GOP leadership is terrified of a Tea Party primary challenger or has already been replaced. But once upon a time, they were outsiders running an insurgency.
I fully agree that it would be quicker if Progressives showed the fuck up in all elections and wrested control of the Democratic Party from it's currently inept bland republican lite leaders during the primaries. The left's thing is suppose to be grassroots, but that doesn't work well if the left leaning voters choose to not show up, even when they do have the opportunity (let's be honest, there are a ton that don't vote and don't have one damn good reason for that). Though I do wonder if they are going to need to do some stuff on their own because it really does feel like the Democratic party is conceding way too many seats. I feel like someone should take a look at all those left leaning referendums, that did well in red states and see how many places they could contest if they ran hard on that kind of stuff.
I mean it's really frustrating because large parts of the party and base, will not admit they are part of the problem here. The party rolls over too easily, doesn't get a consistent message and doesn't focus on the stuff that sells to the base, instead they try to be republican light and no one wants a radical centrist. At the same time, too much of the base is so self-enamored with their own ideals, that they let perfect be the enemy of better and don't show up when they don't get the best of the best candidate.
Too few people understand what the general election is. It is not when you win or lose. It is when you consolidate your gains or cut your losses. Winning and losing happens the rest of the time. You organize, you build alliances with other organizations, you run candidates in the primary. And if you win, then you take your preferred candidates into the general election with enough behind them that you can move policy when they're in office (and, of course, you keep their feet to the fucking fire to make sure they stay in line). If you haven't done enough, then you hold your nose and vote for the centrist Democrat because at least they'll be better. Then you try harder for the next time. If you don't like the choices you're given, you change them.
The party is centrist because the left has conceded the struggle for the party, largely without realizing it. That's why it's so milquetoast. The centrists are the base, because the base comprises the people who show up, vote, and get involved in running the party. The left generally doesn't do that, so they're not the base. If they want that to change, they have to take over the party. The process is long, frustrating, and tedious, but it can be done.
Waiting for power to be dropped into our laps because someday nice people will give it to us is like hoping your life will get better because any day now you'll get a letter from Hogwarts and go off to become a wizard.
Trust me, I totally get this. It's why I just find the current state of affairs so damn frustrating. I show up to the elections, but I'm only one vote and I don't really have much I can contribute outside of that.
Republicans (at least, the congressional level) have clear policy goals that have been consistent for a decade plus: laissez faire economic policy with low taxes on established wealth, a minimal social safety net and conservative christian social policy. It's their messaging that's the mismash of bogeymen.
Except when they aren't (aside from low taxes on the rich, that is their lodestar) or when they conflict. Bush the Lesser created a new entitlement with Medicare Part D (although with the massive donut hole because budgetary rules matter more than people, though it'll be fixed come 2020 thanks to the ACA) and drastically expanded Federal influence on K-12 schooling with NCLB. They aren't laissez faire economically, they just dislike certain regulations that harm industries that they favor (not that Democrats are saints here) particularly environmental laws. But if there's a way to use regulations to improve the relative power of management or certain industries they're all for it. The fight between Party elders and the 'Tea Party' about the Ex-Im bank illustrates that to one extent or another. Same with 'tort reform' or complaining about cutting Sallie Mae out of Federally guaranteed profits on education loans. Social issues I'll mostly concede, but at this point those are mostly tribal, unfortunately, and the 'liberal' and 'conservative' take on anything is known due to that regardless of if it makes any sense.
Do whatever people like the Koch brothers tell them to do so they can maintain their pillars of power and prosperity, because if they do not then all that hot Koch money gets thrown all over some willing other persons face
Tea Party is just the end result of 15+ years of republicans appealing to fear and stupidity to get votes.
Posts
If you want to move policy, you have to change one of the parties, or wait for one of the parties to collapse. Since the last collapse was over 150 years ago (and the last Democratic collapse was "never"), the smart move is to change one of them. Which is good, because they change all the time. Look at the "Tea Party". They're just the latest wave of the decades-long effort by angry hard-line white right-wingers to take over the GOP, just with good branding. But that's your model (or the progressive/New Dealer takeover of the Democrats from the 20s-60s, if you want to feel better). Don't try to destroy the system, you'll fail. Take over the system, then you can use it to your advantage. That's what the centrist wing of the Democrats is doing, because the left ceded the party to them decades ago and has largely forgotten how the system works.
You're right that the left should start local and work its way up. School boards. County party committees. City governments. But it should do it with candidates running as Democrats, because otherwise they won't accomplish anything but theater.
I would love to see the Democratic party move to the left and stop running away from any of their leaders or policies are are deemed liberal. I don't really care if that is accomplished by the left showing up at the primaries and get their people through those or if the left opts to organize a coherent party and actually take a serious route (where they start local and move up).
I will not buy into this notion, that the two party system means that this country will be saddle with the Republican and Democratic parties until that system changes or the country ceases to exist, regardless of what either party does. Eventually, they'll have to adapt to the times or someone is going to beat one or both to the punch.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Just to clear something up, because I see the supermajority bandied about fairly frequently. Yes, they had one. For about 60 days of that two years, due to various circumstances. There was a recount issue in Minnesota that took over 6 months to resolve, leaving the Senate at 59-41 until April because the Republican Senator held the seat. In April, Senator Kennedy took ill, and left the Senate, 58-41 effectively, as Kennedy no longer participated. Frankin finally was confirmed the victor over 6 months into the year (after April), putting it at 59-40. So no supermajority until after Kennedy died and was replaced in September of 2009, and then the Senate adjourned in October with the Democrats having a supermajority for about 11 working days. The primary work they did, ACA and budget appropriations, happened in several short special sessions near the end of the year. And then Democrats had a supermajority for about 10 days in 2010.
About 60 days total in a 2 year timespan, most of that in special sessions, and almost a 4th of that in lame duck.
Reality: If he runs independent, Bernie probably takes enough votes from Hillary or whatever other garbage corporatist moderate democrat follows Obama that the republics win 2016.
Maybe he'll just run for the democratic nomination and lose it, but at least then we'll get an idea of how much voter support there really is for far left policy.
what a fucking tool that guy is
FWIW
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Nitpick: Coleman didn't retain the seat, he refused to let it be filled at all. His term was over in January, and he wasn't occupying the office. (Leaving all the constituent services to Klobuchar, among other things.)
While I'm a big fan of my congressman, I'd rather keep him there.
I'd say the dream is probably Warren, anyway...
Warren is in the same boat as Sanders for me: Far more useful to the Senate.
Hahahaha
Nevermind
Make Bernie Sanders king for life
King Bernie I
I really wish a frozen piss ball would fall off an airplane and knock some since into him.
You know, at terminal velocity.
modern leftism doesn't really work at a local level, and only in a really limited way at the state level. it's really oriented around the idea of top-down central control of large-scale programs, and scales down poorly.
the better small-bore leftist programs are basically good-governance groups (conservatives used to refer to them dismissively as "goo-goos") that push government accessibility and transparency and accountability measures etc, but they've really receded as leftist politics have become more about jockeying interest groups and identity politics.
[nitpick about the definition of terminal velocity]
The really scary thing to me is that I don't think he's actually this stupid. I think he knows the people who support him are and he's just cashing checks.
the central dynamic of his speakership was protecting vulnerable democrats from making votes unpopular in their district.
like, this is what defined the 110th-113th congress: democrats refusing to bring to the floor issues unpopular in missouri or montana.
what a fucker. i want him to lose his next race just on principle.
Republicans were never really a third party. They did exist simultaneously with Whigs, yes, but were largely a coalition. The early Republican Party was formed not really as a party identity, but as a movement and a driver for change. One anecdote I remember from the Lincoln biography Team of Rivals: in New York's 1855 state party meetings, the Whigs were sharing a building with a group of former Whigs who were discussing the creation of a New York chapter of the brand new Republican Party. A lot of powerful Whigs started asking Seward (powerful Whig, mostly controlled the party in New York) which door they should enter. He responded that it didn't matter what door they entered, since they would all leave through the same. And, unsurprisingly, after the conventions started the Republicans chilled out for a few minutes before the Whigs started streaming in, having voted to dissolve the party in the state. The NYS Republican Committee was formed on the bones of the NYS Whig Committee. While that's the only state I know of where the transition occurred exactly like that, other states were similar enough. The GOP was less a new party, more a rebranding and reinvigoration of the Whigs as they changed their political focus and absorbed a lot of third parties like the Anti-Masons to present a united front against Democrats.
With the Progressives, they didn't fill that much of a role different from modern independent and third party candidates. They did have some measure of success, but having a handful of House candidates who can't even make a swing vote doesn't make a big difference. It doesn't help your case that they were basically just a pissed off faction of the GOP that ended up rejoining a few years later. They were successful enough that they did matter in the sense that they altered the political dynamic, but Morat's point was more that third party candidates don't get elected, they just make it harder for whatever party's vote they're splitting. In the case of Progressives, that's exactly right.
"Never" is a long time to make political prediction, but I think it's far more likely we'll see the voting system change before we see a real three party dynamic.
Do you really want Senator Sharron Angle?
Yeah because trying to protect those Dems WORKED SO WELL
If the chamber swings back yes, I'd rather have Majority Leader Durbin and Senator Sharon Angle
I'd rather just see the GOP decide to toss out the filibuster and then Dems retake the Senate in 2016 without bringing the filibuster back. I doubt the GOP would do that, but it's a much more realistic fantasy than a Reidless Senate Majority that can pass an even slightly progressive agenda against the GOP majority. Especially since the GOP will still control the House, so we're only really talking about things like appointments anyway.
I mean, Steve Israel did!
I think the general feeling of disgust that Americans have toward their government makes this the perfect time to attempt systemic changes of this sort. I collected IRV signatures for hours on election day, and when I framed the issue as a way to break the two party system, the vast majority of people I spoke with were supportive and eager to sign. This would probably be less true outside of Maine, where people like to think of themselves as "independent," but I could see such an initiative being possible in Vermont, and perhaps some other states.
First past the post is a stupid system. Strategic voting sucks, and severely undermines the "representative" part of "representative democracy." IRV would be far from a panacea to the political problems of our nation, but at the very least a multi-party democracy would be less prone to gridlock and polarization.
He did?
Thank fucking god.
My bad, I was under the impression that they held it for around nine months.
As for the Progressives, the peak of the party was inadvertently making Wilson president. But the peak of the movement was probably the New Deal. The 1912 Progressive platform called for, e.g. social insurance, a securities commission, an eight hour workday, ban on child labor, farm relief, minimum wage, and the unification of federal public health departments. All were accomplished under FDR. Most of the remainder, such as women's suffrage, primary elections, direct election of senators, national income tax, a Department of Labor, federal pensions, etc. were done under Wilson. And yes, the progressives were very important to that happening, but Progressive Party was not. It's in reverse order to how the environmentalists got a lot done in the 1970s when they were powerful in Congress (including overriding Nixon's veto of the Clean Water Act!), but the Green Party's biggest accomplishment to date was putting George W. Bush in the White House.
If we had a multiparty parliamentary system with some sort of proportional voting system, sure, go nuts for small parties. Form coalition governments, fine. But in those places, the party leadership decides who gets to be a candidate, and they often decide how MPs vote (with conscience votes as the occasional exception). So if a party resists doing what you want, you pretty much have to form an alternative. But in the US, you can just run in a primary, and if you win, you are the official Democratic or Republican candidate for that office. It doesn't matter if the party leadership doesn't like you, they have to deal with you. And if you get elected, you can pretty much vote how you like. The only exception I can think of concerned a congresscritter who voted for the other party's candidate for Speaker of the House. And because the parties are so decentralized, if you want to move policy, you move the parties. If you've got the votes and organization, the leadership can't stop you (and pretty soon you'll be the leadership).
Yep yep yep! The American Left has receded way, way back into identity politics, helped by a slew of new professors and majors (think sociology/gender studies) and has basically surrendered to the Right on everything else. When was the last time a college economics course taught that unions were beneficial to the economy? When was the last time the "free trade is always beneficial" way of thought was fought against? When was the last time environmentalism came up in the news, as opposed to "buying organic" and "animal rights"?
The Left's foreign policy is mainly composed of howling "AMERICA IS IMPERIALIST" whenever foreigners complain. It has no economic policy, no grand ideas, no coherent policy on anything (except gay marriage and marijuana legalization) and mincingly allowed threatened Democrats to hold back policy rather than dragging them into line and making sure they vote the party line.
And last but not least, the Left has nothing, nothing like this, at least not that I know of. Leadership courses, help winning local/state elections, debating tactics, bringing free workshops to campuses to help conservative student organizations, all the while purity-testing the hell out of the people who sign up for it.
And yet two parties who aren't just bodies marching in lockstep to their leadership seems healthier for the country than two who are.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I fully agree that it would be quicker if Progressives showed the fuck up in all elections and wrested control of the Democratic Party from it's currently inept bland republican lite leaders during the primaries. The left's thing is suppose to be grassroots, but that doesn't work well if the left leaning voters choose to not show up, even when they do have the opportunity (let's be honest, there are a ton that don't vote and don't have one damn good reason for that). Though I do wonder if they are going to need to do some stuff on their own because it really does feel like the Democratic party is conceding way too many seats. I feel like someone should take a look at all those left leaning referendums, that did well in red states and see how many places they could contest if they ran hard on that kind of stuff.
I mean it's really frustrating because large parts of the party and base, will not admit they are part of the problem here. The party rolls over too easily, doesn't get a consistent message and doesn't focus on the stuff that sells to the base, instead they try to be republican light and no one wants a radical centrist. At the same time, too much of the base is so self-enamored with their own ideals, that they let perfect be the enemy of better and don't show up when they don't get the best of the best candidate.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Too few people understand what the general election is. It is not when you win or lose. It is when you consolidate your gains or cut your losses. Winning and losing happens the rest of the time. You organize, you build alliances with other organizations, you run candidates in the primary. And if you win, then you take your preferred candidates into the general election with enough behind them that you can move policy when they're in office (and, of course, you keep their feet to the fucking fire to make sure they stay in line). If you haven't done enough, then you hold your nose and vote for the centrist Democrat because at least they'll be better. Then you try harder for the next time. If you don't like the choices you're given, you change them.
The party is centrist because the left has conceded the struggle for the party, largely without realizing it. That's why it's so milquetoast. The centrists are the base, because the base comprises the people who show up, vote, and get involved in running the party. The left generally doesn't do that, so they're not the base. If they want that to change, they have to take over the party. The process is long, frustrating, and tedious, but it can be done.
Waiting for power to be dropped into our laps because someday nice people will give it to us is like hoping your life will get better because any day now you'll get a letter from Hogwarts and go off to become a wizard.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Except when they aren't (aside from low taxes on the rich, that is their lodestar) or when they conflict. Bush the Lesser created a new entitlement with Medicare Part D (although with the massive donut hole because budgetary rules matter more than people, though it'll be fixed come 2020 thanks to the ACA) and drastically expanded Federal influence on K-12 schooling with NCLB. They aren't laissez faire economically, they just dislike certain regulations that harm industries that they favor (not that Democrats are saints here) particularly environmental laws. But if there's a way to use regulations to improve the relative power of management or certain industries they're all for it. The fight between Party elders and the 'Tea Party' about the Ex-Im bank illustrates that to one extent or another. Same with 'tort reform' or complaining about cutting Sallie Mae out of Federally guaranteed profits on education loans. Social issues I'll mostly concede, but at this point those are mostly tribal, unfortunately, and the 'liberal' and 'conservative' take on anything is known due to that regardless of if it makes any sense.
Do whatever people like the Koch brothers tell them to do so they can maintain their pillars of power and prosperity, because if they do not then all that hot Koch money gets thrown all over some willing other persons face
Tea Party is just the end result of 15+ years of republicans appealing to fear and stupidity to get votes.