A 3rd party to build byte by byte?

Forums: Politics, Political Parties
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://q13.trb.com/news/la-na-unity5jun05,0,6312947.story?coll=kcpq-news-2

There's a new internet campaign to create a viable 3rd party in the U.S. for the 2008 presidential election. While it is an interesting premise, I doubt it will be successful. It hasn't worked in the past, and the new twist of using the 'net isn't really going to create the right impetus to get a 3rd party on the necessary ballots. Politicking involves more elbow grease and hands-on eyeball-to-eyeball contact, dontcha think? We aren't so far removed from community that such a scheme could really make enough difference, are we?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,922 • Replies: 26

No top replies

Quote:

Rather than drafting a statement of principles or a platform in advance, the group says it will rely on its nominees to define its policy agenda.

Why exactly would anyone want to start a new political party whose main policy is "to be determined?" Isn't that what the Democrats are for?

Quote:

Avoiding a clear stand on issues such as Iraq and energy policy could help attract Americans who share a discontent with the political system but don't agree on much else, some experts say. But others say it will be difficult to build a mass movement behind a cause no more explicit than reducing partisanship.

Starting a political party to reduce partisanship is like f***ing for virginity.

Quote:

"Maybe that's enough for the short term, but it's hard to find an example of a political party that has been organized simply around dissatisfaction," said GOP consultant Terry Nelson.

Well, there were the Anti-Masons.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:
Rather than drafting a statement of principles or a platform in advance, the group says it will rely on its nominees to define its policy agenda.

Why exactly would anyone want to start a new political party whose main policy is "to be determined?" Isn't that what the Democrats are for?

Excuse me, Joe, while I agree that is a silly way to build a party, that is just plain insulting for you to suggest that is the Democratic Party's stance. The democrats have a very clear platform with workable solutions which could be implemented to bring about change for the good of nearly everybody. I know your irreverence was meant to be humorous, but it missed its mark.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Isn't that what the Democrats are for?

Where is your sense of humor Princess? I thought this aside was funny.

I don't think this party is a good idea, nor does it have a chance.

The Democrats have represented the center pretty well with their refusal to oppose the Iraq war until the polls tanked, and their propensity to dither on many important issues.

I am hoping that Progressives will finally get a voice in a new Democratic party. My vision is to bring real ideas of reform into the mainstream and then, with public discourse, bring the middle along.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Where is your sense of humor Princess? I thought this aside was funny.

I laughed at "Starting a political party to reduce partisanship is like f***ing for virginity," and I chuckled at the anti-mason aside (although I'm not absolutely sure I *get* it Embarrassed

) But I'm a card-carrying democrat who bleeds red, white and blue, and some things just aren't funny. Saying that the democrats have yet to determine their main policy is erroneous, and, not particularly funny.

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

Excuse me, Joe, while I agree that is a silly way to build a party, that is just plain insulting for you to suggest that is the Democratic Party's stance. The democrats have a very clear platform with workable solutions which could be implemented to bring about change for the good of nearly everybody. I know your irreverence was meant to be humorous, but it missed its mark.

I have yet to see anything to convince me that the Democrats have a clear platform with workable solutions. Lots of rhetoric and posturing, to be sure, but not a lot of substance. Of course, in that respect they differ little from the Republicans, except that the GOP is obsessed with homosexuals as well.

And to learn more about the Anti-Masons, click here.

0 Replies

joefromchicago. quoting the initial aricle, wrote:

Quote:
"Maybe that's enough for the short term, but it's hard to find an example of a political party that has been organized simply around dissatisfaction," said GOP consultant Terry Nelson.

Well, there were the Anti-Masons.

There is also the example of Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists successfully branded those who opposed the Constitution as anit-Federalists. Jefferson was prominent among those who opposed the Constitution, and he organized those of like mind (and a good many who only thought they were of like mind) into a political party which was, in short order, to effectively bury the Federalists.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I have yet to see anything to convince me that the Democrats have a clear platform with workable solutions. Lots of rhetoric and posturing, to be sure, but not a lot of substance. Of course, in that respect they differ little from the Republicans, except that the GOP is obsessed with homosexuals as well.

And to learn more about the Anti-Masons, click here.

The problem w/the democrats platform and workable solutions is that nobody can prove they are workable until action is taken. Until then, whatever they say is mere rhetoric. I could link you to the agenda at the Democratic Party web page, but the substance can't be shown until there is a change in who's in power... Sad

I'd have to say I disagree w/your statement that the repubs differ little from the democrats... Their platform seems to be based upon imperialism, and keeping the power in the hands of their bunch of haves and have-mores. Sad

Time for a 3rd party again? Perhaps... But even more important, I would say it's time for every citizen to vote. What was the voter turnout last election? Not very great, if remember correctly... But setting up a 3rd party byte by byte, can you imagine the possibility for hackers? Shocked

0 Replies

People don't create political parties. Politicians do. If there is ever to be a viable third party in this country it will be started by an alliance of prominent Democrats and Republicans who are or have recently been in power and who have had it with their respective parties. If these guys could sign some of them on and then make it look like it was their idea, well, maybe they'd have a shot.

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

I'd have to say I disagree w/your statement that the repubs differ little from the democrats...

I'd disagree with that statement too, if I had actually made it. But I didn't. I said: "Of course, in that respect they differ little from the Republicans, except that the GOP is obsessed with homosexuals as well." So, in other words, I contend the Democrats and Republicans are similar in one respect, not in all respects.

princesspupule wrote:

Time for a 3rd party again? Perhaps... But even more important, I would say it's time for every citizen to vote. What was the voter turnout last election? Not very great, if remember correctly... But setting up a 3rd party byte by byte, can you imagine the possibility for hackers?

I couldn't disagree more. What this country needs is fewer people exercising their right to vote.

0 Replies

I was, of course, highly interested in the wonderful History Lessons that can be gained here on this venue especially from the erudite Mr. Setanta.

I have read some American History and was interested in Mr. Setanta's comment about the fact that : "The Federalists successfully branded those who opposed the Constitution as anit-Federalists"

I gave up searching after an hour. I was unable to find any group labelled "anit-Federalists.

And. with regard to Ms.Princess Pupule. I do agree with her as to the need for a third party. There are many in the USA who think that the two parties( Republicans and Democrats) are much too similar. I concur with that thought and will, of course, contribute to Mr. Nader's campaign in 2008.

We must not forget the great service offered to the USA by Mr. Nader in his 2000 and 2004 campaigns!

0 Replies

I do think, princesspupule, that you are right that the internet isn't (yet) able to come up with and then build a coherent third party with win-ability in the US. But I think it has shown explosive power to garner "community" in the past and may make big differences in future elections, facilitating the messages of all the usually suspect parties and possible new ones..

0 Replies

You are exactly right, Ossobuco. Look at the success of Move On. Now, if only they can gather the backing of all of the progressives in the USA, perhaps they can really begin a third party. His past successes in gathering money from the Internet shows that Howard Dean would be the finest candidate around to back a third party-
Howard Dean leads the Progressives to victory in 2008!

0 Replies

When the Christian far right felt that they wanted more influence... they didn't start their own party. Instead they put pressure on the Republicans and gave them a solid block of votes provided the Republicans give them goodies (like pro-life votes, school vouchers and gun rights).

The progressives have made the mistake of supporting the Democrats even when the Democrats don't support us. We have not done what the far right has-- and that is why the far right has more influence than the left.

I don't think that progressive voters want a new party (except as a place to hold our votes until the Dems support our issues). In the current system, the two parties are too entrenched and I want to have influence in a shorter time than it takes to start a new viable party.

I think the best strategy is for Progressives to do in the Democratic party what the right has done in the Republican party. We should make it clear that our votes are there for the Dems.... but only when they stand for progressive issues.

If I understand MoveOn... they are working to build the Progressive movement within the Democratic party. I think they get it.

0 Replies

Setting up a third party in a presidential election year is an idiotic spoiler move. The time to set up a third party is in the local and low-profile elections like 2006 not 2008. Start at the state and municipal levels

0 Replies

An idiotic spolier move to some but not to Progressive Minded Patriots and to those Greens who know that the country is slowly poisoning itself because of the fact that most of the politicians are in the pockets of big industry!!

0 Replies

You left off the Libertarians and the Reformers.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

When the Christian far right felt that they wanted more influence... they didn't start their own party. Instead they put pressure on the Republicans and gave them a solid block of votes provided the Republicans give them goodies (like pro-life votes, school vouchers and gun rights).

The progressives have made the mistake of supporting the Democrats even when the Democrats don't support us. We have not done what the far right has-- and that is why the far right has more influence than the left.

I don't think that progressive voters want a new party (except as a place to hold our votes until the Dems support our issues). In the current system, the two parties are too entrenched and I want to have influence in a shorter time than it takes to start a new viable party.

I think the best strategy is for Progressives to do in the Democratic party what the right has done in the Republican party. We should make it clear that our votes are there for the Dems.... but only when they stand for progressive issues.

If I understand MoveOn... they are working to build the Progressive movement within the Democratic party. I think they get it.[/quote

Please, please, please listen to ebrown.

Insist that the Democratic party move to the far left ...no wait, make that 'represent Progressive virtues." Let MoveOn.Com be your guide...(please...)

0 Replies

In a recent survey, about 10% of the people who voted for Bush would not do if the election were tomorrow.

I'm sure this thrills Democrats, except that the vast majority of these disenchanted voters would not have voted for John Kerry, and there is no reason to believe they fancy any other Democrat. They want "someone else."

Unfortunately or not the chances of a viable 3rd party are very slim. Ultimately, both the Republicans and the Democrats will work very hard to crush the chances of any 3rd Party when they perceive that it's candidate will draw votes from them: Dems vs Nader; Repubs vs Perot.

In any case, is there really a Third Way?

Presumably, moderation is perceived to be the Third Way. That's not much of a platform.

Until there exists a truly distinctive platform, 3rd Parties in America will be little more than spoilers, helping to defeat the party that they most closely resemble.

I don't see it every happening unless on of the parties self-destructs, and then there will still be only two parties. Remember the Whigs?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Where is your sense of humor Princess? ....

Princess obviously has a sense of humor ... to-wit:

princesspupule wrote:

The democrats have a very clear platform with workable solutions ...

See .... that's a thigh-slapper.

0 Replies

A 3rd party to build byte by byte?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know