Coffee Party activists say their civic brew's a tastier choice than Tea Party's

MISSION
The Cocoa Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see chocolate in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of chocolate, but the expression of our collective will to drink hot cocoa, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as cocoa-drinkers. As voters and caffeinated volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward the addition of those little marshmallows, and hold accountable those who want to ban hot beverages altogether.

We’re so grassroots, we’re weedroots.

About Us

We are diverse — whipped cream, cinnamon, mint-flavored, soy, or straight-up old-fashioned.

We are 100% weedroots. No astroturf Obama-campaigning former New York Times employees in the Cocoa Movement, no sirree! No grassroots racist fascist redneck Neanderthal Teabaggers either! And no hyper-partisan strategists calling the shots in this movement. We are a spontaneous and collective expression of our desire to forge a culture of ludicrous propaganda that is entirely blame-oriented.

We demand a government that responds to the needs of the majority of its hot beverage drinkers as expressed by our choice of mugs or cups; NOT corporate interests as expressed by misleading coffee advertisements posing as legitimate journalism!

We want a society in which hot cocoa is treated as sacrosanct and ordinary citizens drink it out of a sense of civic duty, civic pride, and a desire to taste something delicious. The Cocoa Party is a call to action. Our Founding Fathers and Mothers gave us an enduring gift — chocolate — and we must drink it to meet the challenges that we face as a nation.

Click to expand...

promote civility and inclusiveness in political discourse, engage the government not as an enemy but as the collective will of the people, push leaders to enact the progressive change for which 52.9 percent of the country voted in 2008.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

Liberal is not a political party. The democratic party of the US is a political party, and the largest party in the world with 72 million registered voters.

Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

ptif219 said:

Really?

WikiAnswers - How many people are members of the Republican party


Historically, the last ten presidential elections have favored the Republican party with an average of 50% voting Republican, 46% voting Democrat and 4% voting for a third party or independent candidate.

Click to expand...

hazlnut said:

Wait a minute -- according to the Tea Party, the government has to do exactly what we want at moment's notice, even though we change our minds based on misinformation by TV pundits and/or don't really understand the complexity of the issue... I want my country back. Why do we have to wait 2 years for a national election-- can we have one every week??

I thought we lived in a direct democracy... Since when is this a Republic???:roll:

Click to expand...

samsmart said:

Most presidential elections favor the Republican party because of their national defense stance. That doesn't mean 50% of voters are Republicans. I'd also like to see the history and percentage of voting in congressional elections. That would provide more accurate numbers.

Click to expand...

ptif219 said:

So you are saying democrats vote for the GOP? That is hard to believe with the hate we hear on the TV and here at DP.

Click to expand...

samsmart said:

Yeah, some Democrats do vote for GOP presidents. One Republican president who was voted in with the help of Democrats was Ronald Reagan. Another reason why Republicans get voted into the presidency is because of foreign policy issues. The president has many foreign policy powers that are difficult for Congress to check against. However, for domestic policies, it is up to Congress to write the laws, which the President either signs into law or vetoes. This means it's more difficult for a president to implement domestic policy on his own, and requires the support of Congress to push his domestic legislation through.

Mostly what I'm saying is that I think you can't go just by presidential electoral numbers to determine the ideology of the United States, but should also factor into it congressional electoral numbers. I think they would be interesting to compare.

Click to expand...

ptif219 said:

Thats nice but both come from Wiki. Is one wrong. How can the largest party lose elections?

Click to expand...

texmaster said:

I doubt she even understands the history behind the name they chose.

Click to expand...

samsmart said:

Well, your stats don't list membership in the Democratic Party or the GOP. All it lists is the percentage of people who vote for Presidents. It doesn't take into account things such as a president from one party being elected but congress getting a majority in the other party. This happened with Bill Clinton getting a GOP congress, and with G.W. Bush getting a Democratic congress. Thus, going only by presidential elections can be quite misleading.

Click to expand...

ptif219 said:

It would appear people are fed up and leaving both parties to become independents.


Partisan Trends - Rasmussen Reports



In February, the number of voters not affiliated with either major party increased by half a percentage point as both Republicans and Democrats lost further ground.

The number of Democrats declined slightly for the fourth straight month. At 35.1%, the number of Democrats is down slightly from a month ago, down six percentage points from a year ago, and is at the lowest level recorded in more than seven years of monthly tracking by Rasmussen Reports. See the History of Party Trends from January 2004 to the present.

Also in February, the number of Republicans declined for the second straight month. At 32.1% the number of Republicans is down a point-and-a-half from a year ago but is in the middle of the range the party has occupied for the past two years.

The number of adults not affiliated with either major party is now up to 32.9%. That matches the all-time high recorded twice during the summer of 2007.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

I never said Liberal is a political party. I said that only 20% of American identify themselves as being Liberals.

Click to expand...

So the New York Times article describes the Coffee Party’s origin thus:

“The snowballing response made her the de facto coordinator of Coffee Party USA, with goals far loftier than its oopsy-daisy origin: promote civility and inclusiveness in political discourse, engage the government not as an enemy but as the collective will of the people, push leaders to enact the progressive change for which 52.9 percent of the country voted in 2008.”

Except the woman mentioned as starting it-Annabel Park-is not some Jane Shmo who got thrust into it by accident, she’s a career activist. A fact that is not exactly hidden either. The first results for her name on google bring up her Linkedin: Profile Not Found .

Spoiler: the only private sector work listed is “Strategy Analyst: The New York Times”

Click to expand...

the makeout hobo said:

I can't think of any especially relevant history, care to relate?

Click to expand...

samsmart said:

Yeah, I don't blame those independents for leaving the parties. And I think that is what all these "party" movements are for. Tea Parties are for conservative (but not necessarily GOP) voters while the Coffee Parties may try to be for liberal (but not necessarily Democratic) voters. Until we get electoral reform, this may be the chosest thing we get to a multi-party system. Then again, it could also devolve into a situation in which the leaders of these Tea and Coffee Parties will become the heads of these voter blocs and then basically sell those votes to whichever politician gives them the money or the influence in the amount they demand. It's important to keep these Tea Parties and Coffee Parties from becoming just another cog of corruption in politics.

Click to expand...