• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems: Would you like a primary in 2012?

Dems: Do you want a primary in 2012?


  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
Maybe an Obama who isn't worried about re-election can do something besides sucking Boehner's... well... you know...
 
Maybe an Obama who isn't worried about re-election can do something besides sucking Boehner's... well... you know...

Yeah, he'll be a changed man. :roll:
 
I'm not a registered Dem, but I would consider voting Democrat if they had someone other than Obama running.

Yeah, mean too. I'd consider it. ;)
 
I want a viable third party.

That's the best option of all... A lot of European countries are seeing their 3rd parties gain more power. I wish American could manage more than two parties.
 
Well, to be clear, the Democrats are going to have a primary. It's just that, right now, he's the presumptive Democratic candidate, and with good reason.

I expect that we will still see some Democratic presidential nominees who will run only to get their name out by the media for when they run in 2016.

I'm actually very interested to see which other Democrats will throw their hat in the ring.

I can't imagine who those dems would be though... I kind of Hillary runs again.
 
I've been reading into this "Americans Elect" movement a bit, it's interesting. Wonder if anyone else has anything interesting to say about this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24friedman.html?_r=1

That is absolutely amazing. I have rarely been more on board with a political movement before. If this system becomes a reality in the political voting population, this could destroy both the Republicans and the Democrats. And I sincerely hope it does- that destruction would be decades overdue.
 
I've been reading into this "Americans Elect" movement a bit, it's interesting. Wonder if anyone else has anything interesting to say about this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24friedman.html?_r=1

It's the standard "Next election will be the year of the third party" crap that the media peddles every presidential election. The US political system cannot support three parties, least of all a "centrist" party. Game theory clearly indicates that this would be unstable, and the historical record bears this out.

Anyone remember Unity 08? Me neither.
 
It's the standard "Next election will be the year of the third party" crap that the media peddles every presidential election. The US political system cannot support three parties, least of all a "centrist" party. Game theory clearly indicates that this would be unstable, and the historical record bears this out.

Anyone remember Unity 08? Me neither.

Funny. I think it's the "3rd parties can never have success" attitude that prevents that from occurring. You might as well face it: in the past half of a year, more people than ever realize that both the Democrats and the Republicans have screwed us over. Both are so controlled by their party platforms and so tied up in ideology that both are simply destroying our country. At this point, introducing a functional 3rd centrist party that actually plays by the rules of reality would destroy both parties. We may still end up with a 2 party system- but I don't think either of the parties we currently have will survive- 200+ years of warfare with the opposing party and change their own political platform has corrupted both parties. A good candidate could easily sweep them both by arguing to the independent and intellectual voters who have become disillusioned by the multifaceted failures of the current system. It's probably true that 20 years ago, a 3rd party candidate could never have been elected. But today, I think that has changed- or at least I hope it has, because otherwise all Americans may be completely screwed.
 
Ross Perot pretty much won half of all the votes available to him when you consider that a good 1/3 of all people will vote for even the worst Republican nominee or the worst Democratic nominee. That is an amazing reality.

I do think that Sarah Palin could effectively get a third party going if she started now - or better yet four months ago - but that time is fast vanishing. Of course, she does not appeal to the center but her running might force the Republicans more to the center and you do get realignment in that way.
 
Funny. I think it's the "3rd parties can never have success" attitude that prevents that from occurring.

No, it's the winner-take-all election system, the electoral college, and the fact that both parties are (by definition) already pretty centrist. Sure, occasionally one of them will go a bit nutty, but the voters invariably punish them for it and they revert to the mean.

You might as well face it: in the past half of a year, more people than ever realize that both the Democrats and the Republicans have screwed us over.

And those same people will mostly elect Democrats and Republicans in 2012.

Both are so controlled by their party platforms and so tied up in ideology that both are simply destroying our country. At this point, introducing a functional 3rd centrist party that actually plays by the rules of reality would destroy both parties.

And what makes you think that this new party wouldn't fall victim to the same forces that afflict the other two parties? You're comparing an idealized vision of what a third party would be like, to the ACTUAL view of the current two parties. Hardly a realistic comparison.

We may still end up with a 2 party system- but I don't think either of the parties we currently have will survive- 200+ years of warfare with the opposing party and change their own political platform has corrupted both parties.

If you acknowledge that we'd still end up with a 2-party system, then what would be the point? The members of whichever party was displaced would simply switch their votes to the new party, and it would essentially continue as before under a different name.

A good candidate could easily sweep them both by arguing to the independent and intellectual voters who have become disillusioned by the multifaceted failures of the current system. It's probably true that 20 years ago, a 3rd party candidate could never have been elected. But today, I think that has changed- or at least I hope it has, because otherwise all Americans may be completely screwed.

We hear this every election cycle, and we'll probably continue to hear every election cycle about how this time is different. 150 years of history says it's not.
 
Last edited:
No, it's the winner-take-all election system, the electoral college, and the fact that both parties are (by definition) already pretty centrist. Sure, occasionally one of them will go a bit nutty, but the voters invariably punish them for it and they revert to the mean.
I utterly disagree with you here. While it’s true that Democrats have been forced to shift towards the center in recent years, I would absolutely say that the Republicans have been radicalizing. No offense to them- but their voters demand it and they let people like the Tea Party get them into situations where they have to radicalize or they can’t get the support that they need.

And those same people will mostly elect Democrats and Republicans in 2012.
If the candidate chosen by the new party is able to express himself well, I think that they will get pretty much the entire population of Independents and Centrists, plus a fair number of disillusioned Democrats and Republicans. They don’t need all of them- just enough to tip the balance in their favor.

And what makes you think that this new party wouldn't fall victim to the same forces that afflict the other two parties? You're comparing an idealized vision of what a third party would be like, to the ACTUAL view of the current two parties.
Because the party won’t stay on the same grounds- each time a new candidate is being selected and their approach to the Presidency being formulated, all the political, economic, and social questions that need to be asked will be asked. The problem is that the Democrats and Republicans try and stick to the same, tired ideals Presidency after Presidency. A party which is willing to refresh its message each election based on the needs and desires of the people will not stagnate.



If you acknowledge that we'd still end up with a 2-party system, then what would be the point? The members of whichever party was displaced would simply switch their votes to the new party...and it would essentially continue as before under a different name.
I have no problem with a 2 party system- I have a problem with a stagnating 2 party system. As long as the parties (or even just one of the parties) keeps questioning its ideals and adjusting its platform to match the new reality, that stagnation will be avoided.

We hear this every election cycle, and we'll probably continue to hear every election cycle about how this time is different. 150 years of history says it's not.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well history has said that blacks won’t be freed and that women won’t be able to vote. Proved them wrong. I don’t care that in the past, people have failed. What I care about is people succeeding in the present.
 
I utterly disagree with you here. While it’s true that Democrats have been forced to shift towards the center in recent years, I would absolutely say that the Republicans have been radicalizing. No offense to them- but their voters demand it and they let people like the Tea Party get them into situations where they have to radicalize or they can’t get the support that they need.

Then we can expect the voters to punish them in the next couple election cycles.

If the candidate chosen by the new party is able to express himself well, I think that they will get pretty much the entire population of Independents and Centrists, plus a fair number of disillusioned Democrats and Republicans. They don’t need all of them- just enough to tip the balance in their favor.

Even if this hypothetical third-party candidate was as extraordinarily successful as you seem to think he/she will be, that's not good enough. To win a presidential election, you need 270 electoral votes. In the event of a three way split, chances are no one would reach that threshold, which would throw the election to the House of Representatives...which would elect a Democrat or Republican.

Because the party won’t stay on the same grounds- each time a new candidate is being selected and their approach to the Presidency being formulated, all the political, economic, and social questions that need to be asked will be asked. The problem is that the Democrats and Republicans try and stick to the same, tired ideals Presidency after Presidency. A party which is willing to refresh its message each election based on the needs and desires of the people will not stagnate.

Again, you're projecting your IDEAL view of what a third party would be like, with what two ACTUAL political parties are like. So far I haven't heard any convincing reason why this new party WOULD "refresh its message each election" rather than "sticking to the same tired ideals."

I have no problem with a 2 party system- I have a problem with a stagnating 2 party system. As long as the parties (or even just one of the parties) keeps questioning its ideals and adjusting its platform to match the new reality, that stagnation will be avoided.

Both parties DO question their ideals, and neither is particularly stagnant ideologically. As you acknowledged in the first paragraph of this post, both parties have been undergoing an ideological shift. Over time, the shift is even more dramatic. For example, support for the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party has cratered and many Republicans are now running as quasi-isolationists; this would have been unthinkable a few years ago. Similarly, the Democratic Party has become much more receptive to free trade and globalization than was the case 20 years ago. And support for racial segregation has been (mostly) stamped out of both parties...or at least become socially unacceptable to publicly acknowledge it.
 
Then we can expect the voters to punish them in the next couple election cycles.
They can only do that if they have a 3rd party to vote for, which is what this is/


Even if this hypothetical third-party candidate was as extraordinarily successful as you seem to think he/she will be, that's not good enough. To win a presidential election, you need 270 electoral votes. In the event of a three way split, chances are no one would reach that threshold, which would throw the election to the House of Representatives...which would elect a Democrat or Republican.
Touché. However, assuming that the new candidate does not get 270 electoral votes, I believe that after watching the results of whatever Dem/Rep candidate the HOR would elect (probably a Rep, given their current demographics), the American people will realize that voting for the 3rd party candidate is a superior option. Those disillusioned voters, in combination with those who already recognized the need for fresh thought in the White House, will get him/her the votes they need.

Again, you're projecting your IDEAL view of what a third party would be like, with what two ACTUAL political parties are like. So far I haven't heard any convincing reason why this new party WOULD "refresh its message each election" rather than "sticking to the same tired ideals."
Well, you probably haven’t gone on their website. Go take a look, see what you think. It’s pretty darned clear from what they say on the website that each election, they have a process they plan on going through- looking at the contemporary questions, assessing each possible candidate, and picking one who runs on reality, not just on tired, dysfunctional ideologies.

Both parties DO question their ideals, and neither is particularly stagnant ideologically. As you acknowledged in the first paragraph of this post, both parties have been undergoing an ideological shift. Over time, the shift is even more dramatic. For example, support for the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party has cratered and many Republicans are now running as quasi-isolationists; this would have been unthinkable a few years ago. Similarly, the Democratic Party has become much more receptive to free trade and globalization than was the case 20 years ago. And support for racial segregation has been (mostly) stamped out of both parties...or at least become socially unacceptable to publicly acknowledge it.
I would argue that in these shifts, the parties are shifting closer to ideal, fantastical worlds, and farther from the reality in which we live. This is what I call stagnation- an inability to change your actions and methods based on the real world scenarios those people are facing. Stagnation is watching the economy collapse around you while you sit watching. As far as I am concerned, until both Democrats and Republics recognize that it takes moderation and compromise to succeed, they are both collapsing into stagnant idealists whose petty squabbling will bring about the end of this nation.
 
Back
Top Bottom