|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 10, 2021 8:06:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 12, 2021 14:55:48 GMT -5
Well, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party might as well not even exist in the US, given how few votes they ever get and how few offices either of them ever hold nationwide at any one time. Canada's Green Party is a bit more legitimate than the US version (they're usually always included in PM debates and appear on the ballots of every major election), but that's not saying much.
I'm guessing Yang means "a third party that's actually viable," which is what I think most people mean when they talk about the US needing a third party. "A third party that a meaningful number of people would actually give a shit about" is too much of a mouthful.
Good luck to him. He probably has a better chance than anyone right now of making it a reality, and I really hope that he does. The two major parties currently cater only to the extremist loons in their bases, rather than the 80% of normal people in the US, so we need a good third option that represents the more rational, non-authoritarian, normal-people middle.
But given how large, rich, and powerful the current political machinery behind the GOP and the Dems is right now, it's gonna take a shit-ton of money and TV ads to get enough attention and support for the cause in order to break into that game. I'm guessing that money, not messaging, will be the biggest challenge to overcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 12, 2021 15:20:44 GMT -5
We do need another party that's an alternative to the D's and the R's. I actually tweeted once about how we need one that's called the Common Party for common sense. Turns out that a Common sense party exists, but it's just in CA.
What should happen is some bigger name people who no longer feel comfortable in the R's or D's and were more center should come together. Make a new party that doesn't dictate everything you need to believe, but some core principles that they all agree with. They also then need to focus on local races until they get a foothold.
Otherwise, we're looking at an America that's run by former Trumpetts and fans of 'The Squad.'
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 12, 2021 19:28:08 GMT -5
Given our system and the realities of what it takes to win elections, imo there's never gonna be a truly competitive third party that can sustain itself beyond a few election cycles. And in that framework, such a party is far more likely to be a cult of personality than a party with some sort of particular platform or ideology.
It would be great if Yang succeeds, even if only for an election or two. I do wish him luck. But I fear his chance of success is about equal to the chance that Rudy Giuliani will regain his wits.
|
|
|
|
Post by ben on Oct 1, 2021 16:05:24 GMT -5
What I recall from over my lifetime is the biggest non-two-party successes called themselves "independents" rather than "third-party" Presidential candidates (Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1992). I dunno if that has any relevance.
Regardless, being outside the two major parties is a steep uphill battle, even when running for local dogcatcher.
I got something Yang related (well, UBI related) to post ...
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 4, 2021 20:04:44 GMT -5
And there he goes: Honestly, there's nothing he's saying that strikes me as wrong or crazy. Really, he makes more sense than the current party leaders on both sides of the aisle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 5, 2021 12:55:47 GMT -5
Given our system and the realities of what it takes to win elections, imo there's never gonna be a truly competitive third party that can sustain itself beyond a few election cycles. And in that framework, such a party is far more likely to be a cult of personality than a party with some sort of particular platform or ideology. Agreed, and that's a pretty apt description of what happened with Ross Perot in the 90s. He got I think around 19% or 20% of the popular vote, then created the Reform Party and fizzled out. His whole campaign was based on cult of personality and little more. I've seen several hot takes from far-left political science academics disparaing Yang on Twitter, with many of them regurgitating some form of the stupid "Any poli sci 101 student could tell Yang why a third party is impossible" sentiment. On a side note, professors/academics who are strongly politically partisan are intellectually myopic hacks. I think if Yang wants to really start a viable third party that can make an impact, he's gonna have to concentrate heavily on the grassroots level. Candidates in his party will need to start winning local and state elections. It can't be like Perot's failure, where he was basically the only candidate for his party at any level, and then there was no strong organizational structure, money, or interest to sustain it after Perot was out of the national spotlight. He waited until '96 to create the Reform Party, when most of his fame and status had already faded. He should've formed the party before his first run and also had state and local candidates running for elections under its banner. That's just my layman's opinion of what Yang should do to have a chance at being successful at this (I'm, of course, no expert like the Twitteraties). Otherwise, he'll fulfill most of the pundits' predictions for him: that he's a guy who lost the only two big elections he's ever run in, then started a party that went nowhere and failed too. |
|
