Elections (Poll) GOP Now Has Largest Advantage On Security/Prosperity since 2015

[panamaican]

You offer glittering generalities and happenstance to infuse your reply with something that is supposed to what? silence my opinion? build a bridge towards a commonplace? what is the point of telling me your opinion of something that has not happened?

The thread is mostly about generalities.

I don't know what to tell you about your opinion. I was responding to someone else and you chose to discuss my opinion. Which is what I'm doing.

So I say, the 2 party system is failing, you say give it a chance, a 3rd party wont solve anything?

I didn't say that. That misstates my position.

The fact that you would offer a look at the lack of nuance the "discussions" here on this subforum exemplify as anything other than proof the 2 party system is failing, but you then you choose to offer me in response...? A view from your crystal ball? An attack on citizens not holding thier corrupt parties and institutions accountable?

That is pure propaganda

This is poorly written. I don't know what it's supposed to convey.

 

[bobgeese]

You still think Trump won?

I never did. Cope harder.

 

[SKYNET]

The thread is mostly about generalities.

I don't know what to tell you about your opinion. I was responding to someone else and you chose to discuss my opinion. Which is what I'm doing.


I didn't say that. That misstates my position.



This is poorly written. I don't know what it's supposed to convey.

Fair enough, I'm convinced

 

[andnowweknow]

I never did. Cope harder.

What are you suggesting people are "coping" about?

 

[Tairy Hesticles]

I don't agree with the 3rd party piece. I think it's an excuse. A 3rd party is not going to change what people talk about or care about. I cannot think of many issues that one of the 2 parties don't already support where a 3rd party would be addressing an unaddressed need.

A 3rd party isn't going to change anyone's opinion on immigration, education, taxes, etc. People should simply demand better at their local levels, which is what feeds the national levels. But instead of doing that, people either blame the other side or refuse to ask their side to do better. Nothing about a 3rd party will change that.

The largest voting block in the country are people who don't vote. Many people, like myself, don't believe enough in the bulk of either party to support them. It's a package deal, and most people don't like either package. We need more options so we can find candidates that fit a diverse set of needs, rather than Republican or Democrat talking points. It's impossible to be a fiscal conservative/social liberal and find a national candidate that doesn't betray half of your beliefs.

 

[Topguntrophey]

Yes, polled Americans have thought this forever and yet both parties continue to fail and deliver.

Republicans will just dump more into the military, start more foreign wars, and take away liberties while pointing at the Dems for doing the same. Same bullshit propaganda from the parties to continue blind voters from the realities.

Reagan was a fantastic example of this polling/voting. What a waste he was.

 

[Tairy Hesticles]

The mythical 3rd party is just another way for people to say "I'm not the problem. My refusal to hold my party accountable, to not reduce issues to my team vs. yours, is not the problem. The problem is that if you just gave us more politicians things would be different."

That's really the problem though - the fact that you have to have a party to support and hold accountable rather than a set of values that guide who you vote for. Without a two party system we could have a dozen parties with candidates who have very specific sets of beliefs and strategies, and the public could vote on who best fits their equally unique set of beliefs and strategies. As it stands, we have two parties who have rigid, cookie cutter structures that never get anything done and have no motivation to change how they do business.

How do you recommend "holding your party accountable" without either voting for the second option or withholding your vote entirely? There are no other options open to a voter in a two-party system, and your insistence on backing one side means that you will only ever vote your side or not vote at all. 100 million Americans already withhold their vote every four years, and nothing has ever been changed that way. So you're left with zero options as a voter.

 

[panamaican]

The largest voting block in the country are people who don't vote. Many people, like myself, don't believe enough in the bulk of either party to support them. It's a package deal, and most people don't like either package. We need more options so we can find candidates that fit a diverse set of needs, rather than Republican or Democrat talking points. It's impossible to be a fiscal conservative/social liberal and find a national candidate that doesn't betray half of your beliefs.

Sounds less like you need a 3rd party and more like you need to select better candidates -- at the local level. Or run yourself.

That's not a dismissal of your concern. It's stating the obvious solution that people refuse to do, choosing the easier option of complaining about 3rd parties.

Now, years ago - I ran for office as a Republican as I was very active in the party. It was a small, extremely unimportant position but I did win it. Later I ran for something more important and did not come close to winning it. My experience there shapes the answer I'm giving you.

There are plenty of fiscally conservative/socially liberal people in the GOP. I met a decent amount of active minorities and LGBTQ members who showed up to GOP meetings, hit the streets for the party, etc. The issue is not that such people aren't in the party. The issue was that the voters didn't care to know their candidates. They wanted to vote for a party. They couldn't care less who the candidates were. So long as the top of the ticket tickled their fancy, they would vote GOP or Dem all the way down the ballot.

That's the psychology of the voter. A handful of you might say "We want a candidate that matches our values." But when the rubber hits the road, very few people take the time to actually research their candidates and campaign for them, let alone vote for them. Shit - I had to self-finance my own campaign because the party doesn't spend money on low level races where I live. And that's not unique, that's the norm. I required volunteers and money, I had to raise all of that stuff myself.

If you (the proverbial "you") aren't going to get out there and promote the candidates who actually reflect your values, it's not going to change just because you shrink the grouping. Parties require money and human hours. And it is extreme positions that galvanize people to get off their ass and do something - either in support or in opposition. So, until Americans demonstrate a willingness to engage politics when it matters - in the hard work long before a candidate gets on a ballot, parties will always default to the positions that are the easiest to digest by the most people.

Hoping for a 3rd party won't change that and history has already shown it. We have plenty of 3rd parties. We just don't have enough people willing to put in the work for those parties to be successful.

 

[DavidsGhost]

Democrats have their thumb in their ass and are bad at messaging.


Biden is still better than Trump.



Republicans should ditch Trumpism and get back to the basics and provide a real alternative.

 

[TUFNewb]

Repubs just don't run someone like Donald Trump and you win, probably quite easily. Middle america wants to vote conservative but for some reason you've made it so difficult by forcing them to stand behind this demented teen pageant owning reality tv clown who embarrassed them on almost daily basis. Getting owned by Obama two elections in a row really derailed your sensibilities.

 

[andnowweknow]

. Getting owned by Obama two elections in a row really derailed your sensibilities.

It seems like you're forgetting that he was black and wore a tan suit. Are people supposed to just let that shit slide?

 

[HereticBD]

The largest voting block in the country are people who don't vote. Many people, like myself, don't believe enough in the bulk of either party to support them. It's a package deal, and most people don't like either package. We need more options so we can find candidates that fit a diverse set of needs, rather than Republican or Democrat talking points. It's impossible to be a fiscal conservative/social liberal and find a national candidate that doesn't betray half of your beliefs.

A lot of people are just apathetic to the process. We've got five parties up here, and we still only see around 60% turnout. A new party isn't going to energize the large block of people who just don't care. They'll just siphon votes from the established parties, and make the Dem/Rep race a little more unpredictable, for better or worse.

 

[jefferz]

It seems like you're forgetting that he was black and wore a tan suit? Are people supposed to just let that shit slide?

He didn't wear a flag pin either!

 

[Tairy Hesticles]

Sounds less like you need a 3rd party and more like you need to select better candidates -- at the local level. Or run yourself.

If you run as a fiscal conservative/social liberal, you are immediately labeled an independent or a libertarian. You will never win a national election as a fiscal conservative/social liberal as either a democrat or republican. So, by necessity, this would require at least one more party.

There are plenty of fiscally conservative/socially liberal people in the GOP. I met a decent amount of active minorities and LGBTQ members who showed up to GOP meetings, hit the streets for the party, etc. The issue is not that such people aren't in the party. The issue was that the voters didn't care to know their candidates. They wanted to vote for a party. They couldn't care less who the candidates were. So long as the top of the ticket tickled their fancy, they would vote GOP or Dem all the way down the ballot.

That's kind of my point. People are trained to pick a party and vote for whoever is in that party. This is a direct result of a two party system. Sure, people would still vote their party in a 6 or 10 or 12 party system, but there would be much more room for nuance.

That's the psychology of the voter. A handful of you might say "We want a candidate that matches our values." But when the rubber hits the road, very few people take the time to actually research their candidates and campaign for them, let alone vote for them. Shit - I had to self-finance my own campaign but the party doesn't spend money on low level races where I live. I required volunteers and money, I had to raise all of that stuff myself.

If you (the proverbial "you") aren't going to get out there and promote the candidates who actually reflect your values, it's not going to change just because you change the name of the party. Parties require money and human hours. And it is extreme positions that galvanize people to get off their ass and do something - either in support or in opposition. So, until Americans demonstrate a willingness to engage politics when it matters - in the hard work long before a candidate gets on a ballot, parties will always default to the positions that are the easiest to digest by the most people.

I agree to an extent, but I do believe that more parties would mean more nuance. I think the reason that people just choose what is most digestible between two parties is because they are only given two parties to choose from. Look at what just happened the last election. I don't know many liberals that were excited to vote for Biden, but they felt they had to. That is not a healthy voting process. People will likely default to the party that they usually vote for, but at least there would be parties that take elements from both democrats and republicans and create something new.

Hoping for a 3rd party won't change that and history has already shown it. We have plenty of 3rd parties. We just don't have enough people willing to put in the work for those parties to be successful.

You say put in the work, I say lobby and cater to giant corporations. We will never get a party for the people when everything is run by big business. But, like you said, the best thing average people can do is learn your local candidates and vote in local elections.

Thanks for making an effort and running for office, btw. I do appreciate people who actually try to make a difference in politics instead of just pontificating on message boards like myself.

 

[Tairy Hesticles]

A lot of people are just apathetic to the process. We've got five parties up here, and we still only see around 60% turnout. A new party isn't going to energize the large block of people who just don't care. They'll just siphon votes from the established parties, and make the Dem/Rep race a little more unpredictable, for better or worse.

I'm guessing a good amount of non-voters would vote if someone matched their needs. I'm also guessing that a lot of Republicans and Democrats would jump ship to a different party if they better suited their needs as well. And hey, if it siphons votes from either party, good. Maybe it would light a fire under the dems/republicans to actually follow through with what they promise their constituents.

I just don't see how adding more options to vote for in the most important election in the world is a bad thing, especially when your options are as small a number possible to still be called "options". We have one party more than a dictatorship has.

 

[panamaican]

If you run as a fiscal conservative/social liberal, you are immediately labeled an independent or a libertarian. You will never win a national election as a fiscal conservative/social liberal as either a democrat or republican. So, by necessity, this would require at least one more party.

Stop trying to win national elections if you won't hit the streets to win local ones.

That's kind of my point. People are trained to pick a party and vote for whoever is in that party. This is a direct result of a two party system. Sure, people would still vote their party in a 6 or 10 or 12 party system, but there would be much more room for nuance.

No, there wouldn't be. If people won't put the time into their local candidates. No one will know about Random 3rd Party candidate X. There will be no more nuance because no one is doing the work.

I agree to an extent, but I do believe that more parties would mean more nuance. I think the reason that people just choose what is most digestible between two parties is because they are only given two parties to choose from. Look at what just happened the last election. I don't know many liberals that were excited to vote for Biden, but they felt they had to. That is not a healthy voting process. People will likely default to the party that they usually vote for, but at least there would be parties that take elements from both democrats and republicans and create something new.

Stop trying to win national elections if you won't hit the streets to win local ones. AGain and again - I talk about the importance of campaigning for local canddiates who have the "nuance" you keep talking about. And again and again, you keep talking about Presidential and national level politics. If you ignore the foundation, you will never get what you want.

That is why 3rd parties fail. Not an absence of nuance. An absence of effort.

You say put in the work, I say lobby and cater to giant corporations. We will never get a party for the people when everything is run by big business. But, like you said, the best thing average people can do is learn you local candidates and vote local.

That's a lie. And I say it from experience.

I ran a campaign and I know plenty of other people who did the same. We didn't require money from giant corporations. We required money from people inside our voting region. That means knocking on doors and, frankly, begging. But if you won't give me money and you won't help me raise money - how am I supposed to run my campaign? Get the press coverage and the attention it requires to win?

Stop passing the buck. Ask yourself a very simply set of questions: When was the last time I wne to a local party meeting, saw and spoke to the candidates for my local electtions and then beat the street to generate support for the ones who shared my values?

VS>

How often do I complain about my national level politician while ignoring all of the important elections that actually affect my community.

 

[Tairy Hesticles]

Stop trying to win national elections if you won't hit the streets to win local ones.

I'm not trying to win anything, I'm simply asking for more options.

No, there wouldn't be. If people won't put the time into their local candidates. No one will know about Random 3rd Party candidate X. There will be no more nuance because no one is doing the work.

Yes, they would, because random 3rd (or 4th or 5th or 6th) is running for the highest office in the country. Most people who vote for the president have no idea who their local officials are. It's foolish, but it's how it works. Of course most people are going to be enamored by presidential candidates rather than their local mayor.

Stop trying to win national elections if you won't hit the streets to win local ones. AGain and again - I talk about the importance of campaigning for local canddiates who have the "nuance" you keep talking about. And again and again, you keep talking about Presidential and national level politics. If you ignore the foundation, you will never get what you want.

That is why 3rd parties fail. Not an absence of nuance. An absence of effort.

I agree that local politics are important to your local community. Many people don't care about their local communities as long as the streets are paved, the schools are open, and their taxes aren't outrageous. Issues like climate change, globalization, fracking, etc are national level politics and they are the ones that have the broadest impact on the entire world. I live in a town of 2,000 people - how much local politics would you like me to digest?

IMO, 3rd (and further parties) do not have the financial or political backing to win anything with the way the system is set up. The system is designed to take even people like Bernie Sanders and make them run as a Democrat or a Republican. Hell, Trump had to run as a Republican and he's the furthest thing from a conservative.

That's a lie. And I say it from experience.

I ran a campaign and I know plenty of other people who did the same. We didn't require money from giant corporations. We required money from people inside our voting region. That means knocking on doors and, frankly, begging. But if you won't give me money and you won't help me raise money - how am I supposed to run my campaign? Get the press coverage and the attention it requires to win?

I understand what you're saying on a local level. I'm more focused on having multiple parties in national elections, where donor money, lobbying organizations, and business interest pick the two people we get to vote for. That is one more person than a dictatorship. That is way too few choices.

Stop passing the buck. Ask yourself a very simply set of questions: When was the last time I wne to a local party meeting, saw and spoke to the candidates for my local electtions and then beat the street to generate support for the ones who shared my values?

VS>

How often do I complain about my national level politician while ignoring all of the important elections that actually affect my community.

Almost never. I was active duty for most of my post-college life and now I live in a town of 2,000 people. Local politics are pretty much nonexistent here. I also don't think I need to be invested in local issues to be upset about having no real voice in national issues.

If you want to talk national elections, I have some experience with how sleazy that world is. I briefly worked for the NFIB after college, and holy shit, the number of Republicans in congress that are forced to vote a certain way on every issue or lose NFIB backing money...it's really disheartening.

 

[HereticBD]

I'm guessing a good amount of non-voters would vote if someone matched their needs.

I don't see it. Some people(a lot actually) just don't care. They look at their paycheck and cost of living, and don't believe any political party is going to change much about their bottom line, so they don't make the effort.

I'm also guessing that a lot of Republicans and Democrats would jump ship to a different party if they better suited their needs as well.

I don't think so. Look at the PPC up here, which was supposed to be a more right wing version of the PC party. Not too many ship jumpers. They can barely muster 1%, despite promising a lot of what you would think would appeal to the PC base.

And hey, if it siphons votes from either party, good. It just means that giant corporations will have to back some of the other parties as well to hedge their bets. It also may light a fire under the dems/republicans to actually follow through with what they promise their constituents.

They would hedge their bets the same way, and crush the competition.

I just don't see how adding more options to vote for in the most important election in the world is a bad thing, especially when your options are as small a number possible to still be called "options". We have one party more than a dictatorship has.

I don't think it's a bad thing. I just don't think it would make much of a difference to the overall landscape. It's like wishing for a startup to compete with Apple and Microsoft. The game is already rigged. It's why guys who could create a legitimate 3rd party(like Trump or Bernie) don't bother.

 

[Tairy Hesticles]

I don't see it. Some people(a lot actually) just don't care. They look at their paycheck and cost of living, and don't believe any political party is going to change much about their bottom line, so they don't make the effort.

Yes, but in the US the paychecks have stayed stagnant, the cost of living has increased, and the wealth gap has become laughable. If a party came along to specifically address those issues in a way that voters felt was genuine, they would probably clean up on an even playing field.

I don't think so. Look at the PPC up here, which was supposed to be a more right wing version of the PC party. Not too many ship jumpers. They can barely muster 1%, despite promising a lot of what you would think would appeal to the PC base.

Doesn't the UK have several parties, and each other those parties have some representation in whatever their Congress is? You'll have to excuse me, I'm your classic dumb American who doesn't pay much attention to the political structure of other countries.

They would hedge their bets the same way, and crush the competition.

Yeah, probably, but at least make them work for it.

 

[Tairy Hesticles]

Sorry for the unreable post above - the format keeps putting quotes at the end of my last response to you for some reason. Even if I delete them it makes no difference.