So, I guess we want royalty in America

[gunnarthor]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-campaign.html?_r=0

 

And Clinton has officially jumped in.  On paper, I'm a pretty reliable Dem vote - I'm a lawyer and work at non-profit agencies and helped a lot of people on the margins.  But, cripes, I really don't want a Clinton v. Bush general election. 

 

I don't really see anyone on the Dem side upsetting her although O'Malley is a pretty strong politician with some successful races under his belt.  He could land some hits on her, especially in debates. 

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, I say Boo-urns to all of this.

[PseudoSABR]

Utterly boring to think about Hillary Clinton's second candidacy.  Josh Marshall gives a fair situation report.  I say this with dismay, but it's hard to see anyone beating her either in the primary or the general.

[Squirrel]

If there were truly a viable 3rd party, this would be the time.

[glunn]

 

If there were truly a viable 3rd party, this would be the time.

 

I have thought about this.  It seems to me that the biggest obstacle would be money.  It costs a lot of money to get on enough ballots to make a difference and get the message out to enough voters, including older people (who are high propensity voters).

 

My son says that it does not matter very much who gets elected, because the powerful special interest groups will continue to limit any real change no matter what.  I disagree.  I concede that both of the current parties are largely controlled by big donors, but it seems to me that the Dems are at least 10% less loathesome.

 

My fantasy is a third party that is socially liberal, fiscally responsible and progressive in terms of giving more people a fair chance.  However, absent campaign finance reform (which seems futile unless at least one redneck is replaced on the Supreme Court), I am not optimistic.

[diehardtwinsfan]

If there were truly a viable 3rd party, this would be the time.

There's plenty of viable 3rd parties. The problem is voters who think they are throwing their votes away by not voting for one.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I have thought about this.  It seems to me that the biggest obstacle would be money.  It costs a lot of money to get on enough ballots to make a difference and get the message out to enough voters, including older people (who are high propensity voters).

 

My son says that it does not matter very much who gets elected, because the powerful special interest groups will continue to limit any real change no matter what.  I disagree.  I concede that both of the current parties are largely controlled by big donors, but it seems to me that the Dems are at least 10% less loathesome.

 

My fantasy is a third party that is socially liberal, fiscally responsible and progressive in terms of giving more people a fair chance.  However, absent campaign finance reform (which seems futile unless at least one redneck is replaced on the Supreme Court), I am not optimistic.

That means you'd probably like most libertarian candidates. There will no doubt be one on the ballot. I do think that new parties would limit special interests (at least in the short term), but long term, they will creep back in. Voters are fed up, the problem is that they keep doing the same think over and over again expecting different results.

[Squirrel]

There's plenty of viable 3rd parties. The problem is voters who think they are throwing their votes away by not voting for one.

No, there's not a true 3rd party. There are many smaller other parties, but not a true established 3rd party. And not a 3rd candidate who runs independent who siphons off votes from just one of the two, in effect allowing the other of the two to win.

 

I have thought about this.  It seems to me that the biggest obstacle would be money.  It costs a lot of money to get on enough ballots to make a difference and get the message out to enough voters, including older people (who are high propensity voters).

 

My son says that it does not matter very much who gets elected, because the powerful special interest groups will continue to limit any real change no matter what.  I disagree.  I concede that both of the current parties are largely controlled by big donors, but it seems to me that the Dems are at least 10% less loathesome.

 

My fantasy is a third party that is socially liberal, fiscally responsible and progressive in terms of giving more people a fair chance.  However, absent campaign finance reform (which seems futile unless at least one redneck is replaced on the Supreme Court), I am not optimistic.

Your sin is wrong but you came around to it at the end. Yes, the special interest groups and corporations who can spend the money on campaigns and lobbyists thwart true change and that needs to change as you said. But when Supreme Court nominations are at stake, it DOES matter, hugely, who is elected president which is why I am more apt to vote democrat in presidential elections even if I don't like the candidate. Being female there is just way to much at stake for me that none of you can truly appreciate.

[diehardtwinsfan]

No, there's not a true 3rd party. There are many smaller other parties, but not a true established 3rd party. And not a 3rd candidate who runs independent who siphons off votes from just one of the two, in effect allowing the other of the two to win.

Chitown, by this definition, there will never be an established 3rd party. The presence of any 3rd party candidate is going to siphon votes off from the other two, and if you equate established to large, it will only happen when those votes get siphoned.

 

The problem at the end of the day is voters. They continue to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' and then wonder why it is they always end up with an evil candidate. At one point, voters have to change... whatever their reason is for continuing to vote Republican or Democrat, until they recognize that it isn't working, you won't see a true 3rd party. The voters have to be the ones making the change.

[Squirrel]

If it equally siphons, yes. But whenever we've had a 3rd party candidate that garnered any attention, that candidate siphoned only from one party, not the other, thus giving the other the victory. Until there is truly a 3rd, established party that won't automatically put one of the two parties we currently have in the White House, it won't work. I don't think this country will ever have 3 major parties; not in my lifetime anyway. And as I said, as it currently stands, I will likely never not vote for the democrat for president as the Supreme Court nominations are too important to me.

[Mike Sixel]

And reading the headline, I thought this was going to be about how USAians keep voting for people that cut taxes on the rich, and spending on the poor......

 

IMO, we are 1-2 generations away from major civil unrest over the disparity in income. It's happened time and time again, no reason to believe this century is any different. hell, 1/3 of us don't believe in science......

[TheLeviathan]

 

And reading the headline, I thought this was going to be about how USAians keep voting for people that cut taxes on the rich, and spending on the poor......

 

 

I would add the other half of us vote for people that say they're about spending on the poor but are really more concerned with keeping themselves in power.

 

That's why no third party can or will exist - the two established parties have basically made it impossible in a national election for President.  But in Governor races and congressional races we've seen the Tea Party and Independent Party win.  But the deck is so thoroughly stacked against those candidates it's ridiculous.

 

We need election reform almost as badly as campaign finance reform.

[Mike Sixel]

Indeed, power seems to be their drug.....

[diehardtwinsfan]

If it equally siphons, yes. But whenever we've had a 3rd party candidate that garnered any attention, that candidate siphoned only from one party, not the other, thus giving the other the victory. Until there is truly a 3rd, established party that won't automatically put one of the two parties we currently have in the White House, it won't work. I don't think this country will ever have 3 major parties; not in my lifetime anyway. And as I said, as it currently stands, I will likely never not vote for the democrat for president as the Supreme Court nominations are too important to me.

I think that's going to be true anywhere. The two parties are fairly opposed to each other, so a new one is likely going to siphon more votes from one than another. It really depends on the issues voters don't want to compromise on. Libertarians tend to pull from Republicans, but their social platform is one that a lot of Democrats can get behind.

 

But I'd add that your 'never not vote for the democrat' line is exactly what the two party system thrives on. All they need is a voter who is sold on one plank item that they represent to get it, even if they don't care about the subject (such as Republicans and abortion). To me, that has to change.

[Squirrel]

 

I think that's going to be true anywhere. The two parties are fairly opposed to each other, so a new one is likely going to siphon more votes from one than another. It really depends on the issues voters don't want to compromise on. Libertarians tend to pull from Republicans, but their social platform is one that a lot of Democrats can get behind.

But I'd add that your 'never not vote for the democrat' line is exactly what the two party system thrives on. All they need is a voter who is sold on one plank item that they represent to get it, even if they don't care about the subject (such as Republicans and abortion). To me, that has to change.

I agree.  But until there is a true alternative ... and we disagree on that there is ... my rights and freedoms and equality as a woman are always at stake.  Always.  You might disagree with that but until you have lived your life as a female or a minority, you really, truly cannot fully understand how that is. And I cannot afford to risk my vote over it.  If a 3rd party vote is going to siphon more from the Dems, assuring a Rep is voted into the White House, and the Supreme Court is at stake, I'm just not going to go there.  My 'never not' stance applies only to President in this case, and often with other national positions.  State and local elections, I'm all over the place, but mostly somewhere in the extreme liberal and/or 'green party' areas.

 

Again, if there is a true separate but equal 3rd party choice available for me, I will consider it. But I don't see it happening with the way our system of government has been set up.

[Hrbowski]

If it is Hil vs. Jeb I guess I will have to decide what country I will move to.

[Squirrel]

If it is Hil vs. Jeb I guess I will have to decide what country I will move to.

I've lived in Canada. It's a very nice, civilized place to live. But being from the States was a bit difficult.

[Hrbowski]

 

I've lived in Canada. It's a very nice, civilized place to live. But being from the States was a bit difficult.

I was thinking Israel, but that might be dangerous.

[Squirrel]

I was thinking Israel, but that might be dangerous.

Yeah, of all the places one could move to, that wouldn't make my list at all.

[Zachary]

 

 

My son says that it does not matter very much who gets elected, because the powerful special interest groups will continue to limit any real change no matter what.  I disagree.  I concede that both of the current parties are largely controlled by big donors, but it seems to me that the Dems are at least 10% less loathesome.

 

 

I wouldn't say that this study is cut-and-dry, because politics never are, but these dudes spent over 10 years trying to determine who influences American politics: Their conclusion...The Elite. The Elite were followed by Interest Groups. 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

[Craig Arko]

As long as this lets us have God Save the Queen (or King) played during the 7th inning stretch I'm on board.

[JB_Iowa]

I can't stand it, I can't stand it, I can't stand it.

 

The phone calls have begun.  The mail will soon follow along with TV & radio.

 

It seems like we get very little reprieve from the d*mn election cycles.

 

 

This isn't a criticism of your thread.  Just an outburst about the next 18 or so months.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I was thinking Israel, but that might be dangerous.

I haven't checked recently, but I know Belgium had problems forming a government and was pretty much free for a few years. Not sure if that's still the case but if it was, that might be a viable option. Their economy was doing quite well during that time.

 

If not, I'm thinking the moon.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I wouldn't say that this study is cut-and-dry, because politics never are, but these dudes spent over 10 years trying to determine who influences American politics: Their conclusion...The Elite. The Elite were followed by Interest Groups. 

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

The Elite controls the interest groups to an extent too.

[Bark's Lounge]

In my younger days, I had a lot of disdain for our country. From my perspective we were a corrupt nation, who bullied and crapped on other nations to get our best end result.

 

I am not too sure if I was wrong back then (I believe I was and naive), but this world is a cutthroat place and at this time I am pleased to be a citizen of the U.S. - things are F'd up out there globally, and unfortunately, I do not think I want to ever leave this country concerning travel... Canada excluded.

 

I believe us to be at a dead end with the Dems and Repubs. In my heart of all hearts, I wish a great amount of us citizens could unite and put aside our differences and really get the ball rolling on an alternative choice(s).

 

We all have different belief systems and things we feel strongly about, but it would be great if people who have their heads on straight could come together and ignite the trail of gasoline to this glaring problem that has crippled our nation.

 

Certainly, it would not come without repercussions, if we attack special interests, which should be done, it will hurt and our economy will suffer.

 

Things need to be balanced out and that is a bump in the road I am willing to take.

 

We need to be able to balance science, core beliefs and rationality, to come together and make the real "Change", that most of us think should be a given in our modern United States. I really believe we can be great again.

 

Sorry about the soapbox BS, but I want this country to work well and for us citizens to have a chance that is worth a damn.

[Zachary]

 

The Elite controls the interest groups to an extent too.

The punchline here is that we the masses are nowhere to be seen.

[diehardtwinsfan]

The punchline here is that we the masses are nowhere to be seen.

Sadly, you're right and it's no laughing matter.

[Zachary]

Was talking with my parents the other day (USAFChief and my lovely mother) and we were talking about House of Cards and it dawned on me.

 

Isn't a congressman serving his/her private interests or the private interests of a small number of people the EXACT opposite of their job description?

[ashbury]

Was talking with my parents the other day (USAFChief and my lovely mother) and we were talking about House of Cards and it dawned on me.

 

Isn't a congressman serving his/her private interests or the private interests of a small number of people the EXACT opposite of their job description?

I think you caught the writers' clever subtext, yes.

[glunn]

Bottom line -- it seems to me that these people care too much about money, because money is so important to getting elected and re-elected.

 

I once ran for the local school board as a protest candidate and to the surprise a lot of people, I beat two incumbents.  Once I was in office I found that it was often difficult to persuade the other board members to do what they knew was right, because the others were worried about making waves and offending special interests.

 

I think that our best hope would be a third political party with a platform that is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and willing to go to war with the special interests that suck trillions of dollars out of our economy.  It would take some money and some dedicated people to get this going, and this is an idea that people have pursued without success, but it seems to me to be our best hope.