TheLeviathan

I don't know if that's the best 8 hours of television I've watched in awhile, but I know it's my favorite 8 hours. That was phenomenal. If Millie Brown doesn't become the River Phoenix of this series I'll be shocked. The acting performance she put on was incredible. Ryder and Harbour were great too. Wow.

I haven't even read the article yet....but that picture is awesome.

I'm not sure that would work in MN. The only things that go on the ballot are amendments passed by the legislature, with a few specific exceptions. In some states you could attempt an "initiative" but the rules for that vary.

You're absolutely right, that's the only way. So the only way I see that happening is if both parties feel heavily pressured to do so. It's why I rule out the bottom-up approach. You'd have to have an extraordinary number of successful third party runs before you'd even put a dent in that wall. So a top-down approach at least has hope, if there was ever one candidate that stole enough thunder from both parties. That isn't happening this year and is unlikely to happen in the near future. Trump and Bernie had the credentials to be the most influential third party guys since Perot and both of them decided to fold into the two parties. So with that being unlikely in the near future, I'm in the "voter uprising" camp. Though I wish there was a better answer. It's unfortunate, but the obstacles to any kind of sustained third party effort are just way, way too high for any to overcome on a consistent basis without uprooting the system. And I think nothing short of a revolt is going to uproot the system. As soon as someone tried to do that from the inside both parties would join forces like some evil juggernaut and squash it before it ever got going. It's the one thing they're both more than happy to do to help each other.

I would hope the point is the get those diverse ideas working in the process. Bernie may (that's still a big if, by the way) have accomplished that to some degree. But he did it by launching a national campaign that forced the democrats to acknowledge him. Basically, he lead an ideological uprising. Prior to that, the Democratic party largely ignored him. Just like most independents and diverse thinkers are ignored. What good does it do to get a diverse thinker under the umbrella if the umbrella just swallows them? (Edit- not to mention we sort of agree. The only way for these guys to get on the ballot is to do the old "sheep in wolves clothing" thing. Which is fine, but if the complaint is that you only see the Green Party or Libertarian Party come presidential season....that doesn't help. You're sort of agreeing with me the only way to get on the ballot is to accept a D or an R next to your name)

First, you don't need to bristle, the point was not a criticism. It was a statement of reality. For you that issue is the Supreme Court. For others it's wealth inequality. For others it's union influence. For others it is opposition to gay marriage. For others it is the Supreme Court for the opposite reason of you. We are filled with single issue voters and even more filled with voters who vote out of spite for the opposition. That's not unusual and not a criticism, it's a natural byproduct of our system. But also the single biggest deterrent to third party momentum. People are being criticized, loudly, for continuing their support for Bernie. That's just a symptom of this issue and a glaring reminder of why this "third party, bottom up" approach is completely unworkable. The other problem with this bottom up argument is the one you point out - they'll likely have to lose several election cycles. That is not some zero-sum game. Repeatedly losing just out of some desperate hope to gain traction has a number of costs. First, it costs time and money. Second, losing without gaining any momentum or progress doesn't give you any better odds the next time around. If you keep losing, you're just the losing team, so why would anyone vote for that? Third, candidates that may run under your banner are unlikely to do so if you're never associated with winning anything. It's like banging your head against the wall thinking you're getting somewhere just because people hear your head crushing into it. But if you never make a dent - what did you accomplish? Also, can we please stop with the "just run in Chicago!" thing. It isn't any different. Even if you get the ridiculously inflated signatures, they just sue you in hopes of crushing your effort. Often with success. This crap is common throughout the country. You right though - it's a vicious circle. It'll probably take an uprising

And while true, that doesn't make a third party. Yes, you can try and get one of the two big tents to absorb you (maybe) but that comes with a lot of qualifications and concessions. And generally doesn't start with winning lower elections. Even getting the parties to broaden is very difficult bottom up. Look at both of the major parties - their changes came top-down, not bottom up. (Trump and Bernie have both made significant changes to party platforms, for good or bad) Bernie is a good example. Here is a guy who has been in lots of lower government roles and it did little to nothing to change the major party platforms until his message went national.

You can't just "start small" What does that even look like? How do you generate money with no national platform from which to appeal to people and drive funding? How do you generate name recognition when 80% of the electorate basically votes the same party the entire way down the ballot? (Largely out of fear of the other party gaining control) Without national prominence for your ideas you have nothing to run on, no party recognition, no money, and no structural support. People, and you are included in this Chi, say things like "I can't vote for anything other than Democrat because of the Republicans win they will do X, Y, Z" and vice versa we hear the same thing just swap the parties. This happens because our "winner take all" method of voting, over time, funnels people inevitably into two parties. And, even if you got a really good candidate, had funding, and could generate a campaign - you have to deal with decades of gerrymandering. Hell, even the Dems and Republicans concede huge swaths of the country thanks to this, much less some upstart. And perhaps most importantly, and as a Democrat you should see this most clearly of all this year, even when an insurgent third party voice rises up......they lose one way or the other. And when they lose the big tent party most associated with them absorbs their viewpoints into their own and assimilates the ideas as their own. Thus crushing any burgeoning third party before it even gets started.

If we want third parties to get traction at lower levels we should consider why that isn't happening. Hint: In the vast majority of the country it is next to impossible to get on the ballot with any regularity because the two big parties make sure of it. And even when you can get on the ballot - over time your voting base is bled off because of the way our "winner take all" system works. And if there was ever a year in which you can see the video embedded in that link at work - it's this one. I've heard this same refrain from Dan Savage and others and while it sounds valid, reality is quite another thing. Third parties use the presidency as a way to gain traction at the lower level because, surprisingly, the national presidential election is sometimes easier to wedge your voice into than the local elections. I will be actively and enthusiastically voting third party this year. And the vast majority of the electorate will believe I threw my vote away. Or that I condoned the election of (fill in Trump/Hillary). Third parties don't exist because we have systemically made it so they don't. Not because they're too dumb/lazy to get in on local elections.

Nixonian is a good way to put it.

They should have taken any offer they got. I don't even have to know what they are to sign off on them. Just like this offseason when they should've taken whatever was on the market for Plouffe. I don't need to know what that was. I don't care that the return wasn't great. It's more about getting what value you can when you can as opposed to always looking like you came out with a steal of a trade. Now, I'm not sure Santana is in the same place as Willingham or Plouffe....but Abad, Suzuki, Kintzler, and Plouffe still are. If anyone is offering anything - take the best anything you've been offered. It's a trade win regardless.

Sellers market boys. Keep sellin.

Only part way in, but this is such awesome nostalgia.

Just play him, I don't really care where.

This all feels....reasonable. This feeling is foreign to me.

That's mean.

Hey, a trade! Will you looky there.....

I hope that works, but Trump has mastered some really sneaky tricks that have got him this far. Hillary is going to have to be ready with more than just good sense and sound arguments. (Which, I know, sounds weird)

Let's face it, it won't take much for her to poke that bear. The real problem is how many people, no matter how bad she makes him look, will twist it. Look no further than the reactions online to Jon Stewart vs. Hannity or the Young Turks vs. that crazy Texas racist.

Yeah, I think a lot of those people are on the Trump bandwagon reluctantly. But I hope I'm wrong.

I know it stinks, we're all rational people and saying this doesn't make us feel good, but we're not in a fight over facts here. The sooner Clinton's campaign realizes that the better. Everything she says can be true and factual and wonderful and everything Trump says can be an outrageous lie.....and she will still lose. Perception is what is going to win this race, one way or the other.

Yup. The Dems are bringing feel goods and facts to a contest of fear. While, in principle, I don't disagree with them, from a strategy stand point this is foolhardy. If I'm on the Clinton campaign I do four things tonight and I hammer those points home: 1) Student loan debt is out of control. We need to give young Americans the break they need to be able to live their lives free of crippling debt 2) Health care costs are better, but still nowhere near where they need to be. It's hard for families and we can do more to help them 3) ISIS and radical Islam are a real threat to western values and we have to stand up to that threat and defeat it 4) Racial tensions and violence have spiked lately and we have to work together to heal those wounds - protect black lives and blue lives and work to bring those two sides together The first two hit home with the left/Bernie end of things and the last two take some of the thunder away from Trump. Platitudes about rejecting cynicism are not going to march people out to the polls.

To Dave's point: Someone will have to help me with who was making this point, but one speaker was really emphasizing Hillary's ability to work across the aisle. I think that is a very, very smart strategy. The right is so obsessed with NOT doing that, that emphasizing that angle is really going to work in her favor for the middle of the country. I tend to think a lot of people are annoyed with the obstructionism of the right and those in favor of it were never going to vote for her anyway. Plus, I think it's actually something to her credit. She's an actual, effective politician. You may not always love the results, but sometimes that's the price of compromise. The hope is that over time you pull things in the right direction and I'd say she's been successful at that.

I chalk it up to these conventions, it's really easy to get riled up and annoyed. I know for me personally, I've come to start to really believe Trump is going to win. That probably puts me more on edge than I'd like to be and is unfair to anyone I try and talk to about politics.

Pfft, that makes it all ok.