Except that in this scenario nobody is fighting for the votes of nor paying any attention at all to the Tea Party or their ilk any more, nor the Ronulans either, nor the religious right; they’re all completely marginalized, as they should be.
What you said.
I wasn’t expecting miracles, but neither was I expecting Dick Cheney in blackface. He won’t get another vote from me. A toothless gesture in a state Obama would lose if he were running unopposed, but a gesture nonetheless.
Unless the Socialists are going to be some sort of social conservatives this means that there will be little room for pro-lifers, Libertarians, Friedmanites, classical liberals, and others. Other socialist parties such as the Labour Party are even more authoritarian/statist on law and order issues than the Democrats.
Actually this is pretty much my opinion of Obama’s policies.
What are your problems with his foreign policy? Even if Obama largely agreed with that of the military-security complex it works and that is enough for me.
So what are you saying? That there are tens of millions of voters who’d like to vote for Socialist candidates but are unable to because of the Republican threat?
I don’t see this happening. I think the Socialists would be as marginalized as the Tea Partiers, the Libertarians, and the Religious Right. None of these groups would have enough support to come close to winning a genuine election. The Democrats would sweep every election.
They’re much more repressive when it comes to speech and surveillance and Britain has archaic laws when it comes to injunctions and such, but capital punishment was rescinded under the Labour government. Labour was also willing to decriminalise marijuana possession for a while.
Oh, I meant exposed rather than expressed up there too.
and I agree that the US populace is further to the right, but I should have qualified my statement, indicating that I don’t think that they’re irrevocably further to the right. I can’t propose an adequate explanation for why it’d be the case (perhaps more rural voters as a percentage of the population? - Isolationism is an easy way to fob the matter off, but the population is actually less homogenous than the democratic Socialist Scandinavian ones), but I suspect it may be due to the framing of the issues. Without adept framing, it would be difficult for any one party to achieve national prominence, due to the vast regional differences within the US.
I think that if there was a major change to the electoral system and the media, the electorate would change in response. I’m a believer in direct democracy, but I think that people are reactive to what are seen as acceptable in that sense. For example, my father has voted for the pro-life Labour party. I think a relatively large Catholic contingent in the US would consider doing the same, if the Republicans were less adept at palatable framing.
The latest Gallup poll indicates that when you ask them about PARTICULAR issues like cap and trade, that the vast majority take progressive positions. LIke, they’re FOR cap and trade. They just call themselves politically conservative. In short, they are confused. But no, America has NOT moved to the right, is not moving to the right. the pendulum is swinging the OTHER way, but the propaganda machine tries to hide that.
No, it’s called voting for the lesser of two evils. If he doesn’t vote for Obama, he helps Romney win. Not voting for Obama because you’d prefer a candidate on the far left is irrational. Your action does not in any way further your goal.
And actively hinders it.
Judging by the spelling I guess you mean the British Labour Party? They haven’t been a Socialist party for a long time (there’s an actual date for this, but they were not remotely socialist for years before the nationalisation clause was removed from the governing charter)- they are neo-liberals like most Western parties that have a chance of forming a government.
As a progressive, I consider the “choice” of a Reagan Republican (Obama, essentially) and a modern Republican to be not much of a choice at all. Better to retrench and make the Democrats earn progressive votes. The Democrats have made it VERY clear that they will not listen to progressive voices so long as they feel our votes are assured. Well, easy enough to fix that!
Possibly not. Qin hasn’t yet outgrown his “British spelling” phase. We’re waiting patiently.
Well, that’s the crux of the problem. Even if you could get all progressives to vote for a third party choice, it wouldn’t be enough for that candidate to win, but it would certainly be enough to assure the Democratic candidate loses too. So we end up with the worst possible of 3 choices.
I do have this kind of crazy idea… that seems to be being borne out to some extent in state government. Let the Republicans win it all, with super-majorities that can’t be blocked. Let them institute the policies of their dreams.
Would the American public be so abhorred by the results that they would cast them out in whole in the next election? On a small scale, we’re going to find that out reasonably soon in Wisconsin.
I don’t know of any other Labour parties. Plus that just means that America is no different from other countries in lacking a “real” Socialist party.
The danger is you might lose voters like me. While I’m a registered Republican, I find the current Republican too extreme on the national level. So I often vote for Democratic candidates because they’re more centrist.
But if the left were to take over the Democratic Party like the right has taken over the Republican Party, I wouldn’t feel either extreme represents me and it would be a toss-up over who I’d vote for or whether I’d vote for either candidate.
I would not sweat it. Wall Street owns both parties lock, stock and barrel. It’s all just a puppet show from here on out unless we can get election reform instituted somehow.
When younger and more naive, I laughed at simplistic conspiracy theories. But by now, I’ve learned Evil Captor’s view here is largely correct.
Just one example: An important duty of the White House and its appointees is to “go to bat” for the U.S.A. in international trade disputes. During the Clinton Administration, particular attention was paid to … bananas ! :smack:
These U.S.A. bananas were not grown on U.S.A. soil, and were not nurtured or reaped by U.S.A. labor. Moreover, the competing bananas opposed by Clinton also came from the Western Hemisphere. What made some particular bananas “American”? The companies which profit from their sale trade on the New York Stock Exchange.
Qin, there’s an independent party that votes for economically liberal policies but is opposed to euthanasia and abortion. Essentially the opposite of Ayn Rand. In the US, the Republican party can attract those that’d benefit the most from government programs due to their insistent opposition to the latter issues, despite the fact that they have not achieved anything on that front at the federal level since Roe vs. Wade.
I am with you, I am a registered Republican,but haven’t voted for a Republican since the Sr. Bush (the first time) then the RP sold out to the extremists on the right, and I only voted for local Republicans who were moderate. I do not believe a Republican will solve our problems, their only message that I get are"get rid of Obama" that has started the day he was elected.
They speak of our liberties and too much government when they want to do away with the peoples right to live as they wish in their own home. Talk about the economy being bad, but want a woman to not have the right to control the size of her family,when having children she can’t care for or afford, adds to the bad economy and creates even more people on the government rolls that need help!