This explains why @Velocity can’t wait to vote them. Nobody worships at the altar of both-siderism like him.
There’s only one conceivably useful thing that this party could do—split the Republican vote.
Moderating:
Come on, now. Let’s avoid comments that are personal attacks.
No warning issued.
As I said above, if the Forward party starts looking serious, the right wing media will make voting for a Forward candidate as unthinkable as a Democrat.
All third party success in American history has been based on this.
You mention Teddy Roosevelt, but leave out that he was the single most famous person in the country and probably the best liked. And that he was carrying the banner for the Progressive Party, which had pushed a huge number of significant and much demanded issues for a couple of decades.
The Forward Party - nobody has yet mentioned that’s the name of the PAC that Yang founded: what possible better base to draw in the public than a PAC? - can boast of neither personnel nor policies. Andrew Yang is unknown to 90% of Americans and is considered to be a joke by half the rest. I personally would like independent redistricting. That won’t win a single election anywhere.
Moderates do exist in politics. They need to vote for specifics, however. They need to run for office on issues that people care about. None have been offered by this F-ing collective of non-entities.
I can see why people want even the slimmest glimmer of hope. Nothing about this glimmers as it stands. Maybe in a year or two. All I am absolutely sure of is that this is not the second coming of the Bull Moose Party.
They are most likely there to siphon off Dem voters, this is yet another GOP trick.
Right.
Again. The Dems won the House, the Senate and the White house in 2020. They are doing okay.
Exactly.
There are a few, but damn few (and a few even here). The closest we got is Cory who wanted to confiscate all Assault weapons- which does not require repealing the 2nd, etc, as long as they are paid FMW.
There’s only so much you can do with lies. When both sides are dishonest sleazebuckets, you can spin any candidate as a Chinese sell-out because it just as well may be true. Your only choice, as a voter, is to get their Chinese sell-out or our Chinese sell-out who will at least do what you want some of the time.
But if the candidate is an actual, normal person who everyone trusts and who is just honest and reliable, you can try to sell them as one of the lizard people all you want but all that gets you is backlash, because you’re trying to turn people against someone that they actually know and trust.
Some dude in a suit, on TV from New York, can say anything he wants but he can’t denigrate your people and get away with it.
This new party would be laughable if it weren’t so potentially destructive in the short term. They will elect no one of consequence, they will accomplish nothing politically beyond potentially spoiling a handful of races over the next few cycles, and in thirty years they will be lucky to warrant more than a passing footnote in the history books. The majority of the people behind this project are nothing more than disgruntled and frustrated apparatchiks from the previous iteration of the campaign machine who are annoyed that the great Sauron’s Eye of political money has turned away from them, and they’re hoping to lengthen the trough so they can belly back up to it for a little while.
Spoken like a true extremist.
Believe it or not, 80% of Americans want abortion legal with reasonable restrictions. We’re not anti-abortion; we’re not full-blown “Abortion must be legal at all times”. We may disagree with what constitutes “reasonable restrictions”, but we want the procedure legal when it is needed. THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND ON THE ISSUE.
“Centrist on homosexuality” - ya got me there. 20 years ago, I might have said “how about if the Government calls everything a ‘Civil Union’ - gay, straight, whatever; you get a ‘Civil Union’ license at the courthouse. Let’s get the word “Marriage” out of government; let the churches marry you.” I know it’s more nuanced than that. And there are some things that are just right vs. wrong. Refusing to rent an apartment to you because you are gay is just wrong. Passing anti-sodomy laws is just wrong.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, the Republican party takes the position of “Less tax on the wealthy” and “conservative social values”; the Democratic party takes the position of “More tax on the wealthy” and “liberal social values” (you used to be able to say “fiscal conservative/fiscal liberal”, but that went out the door a long time ago). What happens if you believe in trickle-down economics but also believe in liberal social values? Well, you’ve got the Libertarians, but the Dems and the Reps have convinced everyone that they can’t win, so they can’t win. What happens if you don’t mind soaking the rich, but believe that those welfare queens should at least try to get a job? You don’t have anywhere to go.
We’re in a weird situation right now. The Republican Party is made up of two very distinct subgroups that, when it comes right down to it, don’t care about each other. You have the “Pro Rich-guy” group - we need lower corporate taxes and less government oversight - and the “Christian” group - Abortion is murder! The “pro-rich” has convinced the “Christian” that they might become rich some day, so our fiscal plan helps you, too, but all they really want is the votes. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has to cover everyone else.
It’s great in the abstract to say, “we’re centrists!” But the Forward Party won’t control what gets voted on in Congress. Let’s say the Forward Party manages to get a couple members elected to Congress. How are they going to vote when a Republican-controlled House puts a bill on the floor to outlaw abortion? Or a Democratic House puts a bill on the floor to codify Roe v Wade? Or any other issue where there is a stark divide between the parties? Are they going to abstain? Wring their hands ala Susan Collins and then almost always vote with the Democrats?
Voters deserve to know where Forward candidates will stand on these issues, and once they’re on record they’re going to look a lot less like a “centrist” party.
I believe the idea-- well the hope for me anyway, is that they will be able to broker a more nuanced compromise that can pass with easy majorities. As opposed to the extreme bills you suggest which are very polarizing and are almost always voted along party line.
A little compromise where no one gets exactly what they want – but everyone gets something is how we used to do things. No reason for me to believe it can’t work in the future also. But ever since the Republican Party “got religion” and decided that any compromise at all is a betrayal of Jesus and a Faustian bargain at best. . . . well, it has been hard to get much done. It is like having a bar that only serves designated drivers – it is very much a case of what is the point??
A balancing third party can FORCE them to have to compromise because they can no longer be just obstructionists.
This is Pollyannaish.
This is half grift half effort to get more Republicans ellected.
Are you imagining that they would succeed in getting enough senators to break a filibuster?
And this is what we’re up against here. The liberal position isn’t “Abortion should be legal at all times”. The liberal position is to support the right to abortion before fetal viability, as outlined in the Roe v. Wade decision. Likewise nobody is arguing that “welfare queens shouldn’t even have to try to find jobs”.
Here you are, knowingly or unknowingly, falling into the trap of supporting right-wing positions by framing them as a “compromise” between extreme right-wing positions and ridiculous strawman positions that absolutely nobody actually holds.
Politics has changed so much over the years. I think it’s a fair question to ask why. A lot of what has happened is due to structural changes in politics, rather than just “people being stupid or hateful.”
Politicians do not really “bring home the bacon” any more. They do less and less for their home district, and spend more and more of their time fundraising. Probably more and more of their funds now come from people they don’t even directly represent. This goes for both sides.
Now it’s gone over to candidates being “rock stars” and needing to generate excitement to get $$$. People on the extremes tend to be more excited, and more likely to give $$$ than those in the middle. Before the institutionalism of the parties, the number of people that were R or D because that’s where they made their connections, dominated the extremes. Now it’s the other way around, extremes bring in $$$ and the moderates are expected to follow along.
I think over time things will tend to be less extreme because you’ll have more people involved in the parties who effectively have no choice as to what party they’re in, and if the way the party functions is to keep frothing everything up, less and less time is spent to see if the ideas make any sense, are consistent with other ideas, or are even implemented by the people on your side. We even saw that with Trump, where the concept that he is some sort of oppositional totem seems to be more important that the reality of any issues that he stands for or things he tried to accomplish while president.
I am imagining that if they develop a party that is about twenty percent of the electorate, with the two existing parties holding about forty percent or less of the voters under their sway, both established parties will have to create more reasonable, less extreme bills that are more acceptable to a crossover audience.
If the republicans went from having 50% of voters and representation, to having around 40% they could not just obstruct and wait until they could pass reconciliation bills. The new, independent party could not likely form policies – but they could inform them and mute the sharp edges because it is no longer a two man game.
They will no longer bother to filibuster because the Dems plus the Forwards can do shit without them if they get too stubborn. So, in order to have some say, they play much nicer than they have been playing. At the same time, they court the Forwards for their own agenda so they do not need any Democrats. That makes the Democrats more likely to be reasonable and offer votes for small considerations.
The great potential of this idea is that it would keep both major parties from trying any my way or the highway bullshit. The two parties would have to start to play to win because they can no longer play to obstruct while there is a third team who can make either of the other teams insignificant.
The Democrats already work with Republicans when they’re out of power – look at all the stuff that was passed during COVID when Trump was president and the Republicans controlled the Senate.
This kinds of both-sidesism really gets under my skin. Anyway, getting 20% of the electorate sprinkled throughout the country makes you a spoiler, but doesn’t get you any senate seats.
not according to a number of debates I’ve had. I am more that willing to agree that most of the “OMG! LATE TERM ABORTION IS TEH EBIL! IT’S EVEN CALLED ‘PARTIAL BIRTH’!” is a smokescreen for limiting the availability of abortions, but there is a substantial population that the only limitations on abortion should be that you can’t use a rusty knife. I have been berated for having a point of view different from “all abortions legal at all times.” And I do get it; it’s the old “if you let the camel’s nose into the tent, pretty soon the whole thing is in there”. Because one side is so doggedly pursuing their side, the other side has to be just as dogged to keep some kind of reasonableness. That sure as hell went out the window on that issue.
BTW - all of this was very much an exercise in showing that there IS a middle ground on most issues.
It’s called a joke, son. I was trying to find (maybe poorly) something socially conservative to give a “Liberal financial / Social Conservative” viewpoint.
Parties aren’t static. If they see those ideas gaining traction they will parrot them.
Well, there are an astounding number of silly people in the world. I’m sure the number of people who hold that extreme view isn’t literally zero. What’s relevant in this thread is that AFAICT the number of elected officials who hold that view is zero. Which is sadly untrue of the opposite extreme view.