What third party in America today has the best chance of replacing a major one?

Don’t you get it? It’s the social conservatism that’s declining by natural attrition. You shouldn’t make any long-term plans based on it. And in this case “social conservatism” includes anti-immigrant feeling and isolationism and the whole noneconomic side of the paleoconservative package.

Even if its “dying” its still quite strong among blue-collar workers both black and white and again its in the economic interests of blue-collar workers to be opposed to immigration.

Ad it’s unfortunate for them if they let this wedge issue lead them to vote Republican or Tea Party, accepting a lip-service band-aid for their short-term financial interests over their long-term financial interests, i.e. not getting fucked over.

Personally, I can picture some kind of American equivalent of the Bloc Québécois - a regional party (maybe based in Texas), getting some seats in the House for an election cycle or two, with the same result.

“with the same result.”

You mean, propping up a national party that neither they nor most of the country like, until someone from an small party comes in, convinces the regional party’s base they’re better off with a national party, & eats the regional party’s lunch?

Well, I had in mind a few cycles of loudmouthery and irrelevance, until the electorate gets tired of them, but okay.

Oh, the Tea Party can do that! :slight_smile:

I’d say the most likely type of third party to get any traction would be a regional party of some kind (e.g. the Vermont party mentioned above, or the Populist Party). Then it might be able to absorb or merge with one of the major parties, if it got big enough.

I’d just like to point out one person said 9% of the population and the other said 9% of the Republican’s base. Someone’s getting it wrong. They are both true only if Reuplicans have a base of 100% of the people.

You’re right, I mis-stated BrainGlutton’s cite, though if it is 9% of the total population, that makes it worse for Republicans.

Yeah it would make it worse. I disgree somewhat with the old-fogies-will-die-off argument though. While our society does evolve, there is still a tendency for young people to somewhat be more liberal and then as they mature become more conservative. I did.

(I’m not trying to say that liberals are immature and conservatives aren’t, I’m just talking about growing older.)

another unstoppable statistical trend is the piles of horse dung on the streets of Western cities. Quoth http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past-the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/

but in reality, these dung-obsessed “experts” were just as full of manure as the libtards of today, and about as capable of understanding long term development trends of their societies.

As I say every in every third party thread, there’s no room for a third party. And there’s also no room for a third party to replace one of the major parties, because the existing party infrastructure is so valuable. If the Republican Party or the Democratic Party became so unpopular that replacement by a third party became thinkable, the people who would go to form the third party would instead take over the existing valuable shell of the failing major party.

So imagining that the Tea Party will supplant the Republican Party is nonsense. If they become so powerful that they could supplant the Republicans, they’ll take over the Republicans instead. Especially in this case, where the Tea Party is simply a faction of the Republican Party, it’s not a fraction of the electorate that is unserved by either party.

The example of the Republican Party is instructive. The Republican Party used to be an abolitionist party. After the Civil War it became a northern and black party. Since the South was rural and agricultural, the Republicans were urban and pro-industrial. But along came FDR, and now the Democrats were pro-labor. And then the civil rights movement came along, and the Southern Democrats suddenly transformed into Southern Republicans. And so now the former pro-slavery Democratic party gets 90% of the black vote and the former abolitionist Republicans get only 10%. And the northern and urban party is now a southern and rural party. And so now the Republicans are an uneasy coalition of Jesus and Ayn Rand. That’s not going to be sustainable.

“Libtards”? Seriously?

:dubious: How could anybody in 1894 have reasonably foreseen that automobiles would make horses obsolete within 20 years? Henry Ford woulda been talking out his ass if he had said so. Technological progress is inherently unpredictable.

We could use a labor party represents people who have to work for a living.

There was an effort, but it didn’t get far.

Feh. We should have a party for people who want to get rich quick & retire when they’re young enough to enjoy it. That’s where the demographics are, am I right?


I just love these questions that seem so deep but which I can answer with a single word. :wink:

I wouldn’t advise the VPP to merge there - the WPP has been involved in a few scandals over the years.

For one thing, they were institutionally affiliated with ACORN, for better or worse. Then there was the matter of voter fraud in Troy, NY in the 2009 election. Indictments came down against Democratic Party officials earlier this year.

They were allegedly using WPP absentee ballots to cast votes without the knowledge of the voters involved.

Then there is the matter of the party assisting candidates with campaign services but this not being reported as an in-kind donation. The party seems to still be under investigation on this one, at least for election procedural violations.

If I were a leader of the VPP, no way would I want to take these issues on. Better to build my own brand.