US Political Party Realignment Talk Not Going Away

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

At this point I think it is inevitable and possibly even can be accomplished without historic bloodshed as has happened before in large-scale American realignments.

Sensible ex-Republicans like so many of y'all on this board join forces with centrist Dems for a moderate middle party. This would be the fulcrum.

On the left you'd have the People's Party and on the right you'd have the "Patriots." Middle party has to make deals with these two -- hopefully, most of these would be with the left, as this People's Party would just be an irrational rage vehicle. 

I know there are a million hurdles in the way of this happening but again, what we have now is not sustainable. The divisions among the Dems are kind of dormant now, but they are almost as deep as those among the old GOP guard and the MAGATs, which is going full on Whig Supernova right now. 

Like slavery before it, the Internet is a stress test the Constitution is failing.

It's fucking cliched as hell now, buuutttt: 

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst   

Are full of passionate intensity.

 

I do believe you could have a party with both Mitch and Joe Biden on the same team. I would not be a member of that party, but I don't think it would be as bad a party as either partisan centrist Dems or partisan moderate Repubs fear. That's the strong principled party I'd like to see and snipe at from the left. And it would isolate and contain the CHUDS into a fringe party with almost no financial backing save what they could raise on their own. 

 

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

While I am all Pollyanna Pie-in-the-Sky, such a turn of events would completely reset the Overton Window to where it should be. When a big chunk of the US population thinks Joe fucking Biden is a communist, things have gone badly askew. 

[Parliament 14112]

I'm in. You can have your legal drugs and abortion, if I can have my balanced budget. I'll compromise on national defense as well.

[Al_4_ISU 12408]

This exact thought crossed my mind as Trump and McConnell started fighting with each other.

Eventual I think the rage party would die off because there just aren't enough business interests willing to invest in it.  My biggest hope from the "election was rigged" crowd is that it drives them back into not voting.  I know in Iowa we've seen a big turn to the right because a bunch of Darrells that never bothered voting in the past turned out whenever Trump was on the ballot.  If they go back to thinking politics is rigged elitist bullshit, maybe the candidates will go back to ignoring them.

[Drew 2331]

Oh you poor naïve fool.  Anyone whos ever voted Republican is obviously a racist white man.

Everyone who votes Dem is a communist.

 

/Fin.

 

 

 

But I would love this. Because I flat out can NOT get behind the most far leaning right or far leaning left ideas/politics.  Too much on both sides I agree with, so it's really hard to choose who to actually vote for in the smaller elections.

[SydneyCarton 47809]

4 minutes ago, Parliament said:

I'm in. You can have your legal drugs and abortion, if I can have my balanced budget. I'll compromise on national defense as well.

That's not fair. There's a fuck ton of people here, myself included that would love a motherfucking balanced budget. But the Republicans haven't been that party in my lifetime either. 

[wildcat09 29187]

39 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

At this point I think it is inevitable and possibly even can be accomplished without historic bloodshed as has happened before in large-scale American realignments.

Sensible ex-Republicans like so many of y'all on this board join forces with centrist Dems for a moderate middle party. This would be the fulcrum.

On the left you'd have the People's Party and on the right you'd have the "Patriots." Middle party has to make deals with these two -- hopefully, most of these would be with the left, as this People's Party would just be an irrational rage vehicle. 

I know there are a million hurdles in the way of this happening but again, what we have now is not sustainable. The divisions among the Dems are kind of dormant now, but they are almost as deep as those among the old GOP guard and the MAGATs, which is going full on Whig Supernova right now. 

Like slavery before it, the Internet is a stress test the Constitution is failing.

It's fucking cliched as hell now, buuutttt: 

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst   

Are full of passionate intensity.

 

I do believe you could have a party with both Mitch and Joe Biden on the same team. I would not be a member of that party, but I don't think it would be as bad a party as either partisan centrist Dems or partisan moderate Repubs fear. That's the strong principled party I'd like to see and snipe at from the left. And it would isolate and contain the CHUDS into a fringe party with almost no financial backing save what they could raise on their own. 

 

 

...how would a party with Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell in it be a principled party?

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

...how would a party with Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell in it be a principled party?

Well, their principles are rational, anyway. We know who they are. 

[RDCanecutter 26239]

I call dibs on being a blockade runner.

[David Dennison 18608]

34 minutes ago, Parliament said:

I'm in. You can have your legal drugs and abortion, if I can have my balanced budget. I'll compromise on national defense as well.

LOL no.

[Born to Run 6524]

That's not fair. There's a fuck ton of people here, myself included that would love a motherfucking balanced budget. But the Republicans haven't been that party in my lifetime either. 

Same here.

I would accomplish this by slashing defense funding- spending more on defense than the next 5 countries is insane? Who the fuck are we preparing to fight? Also our enemies are whipping are ass/ could fuck our shit up without firing a single weapon.

Won't happen because that would get cast as not supporting the troops, and that's a non starter probably forever in this country. Just endless spending of treasure so you don't get cast as anti troop. It only can ever increase in an arms race with ourselves. Then of course not doing shitdick for said troops once they leave the service.

I also expect several candidates in 2022 to literally hump and grind on the flag. Millions will cheer.
2024 tasteful grinding with a skirt on
2026 full nude grinding by some leathery skinned bad tit job former breasturant employee 20 years past her prime that republicans welcome as having " a hot lady in Congress."

[bernorange 8346]

Biden and McConnell represent parties (people/companies/organizations) with opposing positions/interests.  Not sure how you think they would fit together in a political party.  Political parties don't exist without big money donors.  They set the agendas (or the agendas morph to attract them).

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

8 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Biden and McConnell represent parties (people/companies/organizations) with opposing positions/interests.  Not sure how you think they would fit together in a political party.  Political parties don't exist without big money donors.  They set the agendas (or the agendas morph to attract them).

Interests realign and change, as those idiots spouting that "the Democrats are the party of slavery" never fail to inadvertently remind us. 

[Hookah Horns 3058]

54 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

This exact thought crossed my mind as Trump and McConnell started fighting with each other.

Eventual I think the rage party would die off because there just aren't enough business interests willing to invest in it.  My biggest hope from the "election was rigged" crowd is that it drives them back into not voting.  I know in Iowa we've seen a big turn to the right because a bunch of Darrells that never bothered voting in the past turned out whenever Trump was on the ballot.  If they go back to thinking politics is rigged elitist bullshit, maybe the candidates will go back to ignoring them.

I'm guessing it will drive them to try to rig the elections in their favor rather than not vote. 

[washparkhorn 9931]

46 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

There's a fuck ton of people here, myself included that would love a motherfucking balanced budget.

Why? 

Spoiler

Billionaire Pete Peterson's national debt hoax ideology (formulated to protect billionaire wealth from non-billionaires) remains an anchor on this economy. 

Looking back at the 2008 crisis:

What would have happened if we had required balanced budgets throughout the Great Recession.

• Between 2007 and 2009, the federal deficit increased by about 8.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
• As we explained above, with the Fed hamstrung by the ZLB as early as late 2008, these cuts would have hit the broader economy with a fiscal multiplier of 2.5.
• This means that if we had been forced to balance the budget in the face of the shock that led to the Great Recession, then GDP would have declined by a staggering 22 percentage points.
• With unemployment peaking at 10 percent during the Great Recession, Okun’s law implies that a balanced budget would have caused unemployment to peak instead at about 21 percent.
• The private economic forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers likewise found that had a balanced budget amendment been in effect during fiscal year 2012, “the effect on the economy would be catastrophic.” With the Fed still constrained by the ZLB, they estimated that the unemployment rate would have doubled from 9 percent to 18 percent.

https://www.epi.org/blog/a-balanced-budget-amendment-would-be-extraordinarily-dangerous-for-the-economy/

It is outside the scope of this thread, but many should take a fresh look at their assumptions - including the idea of a balanced budget as an economic plus. Sovereign currencies do not work like household budgets (or state and local budgets).

Just planting a seed. I understand the compulsion to want a balanced budget. 

 

[SydneyCarton 47809]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Why? 

  Hide contents

Billionaire Pete Peterson's national debt hoax ideology (formulated to protect billionaire wealth from non-billionaires) remains an anchor on this economy. 

Looking back at the 2008 crisis:

What would have happened if we had required balanced budgets throughout the Great Recession.

• Between 2007 and 2009, the federal deficit increased by about 8.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
• As we explained above, with the Fed hamstrung by the ZLB as early as late 2008, these cuts would have hit the broader economy with a fiscal multiplier of 2.5.
• This means that if we had been forced to balance the budget in the face of the shock that led to the Great Recession, then GDP would have declined by a staggering 22 percentage points.
• With unemployment peaking at 10 percent during the Great Recession, Okun’s law implies that a balanced budget would have caused unemployment to peak instead at about 21 percent.
• The private economic forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers likewise found that had a balanced budget amendment been in effect during fiscal year 2012, “the effect on the economy would be catastrophic.” With the Fed still constrained by the ZLB, they estimated that the unemployment rate would have doubled from 9 percent to 18 percent.

https://www.epi.org/blog/a-balanced-budget-amendment-would-be-extraordinarily-dangerous-for-the-economy/

It is outside the scope of this thread, but many should take a fresh look at their assumptions - including the idea of a balanced budget as an economic plus. Sovereign currencies do not work like household budgets (or state and local budgets).

Just planting a seed. I understand the compulsion to want a balanced budget. 

 

Yeah, I get we're never actually going to have a balanced budget. For a number of reasons that's okay as long as our economy grows to match debt. 

 

That being said, we're past the point of even reasonable shit, and that was before covid. I'd love to get the debt down some, and then with the flexibility to be able to put that money into social programs with less of a fucking hiccup. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

slouching toward sodom and gommorah, imo

[atomheartbevo 89362]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Sensible ex-Republicans like so many of y'all on this board join forces with centrist Dems for a moderate middle party. This would be the fulcrum.

I don't know if I'd use the word "sensible" - plenty of us flirted with the Libertarian Party.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

The Democratic Party needs reform.  The Republican Party needs to be annihilated and then reformed.  

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

A 3 party system would never work in America. Our constitution requires 270 electoral votes to win, and that never happens if 3 candidates are picking up states. There is always the obvious solution of scrapping the electoral college, but good luck with that.

[washparkhorn 9931]

22 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

slouching toward sodom and gommorah

Where does Bork fit in this new alignment? Trumper Patriot Party?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Just now, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

A 3 party system would never work in America. Our constitution requires 270 electoral votes to win, and that never happens if 3 candidates are picking up states. There is always the obvious solution of scrapping the electoral college, but good luck with that.

This is funny b/c the framers of the constitution didn’t expect candidates to win the majority electoral votes often due to the likelihood of more than two competitive candidates.  They designed it so the EC tiebreaker vote would get settled in the House, but a vote by state. 

[Michael Knight 12863]

18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is funny b/c the framers of the constitution didn’t expect candidates to win the majority electoral votes often due to the likelihood of more than two competitive candidates.  They designed it so the EC tiebreaker vote would get settled in the House, but a vote by state. 

They also didn't expect women and blacks to vote much less Irish and Italians.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11796]

Did you mean the Patriot party to be the irrational rage vehicle in the OP?  Maybe I read it wrong.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

12 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

They also didn't expect women and blacks to vote much less Irish and Italians.

Yeah, they were assholes. 

[David Dennison 18608]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah, I get we're never actually going to have a balanced budget. For a number of reasons that's okay as long as our economy grows to match debt. 

 

That being said, we're past the point of even reasonable shit, and that was before covid. I'd love to get the debt down some, and then with the flexibility to be able to put that money into social programs with less of a fucking hiccup. 

The debt doesn't matter. There is plenty of money to do whatever the United States wants to do. MMT out front should have told ya.

[Hookah Horns 3058]

48 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

A 3 party system would never work in America. Our constitution requires 270 electoral votes to win, and that never happens if 3 candidates are picking up states. There is always the obvious solution of scrapping the electoral college, but good luck with that.

I'm embarrassed and it blows my mind that I didn't know this. I always thought a plurality wins.

There goes my hopes for a legit third party. Da framerz really fucked up that whole clause. 

[Born to Run 6524]

Why? 
Spoiler

Billionaire Pete Peterson's national debt hoax ideology (formulated to protect billionaire wealth from non-billionaires) remains an anchor on this economy. 
Looking back at the 2008 crisis:
What would have happened if we had required balanced budgets throughout the Great Recession.

• Between 2007 and 2009, the federal deficit increased by about 8.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
• As we explained above, with the Fed hamstrung by the ZLB as early as late 2008, these cuts would have hit the broader economy with a fiscal multiplier of 2.5.
• This means that if we had been forced to balance the budget in the face of the shock that led to the Great Recession, then GDP would have declined by a staggering 22 percentage points.
• With unemployment peaking at 10 percent during the Great Recession, Okun’s law implies that a balanced budget would have caused unemployment to peak instead at about 21 percent.
• The private economic forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers likewise found that had a balanced budget amendment been in effect during fiscal year 2012, “the effect on the economy would be catastrophic.” With the Fed still constrained by the ZLB, they estimated that the unemployment rate would have doubled from 9 percent to 18 percent.

https://www.epi.org/blog/a-balanced-budget-amendment-would-be-extraordinarily-dangerous-for-the-economy/
It is outside the scope of this thread, but many should take a fresh look at their assumptions - including the idea of a balanced budget as an economic plus. Sovereign currencies do not work like household budgets (or state and local budgets).
Just planting a seed. I understand the compulsion to want a balanced budget. 

 

Don't do corporate tax cuts or start Wars to juice your ratings during a booming economy for your own benefit only as party in power.

At least work toward reversing debt in good times without pandemics or recessions, spend like heck to dig out when shit hits the fan, pay shit off when times are good?

[Born to Run 6524]

I don't know if I'd use the word "sensible" - plenty of us flirted with the Libertarian Party.

Raises hand as a legit Gary Johnson voter. Oh the fucking shame. Not as much as my Maga family, but shame a plenty. I bought in to bullshit.

[Born to Run 6524]

Where does Bork fit in this new alignment? Trumper Patriot Party?

That dude plus Rush gave my dad (rip) brainworms. My pops was smart, talented, fun loving and a fair debater back in the day before all this ruckus.

[Born to Run 6524]

I'm embarrassed and it blows my mind that I didn't know this. I always thought a plurality wins.
There goes my hopes for a legit third party. Da framerz really fucked up that whole clause. 

That's why 3rd party pres bids start strong and then fizzle
Most people don't vote knowing they are going to lose.
It's a self feeding loop.
I love this platform! ahh well, nevertheless...

[Biff Tannen 45477]

2 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

slouching toward sodom

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

2 hours ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

A 3 party system would never work in America. Our constitution requires 270 electoral votes to win, and that never happens if 3 candidates are picking up states. There is always the obvious solution of scrapping the electoral college, but good luck with that.

Something is going to have to give. The Constitution will have to be amended or even scrapped and rewritten. We are on an unsustainable course right now with a minority of hatemongers gerrymandered into winning elections fair and square. 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

4 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The Constitution will have to be amended or even scrapped and rewritten

I've always been curious as to why we had all these amendments and then lately?  Bupkis.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

2 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

They also didn't expect women and blacks to vote much less Irish and Italians.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

3 hours ago, bernorange said:

Biden and McConnell represent parties (people/companies/organizations) with opposing positions/interests.  Not sure how you think they would fit together in a political party.  Political parties don't exist without big money donors.  They set the agendas (or the agendas morph to attract them).

Plenty of BMDs/corporations literally give to both sides. 

That's why so many companies who are ostensibly "woke" or whatever it's now called, were easily pressured into backing off from donating to the GOP/crazies.  People were shocked that so-called progressive/tech elites were giving so much to a party or politicians they don't care for.

[BrickHorn 18176]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Eventual I think the rage party would die off because there just aren't enough business interests willing to invest in it

1930s Germany called. It wants its misplaced optimism back.