Jump to content

Forward Party 2022

immamac

By immamac
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Wally Fairway

Wally Fairway 5524

Posted
Posted

I'm interested to see how this progresses and to see if John Kasich joins/endorses; last person who was a "viable" third party candidate was Ross Perot. 

There is a need, imo, for politics to allow negotiations between parties, reconciliation process to actually work, finding a middle ground and respect for a differing opinion.

I will now show myself out of the CR 
Here's why you won't be able to walk in and get an iPhone 7 today

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16517

Posted
Posted
I'm interested to see how this progresses and to see if John Kasich joins/endorses; last person who was a "viable" third party candidate was Ross Perot. 
There is a need, imo, for politics to allow negotiations between parties, reconciliation process to actually work, finding a middle ground and respect for a differing opinion.
I will now show myself out of the CR 
1474016065-simpsons-grandpa.gif?crop=1xw:0.6584302325581395xh;center,top&resize=640:*

All of that is possible within the two party system. The electoral college, gerrymandering, and the primary system are way more to blame than a lack of a mythical third party.
  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 42519

Posted
  • Author
Posted

They aren't going after senate or federal races outside of the house of reps for now it seems. They want to get mayoral, city council school board etc. This is the opposite of the GQP Qanon takeover at the local level from what I understand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted

Y'all realize this is just a bunch of former asshole Republicans from Reagan/Bush/Bush/Trump administrations and dipshit Andrew Yang, right?

They already have a political home in the neoliberal wing of the Democratican Party. What a bunch of grifting shitheads.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted

From the WaPo op-ed page yesterday:

Quote

The two major parties have hollowed out the sensible center of our political system — even though that’s where most voters want to see them move. A new party must stake out the space in between. On every issue facing this nation — from the controversial to the mundane — we can find a reasonable approach most Americans agree on.

On guns, for instance, most Americans don’t agree with calls from the far left to confiscate all guns and repeal the Second Amendment, but they’re also rightfully worried by the far right’s insistence on eliminating gun laws. On climate change, most Americans don’t agree with calls from the far left to completely upend our economy and way of life, but they also reject the far right’s denial that there is even a problem. On abortion, most Americans don’t agree with the far left’s extreme views on late-term abortions, but they also are alarmed by the far right’s quest to make a woman’s choice a criminal offense.

 

If you can't spot the strawmanning nonsense in the words above, the Forward Party looks forward to separating you from your money.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85112

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Y'all realize this is just a bunch of former asshole Republicans from Reagan/Bush/Bush/Trump administrations and dipshit Andrew Yang, right?

They already have a political home in the neoliberal wing of the Democratican Party. What a bunch of grifting shitheads.

It’s always a grift. If Yang is touching it, it’s not even worth looking at 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wally Fairway

Wally Fairway 5524

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:


All of that is possible within the two party system. The electoral college, gerrymandering, and the primary system are way more to blame than a lack of a mythical third party.

The two party system did all those things many years ago, the current embodiment of the two parties today have no interest in it.
We have had more than 2 parties in the past, most prominently in the 1860 election with 4 parties, with the winner having less than 40% of the popular vote. The 4 parties with candidates were Republicans (Lincoln), Southern Democratic (Breckinridge), Constitutional Union (Bell) and Democratic (Douglas).

I'm not sure why we think that all there are 2 parties who can effectively represent a much more divergent populous then that; however the current 2 parties have no interest in sharing the power and monies that are involved. 
I won't be around if/when there is a change in this system, but my grandkids might

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27467

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, immamac said:

They aren't going after senate or federal races outside of the house of reps for now it seems. They want to get mayoral, city council school board etc. This is the opposite of the GQP Qanon takeover at the local level from what I understand. 

Except for the lack of megadonors and koch brothers secretly funding the whole thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

The two party system did all those things many years ago, the current embodiment of the two parties today have no interest in it.
We have had more than 2 parties in the past, most prominently in the 1860 election with 4 parties, with the winner having less than 40% of the popular vote. The 4 parties with candidates were Republicans (Lincoln), Southern Democratic (Breckinridge), Constitutional Union (Bell) and Democratic (Douglas).

I'm not sure why we think that all there are 2 parties who can effectively represent a much more divergent populous then that; however the current 2 parties have no interest in sharing the power and monies that are involved. 
I won't be around if/when there is a change in this system, but my grandkids might

Uh huh.  And now we have a two party system.  History has shown us that a 3+-party system has not been survived for more than what, two cycles?  What that screams to me is that given our current political system, a 3+ party system is not stable.  It's not about right/wrong, proper representation, etc., it's about evolution.  Evolution is driven by environment.  And it is clear that with our political environment, a 2 party system is the one that survives.  If you want to change that, you have to change the political environment.  There are so many parliamentary systems where multiparty systems actually seem to work.  But that's not the way the US is built.  The whole "less than 40% of the popular vote" line clearly demonstrates the difference.  In our system, the candidate with a plurality wins.  In other systems, the PM needs to gather support from a coalition of parties which.  And because of that difference, voting for a third party is frequently helping the candidate that you least like.  

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

They will get shut out of ballot access cause our political system has been captured by the Rs and Ds. 5mm? How cute. 

And this is an excellent point.  At the state and local levels, the parties have been successful in controlling the ballot.  That shit should be addressed. 

41 minutes ago, immamac said:

They aren't going after senate or federal races outside of the house of reps for now it seems. They want to get mayoral, city council school board etc. This is the opposite of the GQP Qanon takeover at the local level from what I understand. 

And that is good.  Those local races are frequently structured differently so you don't have the same political environment.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1305

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think ranked choice voting A) makes the party system far less powerful 2) solves a TON of problems with the way campaigns are run and D) is WAY more likely than a viable third party at this point.

And that's one of yang's planks

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1305

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hookah Horns said:

Not even sure how this is newsworthy.

Just that they're going grass roots first,  trying to make the changes they want locally first,  then to infect those changes upward? I don't know... but a lot of the ideas are needed. 

I hope they don't become another fuckfest of all talk,  but maybe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23434

Posted
Posted

I'm still trying to figure out why Andrew Yang is a "thing"?  It looks like he made a few million selling Manhatten Prep to Kaplan, and then started Venture for America, which is how he garnered attention from Obama's WH. But his track record at that venture measured against his own stated goals was underwhelming. He bailed on that operation to run for president (failed, not surprisingly) and then ran for NYC mayor and failed. Now in addition to his  Forward Party initiative, it seems he's also involved with some crypto/NFT bullshit tied to lobbying (lobby.io).

I agree with some of his observations and disagree with others, much like I do with many posters here in the CR. It doesn't take a genius to recognize many of the massive issues facing this country, as evidenced by the hundreds of posters here that recognize those same issues. But why exactly is Yang the answer? I don't find a lot of evidence from his past to justify a belief that he capable of fixing anything. 

I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of a 3rd political party, but I also agree with many of the comments on this thread that the likelihood of a sustainable 3rd party is low. If Andrew Yang is the guy in charge, I give it about a zero percent chance of succeeding. His primary success to date and motivation moving forward really seems to be in promoting the idea  of Andrew Yang.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89449

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Blotto said:

I'm still trying to figure out why Andrew Yang is a "thing"?

He’s got two notable achievements, the first being time travel

The second, protecting his campaign staff

 

4 hours ago, Js1 said:

It’s always a grift. If Yang is touching it, it’s not even worth looking at 

From last year

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Not even sure how this is newsworthy.

It's only newsworthy from the perspective of the self-affirming centrists/moderates who cloak themselves in a very fake air of superiority, the kind of people who bend over backwards to give acrobatic reach arounds and tossed salads to the independent, undecided, swing voters of the middle class who think all politics is dumb and politicians are all the same and both sides are crazy extremists who ignore the majority middle. It's the same bullshit story recycled over and over. This myth of the supremacy of "independent" voters and their supposed yearning for a third party relies upon these people ignoring their obsession with centrism as a goal in and of itself and the effect that has on our actual politics and actual policies. The fact they badly misrepresent everything the "far left" believes is a perfect example of them telling on themselves. 

This is a clown show of clown Republicans who let the GOP descend into the crazy authoritarian narcissist insult QQP shitshow. Fix your own party before you try to start another one.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89449

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Tuco said:

And now we have a two party system.  History has shown us that a 3+-party system has not been survived for more than what, two cycles?  What that screams to me is that given our current political system, a 3+ party system is not stable.  It's not about right/wrong, proper representation, etc., it's about evolution.  Evolution is driven by environment.

In 1992, sure, but in 2022, I’d argue that the right people combined with social media, could make some waves.  It is now far easier and cheaper to reach people and get them out to vote.

Hell, if Trump split with the GOP and started MAGA Party, you instantly have a third party that has power.  It won’t win much, but it will have power over the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21774

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Gourmand said:

From the WaPo op-ed page yesterday:

 

If you can't spot the strawmanning nonsense in the words above, the Forward Party looks forward to separating you from your money.

Yup, starting off with a fallacy about what is far right and what is far left. Confiscating guns and repealing the 2nd Amendment is a far left fringe idea, eliminating gun laws is a dead center Republican idea. If the party has any self-identifying republicans, it's going to be a right-wing clone. They already have a right-wing alternative. I also liked Wang's thoughts on UBI but he's been pretty nonsensical otherwise. I do fear it will take away democrat votes from those who fall for the "everything is leftist fringe" wing of the party that is a very large chunk of the party voters.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

In 1992, sure, but in 2022, I’d argue that the right people combined with social media, could make some waves.  It is now far easier and cheaper to reach people and get them out to vote.

Hell, if Trump split with the GOP and started MAGA Party, you instantly have a third party that has power.  It won’t win much, but it will have power over the GOP.

Still over the overcome the 2 parties system's grip on the keys to the entry gate. Social media and a grass roots movement is unlikely to overcome that control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walser

Walser 1107

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think ranked choice voting A) makes the party system far less powerful 2) solves a TON of problems with the way campaigns are run and D) is WAY more likely than a viable third party at this point.

A) 2) D) ?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

In 1992, sure, but in 2022, I’d argue that the right people combined with social media, could make some waves.  It is now far easier and cheaper to reach people and get them out to vote.

Hell, if Trump split with the GOP and started MAGA Party, you instantly have a third party that has power.  It won’t win much, but it will have power over the GOP.

I don't think making waves is the issue.  In '92, a third party made waves. If Trump started his own party, it would definitely make waves.  Hell, Yang and his Forward Party could make waves.  

What I am stating is in the current political system for electing President, the two party system is the only stable condition.  They don't have to be called Republicans and Democrats.  There have been instances where one party has been displaced by a new party.  Last time that happened was around 160 years ago with the Republicans.  There have been instances where a well known political figures have taken the third party mantle and won, like Teddy Roosevelt.  That was like 110 years ago.  But, every time, the disturbance to the natural order dampens out within a couple of cycles.  Usually, the third party takes more votes from the party they are more closely aligned to, causing the "lesser of two evils" to lose, and the third party disintegrates. If Forward takes more votes from former Dems, and Trump is elected, the former Dems become new Dems.  If Forward were to actually win the Presidency, then more Dems become Forwarders, and the Dems disintegrate.  [Just a hypothetical; Forward isn't going for the top seat.]

This is why the Democratic leadership is absolutely fucking wrong in trying to prop up Trump candidates.  Maybe short term, you win a few more toss-up elections.  But there will always be a viable opposition party who will win roughly 50% of elections.  And the Democratic leadership is making that opposition party more Trumpy, which makes our country more Trumpy.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16517

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

The two party system did all those things many years ago, the current embodiment of the two parties today have no interest in it.
We have had more than 2 parties in the past, most prominently in the 1860 election with 4 parties, with the winner having less than 40% of the popular vote. The 4 parties with candidates were Republicans (Lincoln), Southern Democratic (Breckinridge), Constitutional Union (Bell) and Democratic (Douglas).

I'm not sure why we think that all there are 2 parties who can effectively represent a much more divergent populous then that; however the current 2 parties have no interest in sharing the power and monies that are involved. 
I won't be around if/when there is a change in this system, but my grandkids might

1.) I'm not sure I would use the election that was the straw that broke the camel's back when it came to southern secession as an example of how the electoral college, Westminster-style fractured political parties, and reducing the temperature in a nation that is trending further polarized every day are compatible, but go off, king.

2.) I didn't say that the current situation is resulting in effective representation of the electorate. I am saying that the actual systems in place can largely have only one result, and just wishcasting for a magic third party to solve that problem is either misguided or a copout, perhaps a bit of both. Congress is already set up fine to function with two parties or 17. It's who gets elected and how that leads to what you see today.

Edited by gmr548
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15653

Posted
Posted (edited)

Teddy Roosevelt lost when he ran as a 3rd party candidate and this time next year no one will even remember the Forward party.  How exactly is Dem leadership propping up Trumpy candidates?  What have they done to help Walker win the Republican nomination in Georgia?  How are they helping Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania?  Republican voters are pushing forth these candidates, not the Dems.

Edited by kevwun
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16517

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Teddy Roosevelt lost when he ran as a 3rd party candidate and this time next year no one will even remember the Forward party.  How exactly is Dem leadership propping up Trumpy candidates?  What have they done to help Walker win the Republican nomination in Georgia?  How are they helping Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania?  Republican voters are pushing forth these candidates, not the Dems.

Dems, or at least Democratic affiliated PACs and such, have tried to put a thumb on a scale by running ads in support of Trumpy candidates in GOP primaries. The logic being that they will be easier to defeat in the general election.

Not sure I'd want to fuck around with the chance to find out as Democrats in that position, but also not sure what, if any, real impact it's had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...