Forward Party 2022

[immamac 44382]

A new third party was formed that has 5M in funding. 

https://www.forwardparty.com/faq

[Brew 3049]

Going to siphon votes from the Democrats like they always do and exacerbate the problem we currently have.

[David Dennison 19554]

6 minutes ago, immamac said:

A new third party was formed that has 5M in funding. 

https://www.forwardparty.com/faq

[Bama Chick 28596]

Fuck Andrew Yang and fuck math.

Fucking douchenerd Elon Musk wannabe dickmunch.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Oh look, it’s another group of lazy grifters that couldn’t cut it in the major parties. 

[F250 29201]

Sure, why not? There are already a million third parties out there might as well add another.

[David Dennison 19554]

I'm here for the hot takes.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Sadly this party would be politically viable if Trump joined. 

[atomheartbevo 90655]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

Sure, why not? There are already a million third parties out there might as well add another.

It’s no Bull Moose party, but give it time.  

[Anastasis 23723]

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

[Wally Fairway 5677]

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 

[gmr548 16702]

Going to siphon votes from the Democrats like they always do and exacerbate the problem we currently have.

Okay sure, but think about how good tech bros will feel about themselves?

[gmr548 16702]

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 

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.

[Degenerate Gardner 4159]

9 hours ago, immamac said:

A new third party was formed that has 5M in funding. 

https://www.forwardparty.com/faq

Rename it the Fwd: Fwd: Party and you may make some inroads with the olds. Or so I was told.

[immamac 44382]

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. 

[Biff Tannen 46170]

9 hours ago, Brew said:

Going to siphon votes from the Democrats like they always do and exacerbate the problem we currently have.

This.  Seems like maybe the worst possible time in history to do this.

[Gourmand 7778]

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.

[Gourmand 7778]

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.

[Js1 87190]

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 

[Wally Fairway 5677]

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

[Captainant 28565]

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. 

[kevwun 16442]

5 million, wow.  That's enough to fund 1 congressional race.  Maybe.

[immamac 44382]

1 minute ago, kevwun said:

5 million, wow.  That's enough to fund 1 congressional race.  Maybe.

Good thing they aren't doing congressional races yet. 

[kevwun 16442]

Gotta get that sweet, sweet grift first.

[Texas St. Armadillos 1388]

Just now, kevwun said:

Gotta get that sweet, sweet grift first.

Ideologically it sounds like what is needed, but unfortunately, your point is the likeliest. 

[Tuco 5094]

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.  

[Texas St. Armadillos 1388]

Could be called the "Be a Human Being and Not a Self-Obsessed, Racist, Asshole" Party.

I wish we didn't need a political party for this to be true, but you know, money.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The best hope for a third party in America is to subvert and replace one of the major parties.  
 

You could almost argue that Trump has pulled this off within the Republican Party which kinda negates the third party approach to radical change.  

[Js1 87190]

26 minutes ago, kevwun said:

5 million, wow.  That's enough to fund 1 congressional race.  Maybe.

In Nebraska, maybe. 

[Biff Tannen 46170]

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.

[RDCanecutter 26898]

Splitters.

[kibbles 70]

We need 5 parties.   Even numbers are bad for consensus.   

[SKJ 1322]

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

[Hookah Horns 3089]

Not even sure how this is newsworthy.

[SKJ 1322]

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

[wildcat09 29592]

I had some hopes for Yang's ability to promote UBI. He's been a pretty big fucking disappointment. This party won't go anywhere and is clearly just a lame attempt at grifting some suckers.

[Blotto 24025]

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.

[atomheartbevo 90655]

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

 

[Gourmand 7778]

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.

 

[atomheartbevo 90655]

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.

['stache 22145]

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.

[Anastasis 23723]

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. 

[Walser 1125]

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) ?

[Js1 87190]

6 minutes ago, Walser said:

A) 2) D) ?

[Hookah Horns 3089]

10 minutes ago, Walser said:

A) 2) D) ?

Do you not know your A2Ds? 

[Tuco 5094]

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.  

 

[gmr548 16702]

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 July 29, 2022 by gmr548

[kevwun 16442]

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 July 29, 2022 by kevwun

[gmr548 16702]

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.

[kevwun 16442]

These people are winning their primaries easily because the craziness they spew is what Republican voters want.