ilovefuzz.com

If there were more than two parties - well we already have more than two parties (we have Libertarians and Greens). They haven't exactly taken off.

But lets say Dems, Republicans, Tea Party, and Democratic Socialists.

In order for the Democratic Socialists to win and then govern effectively, they would need to caucus with Democrats. In order for the Tea Party to win and then govern effectively, they would need to caucus with the Republicans. Pretty much what we already have right now.

Seems to me that our system is biased to favor two major parties. If you want to revamp our system of government with major rules changes... good luck with that. In the meantime, please vote.

K2000 wrote:If there were more than two parties - well we already have more than two parties (we have Libertarians and Greens). They haven't exactly taken off.

But lets say Dems, Republicans, Tea Party, and Democratic Socialists.

In order for the Democratic Socialists to win and then govern effectively, they would need to caucus with Democrats. In order for the Tea Party to win and then govern effectively, they would need to caucus with the Republicans. Pretty much what we already have right now.

Seems to me that our system is biased to favor two major parties. If you want to revamp our system of government with major rules changes... good luck with that. In the meantime, please vote.

The problem is the various flavors of GOP are all homogeneous enough that they won't faction off. The traditionalist, constitutionalists, business, Tea Party, evangelical, and hawk factions all rallied around the batshit candidate in 2016, just like they're all going to rally behind the slimy, Zodiac snake here in Texas. Ugh.

The factions within the dems, meanwhile, are wide and varied, and in many instances will NOT roll out for the candidate. This was painfully obvious in 2016, when the socialist wings boycotted Hillary along with the liberals, civil rights, identity politics, unionists, blue collar workers, and dove factions. (The fact that Congress went to the right was less surprising - historically, Congress pivots away from the outgoing President's party). This is a problem we're also having in Texas - while Beto is a dreamboat who checks enough boxes for me (and for many Texans the "Not Ted Cruz" box is more than enough), our carpet bagging liar of a senator is 100% right when he says he's too liberal for many Texans - including many democrats, moderates, and undecided voters. These are the people who won't show up, which is basically the same as voting for Cruz here.

For whatever reason the dems refuse to rally unless the candidate is at least 90% aligned with their beliefs, and it has killed them in almost every election since the 80s. And even if they were to break into multiple parties there's no way in hell they would caucus with the other factions. Just look at our current Congress - the democratic socialists won't caucus with the blue dogs, who won't caucus with the black caucus, who won't caucus with the neoliberals, who won't caucus with anyone who even attempts bipartisanship.

So if we were to break into a multi-party system the GOP would win every election by a landslide, since it's the dems that would splinter and cannibalize themselves.

We're fucked.

Bassist_Diver wrote:For whatever reason the dems refuse to rally unless the candidate is at least 90% aligned with their beliefs, and it has killed them in almost every election since the 80s. And even if they were to break into multiple parties there's no way in hell they would caucus with the other factions. Just look at our current Congress - the democratic socialists won't caucus with the blue dogs, who won't caucus with the black caucus, who won't caucus with the neoliberals, who won't caucus with anyone who even attempts bipartisanship.

I've been saying this for years.. most dems/liberals get too wrapped up into the issues they feel most important instead of coming together under one umbrella and then tackle the individual issues after fucking winning... even after the election in the protests what did you see? all these different groups with their own agendas and self importances.. the right can all get behind: fuck the poor, more guns, punish women for having abortions after they rape them and gawd wills it with ease for some reason.. and I did not say we needed more parties within the current system It would need to change or yes as you guys put it..
But I also have a feeling that some of us are going to live long enough for this system to completely fall apart and have to start over again.. not an idea I completely like but..

i'm wondering if it'll happen before i die, and i'll be 62 next month.

Wife and I voted a few weeks back, ballot tracker says we're counted. Feels great.

i went out to vote this morning at 6:30. i like being in a polling place with a bunch of other folks...it makes me feel like i'm participating.

VOTE GOD DAMN IT

I voted this morning, and I voted like a "yellow dog Democrat", i.e. if the Democrats had run a yellow dog on the ticket I would have voted for it this morning.

As for the multi-party issue, I think the Democrats should try co-opting smaller left-wing parties. I was of the opinion back in 2016 that Hillary should have tried to co-opt Jill Stein. She could have offered to make her Secretary of the Interior, for example, if Stein had rallied the Green Party behind her (Clinton). But I suppose Hillary owed too many favors to people in the Democratic Party to offer a position like that to an outsider, and who knows if Stein could have been persuaded to make such a deal. But in general, I think co-opting is a good strategy that could unite the Left, if given a chance.

very good boys only 2020

Lurker13 wrote:I voted this morning, and I voted like a "yellow dog Democrat", i.e. if the Democrats had run a yellow dog on the ticket I would have voted for it this morning.

As for the multi-party issue, I think the Democrats should try co-opting smaller left-wing parties. I was of the opinion back in 2016 that Hillary should have tried to co-opt Jill Stein. She could have offered to make her Secretary of the Interior, for example, if Stein had rallied the Green Party behind her (Clinton). But I suppose Hillary owed too many favors to people in the Democratic Party to offer a position like that to an outsider, and who knows if Stein could have been persuaded to make such a deal. But in general, I think co-opting is a good strategy that could unite the Left, if given a chance.

Yes obviously they wanted to court the people who supported a woman who believed for example, the head of the party that believes that vaccines are bad, that GMOs should be suspended, and that alternative therapies should be funded and taught.

D.o.S. wrote:

Lurker13 wrote:I voted this morning, and I voted like a "yellow dog Democrat", i.e. if the Democrats had run a yellow dog on the ticket I would have voted for it this morning.

As for the multi-party issue, I think the Democrats should try co-opting smaller left-wing parties. I was of the opinion back in 2016 that Hillary should have tried to co-opt Jill Stein. She could have offered to make her Secretary of the Interior, for example, if Stein had rallied the Green Party behind her (Clinton). But I suppose Hillary owed too many favors to people in the Democratic Party to offer a position like that to an outsider, and who knows if Stein could have been persuaded to make such a deal. But in general, I think co-opting is a good strategy that could unite the Left, if given a chance.

Yes obviously they wanted to court the people who supported a woman who believed for example, the head of the party that believes that vaccines are bad, that GMOs should be suspended, and that alternative therapies should be funded and taught.

I didn't say they had to give them everything they want. If you want to win, then sometimes you have to make unsavory alliances, especially if the situation is truly dire. I feel the situation is dire, and I'm willing to suffer a few crackpots in government if it shifts the balance of power.

Sure: like the Tories saddling up with the DUP. Or the Tea Partiers and the Republicans.

If it's about winning, it's not about policy. The GOP's trick is that winning allows them to dominate with their policy, because they only have two core issues for their base: Abortion and taxes. The various political groups that make up "The Left" (awful term) is a much broader spectrum of political causes, as other folks have alluded to earlier. Even when they band together, the end result are presidencies like the Clintons and the Obamas. That's (rightly or wrongly) not acceptable to a lot of people.

D.o.S. wrote:If it's about winning, it's not about policy.

I disagree. Winning means we won't have the destructive policies of the Right inflicted on us. What it won't be about is policy based on ideological purity (which even within the Democratic Party is a joke) which means there will be some give-and-take.

I do agree with the rest of what you wrote. But people need to understand that governing in a democracy requires negotiation.

So, this is the kind of shit that's all over Youtube/Facebook.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMsuvEGnvPw[/youtube]

jrfox92 wrote:So, this is the kind of shit that's all over Youtube/Facebook.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMsuvEGnvPw[/youtube]

Please understand that I will not watch this and things like this [that look like lame 90-'s teen sitcom crap reformated for aging hipsters] is why I don't go on youtube unsigned in anymore. Popculture can go regurgitate on someone else.