Forward Party

[Craig4]

I'm not ready to join the pig pile of hate or start warming up for the funeral dirge just yet. I've only know about this for two days. I'd like the see and hear more about it before I start lamenting its demise. A presidential unity ticket might be a realistic option. I could see a Whitman, Kinzinger ticket or a Whitman, Doug Jones ticket doing well.

They'd need a couple of Senate seats though to be effective in the presidency. Two king makers would do it. Angus King and Susan Collins might be wooable.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I'm not ready to join the pig pile of hate or start warming up for the funeral dirge just yet. I've only know about this for two days. I'd like the see and hear more about it before I start lamenting its demise. A presidential unity ticket might be a realistic option. I could see a Whitman, Kinzinger ticket or a Whitman, Doug Jones ticket doing well.

They'd need a couple of Senate seats though to be effective in the presidency. Two king makers would do it. Angus King and Susan Collins might be wooable.

This is hardly the first "not one of the two major parties" to come along.

As noted above, it seems interesting how these new parties immediately try to launch into federal elections with no real local/state infrastructure or "party mahinery" in place at all.

 

[Trakar]

75% of the population may support each issue, but it's not necessarily the same 75% for each of them.

It would be nearly impossible, and certainly unrealistic, for there not to be a significant overlap. I won't speak for others, but from my perspective any candidate who was 75% on my top 2-3 items and then only hit 30-40% on the next 2-3 items would probably end up with my vote, as that would be head and shoulders above what any candidate has managed in the last 50 years or so.

 

[Trakar]

...it seems interesting how these new parties immediately try to launch into federal elections with no real local/state infrastructure or "party mahinery" in place at all.

Whether they know it , or not, they are running 3rd party to influence of shift the agenda of one or both dominant parties, not making a serious effort to reform or change the current corporate duopoly, or realistically govern the nation.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This is hardly the first "not one of the two major parties" to come along.

Yeah! Whatever happened to that ventriloquist dummy, the Howdy Doody looking Texan homunculus? Not the one who became president, the earlier one who tried but didn't make it.

 

[Cain]

This says plenty about what Trump was willing to do to stay in power, but not much about his true political leanings - which are and always have been conservative.

He's relatively apolitical. Does Trump believe the average retard should have access to firearms? Does he actually care about abortion? Sam sex marriage?

Why do I say that? The fundamental difference between conservative and liberal thought is empathy. Conservatives don't have it. They only care about themselves. Nothing that Trump did showed any shred of empathy. Where he espoused a liberal stance it was only because it might benefit him personally. Why did he even want to become president? To make America a better place - or to spite Obama, bask in the popularity, and monetize it?

Trump appealed to the Deplorables because his selfishness resonated with them. This explains his (and their) position better than any 'right' or 'left' label put on an issue.

I agree that Trump is temperamentally conservative, but I don't think the difference between liberals and conservatives is empathy and/or selfishness. I more or less buy into Jonathan Haidt's claims in The Righteous Mind, which says conservatives are inclined toward purity, in-group loyalty, and hierarchy. In his TED talk, Haidt gives the example of a dog. Liberals prefer a pooch who is friendly toward others and sees people as equals "because liberals like to say 'fetch -- please!'" Conservatives prefer a dog that is suspicious of strangers and fiercely loyal to the group. When it comes to White Nationalists, they're sometimes undeniably altruistic toward "their" people. There are religious conservatives who give to their church until it hurts.

Trump's famously germaphobic, so his disgust sensitivity probably inclines him toward conservatism. He also loves hierarchy -- seeing the world as winners and losers -- but exhibits almost in-group loyalty. He's comically narcissistic and opportunistic.

 

[Cain]

Not just Europe and not just them + other similarly advanced countries either; practically all American politicians are even substantially to the right of the American people.

Oh, I agree. In 2004, some political scientists made headlines for saying the presidential candidate most line with Americans' views of the issues was Dennis Kucinch.

 

[Suddenly]

You seem to have trouble dealing with the fact that most Americans are not as far to the left as you are.

The Democratic party as it is today consistently gets a majority share of the vote in nationwide elections. Their problems are not about policy, but rather demographics and competence. This effort would address either.

As to what people actually want this board on the whole is a font of the same sort of self-reflective cluelessness related to the above.

Trump was the least conservative candidate in 2016. He was a Republican who said Social Security and Medicare would be unmolested. Wasn't he the only candidate who refused to sign Norquist's Tax Pledge? He held up a rainbow flag, declared NATO obsolete, and vowed not to get into more wars. He staked out a traditionally conservative, anti-corporate position on immigration and the southern border. By 2020, he was Mr. Conservative (who proudly wanted his signature on stimulus checks).

I mean, he gets it. Trump initially ran as the exact labor friendly populist as did Perot. Except that Trump was lying about caring about workers, had major party backing, and an even more anti-establishment electorate. Plus he didn't quit midstream.

Trump's approach is the approach to centrism that worked. That he lies about it constantly is besides the point.

 

[Donal]

I am a "Centrist" who freely admits the GOP has gone stark raving mad.
I just don't think that to go bonkers in the opposite direction is a answer.

We get it, You're a political pacifist. You'll prevent any solution to a problem so long as you can't be blamed for creating the problem. If you saw a drowning man and your choice was to throw him a life preserver or an anchor, you'd look for a middle ground between the two.

 

[Donal]

The more politically oriented, poverty stricken, third cousin of lord Elon.

How long before he has a show on CNN or MSNBC?

 

[Segnosaur]

I am a "Centrist" who freely admits the GOP has gone stark raving mad.
I just don't think that to go bonkers in the opposite direction is a answer.

We get it, You're a political pacifist. You'll prevent any solution to a problem so long as you can't be blamed for creating the problem. If you saw a drowning man and your choice was to throw him a life preserver or an anchor, you'd look for a middle ground between the two.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between policies and tactics.

It is quite possible for democrats to take both a moderate political stance (e.g. wanting improved health care without an all-government "bernie-care" program) but also be willing to engage in hard-ball tactics. You don't have to be a fan of far-left politics to think that the Democrats should (for example) use the nuclear option to fix the supreme court.

 

[Donal]

I 100% agree with that. there are plenty of Democrats who aren't super progressive but are fighters. They aren't afraid of being called "uncivil" and just plainly speaking the truth about the GQP. Stacey Abrams is a good example. He don't see her tucking tail and running or attacking progressives for the sake of seeming "moderate and reasonable". Gavin Newsome is starting to show some fire too. They may not agree with the progressives, but they aren't equating folks who want to give healthcare with the Proud Boys.

 

[I Am The Scum]

As noted above, it seems interesting how these new parties immediately try to launch into federal elections with no real local/state infrastructure or "party mahinery" in place at all.

This is extremely important.

If the Forward Party were really pushing for the breakdown of the two-party system, they would run in local elections with their primary focus being on a change to how congressional/electoral votes are portioned, such as a transition to rank-choice voting. Jumping straight into Congress or the White House (as we see so often with third parties) just looks like a vanity run without the celebrity.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Hardlinr ideologue hates moderates. What a surpriae.

ANybody who does not demand government seizure of all businesses is probably a corporate shill in your book.

Just in case you aren't aware, this type of rhetoric makes you look like the opposite of a moderate.

 

[Segnosaur]

As noted above, it seems interesting how these new parties immediately try to launch into federal elections with no real local/state infrastructure or "party mahinery" in place at all.

This is extremely important.

If the Forward Party were really pushing for the breakdown of the two-party system, they would run in local elections with their primary focus being on a change to how congressional/electoral votes are portioned, such as a transition to rank-choice voting. Jumping straight into Congress or the White House (as we see so often with third parties) just looks like a vanity run without the celebrity.

I am not completely convinced that that would work.

Like it or not, a run for the presidency provides a lot of free publicity. If some new party decided to concentrate only on the local elections, would they get enough attention to win seats? Or would they appear as just some fringe party. A run for the presidency (even if not successful, at least one that gains some attention) would help down-ballot candidates.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You seem to have trouble dealing with the fact that most Americans are not as far to the left as you are.

Yea Regan was a RINO by any reasonable standard, why he would fit in with the democrats of today.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What's the "bonkers" that anybody's going to the left? What are these "bonkers" extremist positions that people supposedly believe and are damaging the country by so viciously fighting for?

Universal health care. That commie Nixon supported it and he tried to defect to Red China.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not just Europe and not just them + other similarly advanced countries either; practically all American politicians are even substantially to the right of the American people.

This makes the mistake that americans are a civilized people. They are not and need to be compared to similarly uncivilized people.

 

[seayakin]

Christine Todd Whitman was interviewed on NPR today. She said there goal is to get on state ballots. According to wikipedia, "Forward has one political party affiliate at the state level seeking to achieve ballot access and seeks to have affiliates with ballot access in 29 other states by 2023 and ballot access in all 50 states by 2024."

 

[Trakar]

Christine Todd Whitman was interviewed on NPR today. She said there goal is to get on state ballots. According to wikipedia, "Forward has one political party affiliate at the state level seeking to achieve ballot access and seeks to have affiliates with ballot access in 29 other states by 2023 and ballot access in all 50 states by 2024."

It is always good to have goals, the questions are, how likely are these goals to be achieved in the timeframes indicated, and what is the likelihood that this party won't be subject to capture and manipulation by Capital?