|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 03 2022 23:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 22:47 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am curious what the Democrat supporter response is to the "Like please good faith give me some of the positive reasons to vote for a Democrat that has nothing to do with Republicans" question? Why would an answer or positive reason be needed? The republican platform should be more then enough reason by itself. If the most progressive segment of the left is very unhappy with the democratic party then they should break away and build their own party/movement. As long as they dont do that,the 2nd best option for them is to vote democratic. These elections i dont dare to call. Republicans are overwhelmingly favored to win the house (~95% on the betting sites). Uncertainty and variance is very high this cycle i think. It could be an overwhelming republican victory but i wont rule out the democrats outperforming the polls by a large margin either. Keeping a majority is probably out of the question though. The problem with the more progressive left breaking away is that it just means both parts of the Democratic party will not win elections, even many they would otherwise currently win, and Republicans would get to rule with control of all 3 branches with a super majority. Such is the nature, and problem, of a FPTP system. Whichever side breaks up consigns themselves to irrelevance.
My thesis is that once one side breaks,the other side will soon follow. Because the one enemy that unites all the different groups that are there within the republican party as well will no longer be there.
It would be one bad cycle and 4 years of "bad" policy,and after that the whole political landscape would be open.
Its an interesting concept for breaking polarization.
If coming closer to eachoter is not realistic,then what will happen if one side breaks the 2 sided polarization by breaking up?
Eventually it will end up in a multi polarized sturcture,where there is still polarization but across smaller segments of society. Which then gives the option to form coalitions and make compromises that leaves a majority satisfied.
Not sure it will work in practice and i am probably not even in favor of this happening at this moment in time,but its a concept to consider as a more general aproach. Suited for when there is a window of opportunity with low external risks.
|
On November 03 2022 23:31 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 23:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2022 22:47 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am curious what the Democrat supporter response is to the "Like please good faith give me some of the positive reasons to vote for a Democrat that has nothing to do with Republicans" question? Why would an answer or positive reason be needed? The republican platform should be more then enough reason by itself. If the most progressive segment of the left is very unhappy with the democratic party then they should break away and build their own party/movement. As long as they dont do that,the 2nd best option for them is to vote democratic. These elections i dont dare to call. Republicans are overwhelmingly favored to win the house (~95% on the betting sites). Uncertainty and variance is very high this cycle i think. It could be an overwhelming republican victory but i wont rule out the democrats outperforming the polls by a large margin either. Keeping a majority is probably out of the question though. The problem with the more progressive left breaking away is that it just means both parts of the Democratic party will not win elections, even many they would otherwise currently win, and Republicans would get to rule with control of all 3 branches with a super majority. Such is the nature, and problem, of a FPTP system. Whichever side breaks up consigns themselves to irrelevance. My thesis is that once one side breaks,the other side will soon follow. Because the one enemy that unites all the different groups that are there within the republican party as well will no longer be there. It would be one bad cycle and 4 years of "bad" policy,and after that the whole political landscape would be open. Its an interesting concept for breaking polarization. If coming closer to eachoter is not realistic,then what will happen if one side breaks the 2 sided polarization by breaking up? Eventually it will end up in a multi polarized sturcture,where there is still polarization but across smaller segments of society. Which then gives the option to form coalitions and make compromises that leaves a majority satisfied. Not sure it will work in practice and i am probably not even in favor of this happening at this moment in time,but its a concept to consider as a more general aproach. Suited for when there is a window of opportunity with low external risks.
We already had this happen with the tea party break away of the Republicans. Results are the exact opposite of what you're saying.
|
On November 04 2022 00:18 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 23:31 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 23:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2022 22:47 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am curious what the Democrat supporter response is to the "Like please good faith give me some of the positive reasons to vote for a Democrat that has nothing to do with Republicans" question? Why would an answer or positive reason be needed? The republican platform should be more then enough reason by itself. If the most progressive segment of the left is very unhappy with the democratic party then they should break away and build their own party/movement. As long as they dont do that,the 2nd best option for them is to vote democratic. These elections i dont dare to call. Republicans are overwhelmingly favored to win the house (~95% on the betting sites). Uncertainty and variance is very high this cycle i think. It could be an overwhelming republican victory but i wont rule out the democrats outperforming the polls by a large margin either. Keeping a majority is probably out of the question though. The problem with the more progressive left breaking away is that it just means both parts of the Democratic party will not win elections, even many they would otherwise currently win, and Republicans would get to rule with control of all 3 branches with a super majority. Such is the nature, and problem, of a FPTP system. Whichever side breaks up consigns themselves to irrelevance. My thesis is that once one side breaks,the other side will soon follow. Because the one enemy that unites all the different groups that are there within the republican party as well will no longer be there. It would be one bad cycle and 4 years of "bad" policy,and after that the whole political landscape would be open. Its an interesting concept for breaking polarization. If coming closer to eachoter is not realistic,then what will happen if one side breaks the 2 sided polarization by breaking up? Eventually it will end up in a multi polarized sturcture,where there is still polarization but across smaller segments of society. Which then gives the option to form coalitions and make compromises that leaves a majority satisfied. Not sure it will work in practice and i am probably not even in favor of this happening at this moment in time,but its a concept to consider as a more general aproach. Suited for when there is a window of opportunity with low external risks. We already had this happen with the tea party break away of the Republicans. Results are the exact opposite of what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Tea Party didn't break away.
There was no general election with a Republican, Democrat and Tea Party candidate on the ballet.
What the Tea party did is the correct way to change the direction of a party in a FPTP system, they took over the party from the inside by primarying more moderate candidates in the Republican primaries so they were then on the ticket in the general election as Republican.
|
Either way, 3rd parties need ranked choice voting to go anywhere.
|
On November 04 2022 00:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2022 00:18 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 03 2022 23:31 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 23:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2022 22:47 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am curious what the Democrat supporter response is to the "Like please good faith give me some of the positive reasons to vote for a Democrat that has nothing to do with Republicans" question? Why would an answer or positive reason be needed? The republican platform should be more then enough reason by itself. If the most progressive segment of the left is very unhappy with the democratic party then they should break away and build their own party/movement. As long as they dont do that,the 2nd best option for them is to vote democratic. These elections i dont dare to call. Republicans are overwhelmingly favored to win the house (~95% on the betting sites). Uncertainty and variance is very high this cycle i think. It could be an overwhelming republican victory but i wont rule out the democrats outperforming the polls by a large margin either. Keeping a majority is probably out of the question though. The problem with the more progressive left breaking away is that it just means both parts of the Democratic party will not win elections, even many they would otherwise currently win, and Republicans would get to rule with control of all 3 branches with a super majority. Such is the nature, and problem, of a FPTP system. Whichever side breaks up consigns themselves to irrelevance. My thesis is that once one side breaks,the other side will soon follow. Because the one enemy that unites all the different groups that are there within the republican party as well will no longer be there. It would be one bad cycle and 4 years of "bad" policy,and after that the whole political landscape would be open. Its an interesting concept for breaking polarization. If coming closer to eachoter is not realistic,then what will happen if one side breaks the 2 sided polarization by breaking up? Eventually it will end up in a multi polarized sturcture,where there is still polarization but across smaller segments of society. Which then gives the option to form coalitions and make compromises that leaves a majority satisfied. Not sure it will work in practice and i am probably not even in favor of this happening at this moment in time,but its a concept to consider as a more general aproach. Suited for when there is a window of opportunity with low external risks. We already had this happen with the tea party break away of the Republicans. Results are the exact opposite of what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Tea Party didn't break away. There was no general election with a Republican, Democrat and Tea Party candidate on the ballet.
If you want that stupidity you can go back to the presidental election of 2000 with Nader and the Green party.
What the Tea party did is the correct way to change the direction of a party in a FPTP system, they took over the party from the inside by primarying more moderate candidates in the Republican primaries so they were then on the ticket in the general election as Republican.
Which begs the question. Why would the Progressives split the vote with Democrats and guarantee Republican victory? We already have coalitions like DSA within the democrat party. Do you think it makes sense for them to breakaway?
|
On November 04 2022 00:28 Gahlo wrote:
Either way, 3rd parties need ranked choice voting to go anywhere.
This. Minnesota doesn't have a Democrat party in state but still affiliates nationally because third parties just don't make any logical sense in fptp systems.
And the parties involved know this and will never change it.
|
On November 04 2022 01:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2022 00:28 Gahlo wrote:
Either way, 3rd parties need ranked choice voting to go anywhere. This. Minnesota doesn't have a Democrat party in state but still affiliates nationally because third parties just don't make any logical sense in fptp systems. And the parties involved know this and will never change it.
There are other systems than ranked voting. The most common is to make a formula to distribute representatives to better reflect the total voterbase and not just the absolute winner in each small area. These formulas are usually quite complicated and none are perfect, but they are all WAY better than fptp imo.
|
|
|
On November 03 2022 23:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 22:47 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am curious what the Democrat supporter response is to the "Like please good faith give me some of the positive reasons to vote for a Democrat that has nothing to do with Republicans" question? Why would an answer or positive reason be needed? The republican platform should be more then enough reason by itself. If the most progressive segment of the left is very unhappy with the democratic party then they should break away and build their own party/movement. As long as they dont do that,the 2nd best option for them is to vote democratic. These elections i dont dare to call. Republicans are overwhelmingly favored to win the house (~95% on the betting sites). Uncertainty and variance is very high this cycle i think. It could be an overwhelming republican victory but i wont rule out the democrats outperforming the polls by a large margin either. Keeping a majority is probably out of the question though. The problem with the more progressive left breaking away is that it just means both parts of the Democratic party will not win elections, even many they would otherwise currently win, and Republicans would get to rule with control of all 3 branches with a super majority. Such is the nature, and problem, of a FPTP system. Whichever side breaks up consigns themselves to irrelevance.
Democrats seem to be moving there themselves with the progressive left well under heel.
Democrats never fully recovered from the 1000+ seats in government they lost under Obama and are now poised to lose both chambers while campaigning on the threat that Republicans are destroying democracy to win/keep them.
So not only are they on the precipice of defeat, they've forecasted their own irrelevance.
|
|
|
|
|
Its a bit of a gamble still but i am going to make the call:the democrats will outperform the polls (the current polls from the past weeks) by a large margin (i wont say what led me to think this yet but i will after the election).
They will still lose the house most likely but outperforming the polls by a rather large margin should give the democrats something to build on in the next 2 years.
|
|
|
I mean, Im going to actually vote for Democrats this go so that probably says something positive about their odds if even I'm gonna do it.
|
On November 04 2022 02:33 plasmidghost wrote:
Here in Flanders our far-right party Vlaams Belang is blacklisted from being in the Flemish parliament government. No other parties will form an alliance with them. Y'all have no idea how much I wish this could happen to at the very least individuals in the US
Isn't this exactly what the Republicans did, already under Obamadid? Blanket refusing to collaborate with the Democrats and obstructing everything they tried to do for the sake of it.
Far right and får left parties often grow when isolated, they thrive in a role where they can yell from the side how everyone is wrong, while not taking responsibility for the flaws their own solutions.
|
On November 04 2022 16:44 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2022 02:33 plasmidghost wrote:
Here in Flanders our far-right party Vlaams Belang is blacklisted from being in the Flemish parliament government. No other parties will form an alliance with them. Y'all have no idea how much I wish this could happen to at the very least individuals in the US Isn't this exactly what the Republicans did, already under Obamadid? Blanket refusing to collaborate with the Democrats and obstructing everything they tried to do for the sake of it. Far right and får left parties often grow when isolated, they thrive in a role where they can yell from the side how everyone is wrong, while not taking responsibility for the flaws their own solutions.
It's fairly illuminating that we live at a time where voters see paralysing the government as "winning" and don't punish their representatives for it. As in, having a non-functioning, crippled government that cannot react to problems is a desirable outcome of the system.
|
On November 04 2022 02:33 plasmidghost wrote:
Here in Flanders our far-right party Vlaams Belang is blacklisted from being in the Flemish parliament government. No other parties will form an alliance with them. Y'all have no idea how much I wish this could happen to at the very least individuals in the US
The 'cordon sanitaire' is an unofficial agreement that was made years ago, by the previous generation of party leaders. No party is obliged to uphold it, and they will gladly form a government with Vlaams Belang when it suits their agenda sufficiently.
Until then, we will be forced to watch Vlaams Belang keep growing and growing. Second biggest party in 2019 with 18,5% of the votes, up from 5,9% in 2014. We're looking at easily 20+% in 2024.
Because of the cordon, the other parties then have to enter these massive coalition governments that don't get anything done. Which in turn pisses more voters off, which gives more votes to Vlaams Belang.
It's a cycle that is completely destroying politics. If you think you want that in the US, you are mistaken.
|
Sounds like what Norway had with FRP in the 90s and 2000, when no one wanted to cooperate with them. It lasted until a certain point where the isolation collapses and they get into government. Then they actually have to do what they said in a coalition government and that took out the air from them. Their populism took a hard hit after having to face the realities of being part of a cabinet. After a lot of shitstorms, it turned out okey.
Same thing going on in Sweden with Sverigedemokratene, as it did for us in early 2013 when FRP went into government for the first time, swedes are just 10 years late. It stabilizes after that.
It's a temporary thing of populism in a fringe party that after a long time becomes a normal party.
|
Yeah, same thing here in the Netherlands with LPF (in the past) and PVV and FVD now.
|
Norway28781 Posts
On November 04 2022 18:13 Neneu wrote:
Sounds like what Norway had with FRP in the 90s and 2000, when no one wanted to cooperate with them. It lasted until a certain point where the isolation collapses and they get into government. Then they actually have to do what they said in a coalition government and that took out the air from them. Their populism took a hard hit after having to face the realities of being part of a cabinet. After a lot of shitstorms, it turned out okey.
Same thing going on in Sweden with Sverigedemokratene, as it did for us in early 2013 when FRP went into government for the first time, swedes are just 10 years late. It stabilizes after that.
It's a temporary thing of populism in a fringe party that after a long time becomes a normal party.
Ya. We first had a left-wing coalition government where the Socialistic Left party had the minister of finance, and then a right-wing coalition where the minister of finance came from the progress party - a lady who has cited Ayn Rand as her favorite author. While they didn't champion identical politics, when push came to shove, it's remarkable how they both essentially argued for 'different degrees of mixed economies' (to cite the Ayn Rand-fan. )
Giving a party status as 'untouchable' tends to backfire in the long run, at least if the party has reached the 5%+ threshold. There's no problem doing it with real fringe parties that have less than 1% support, but if they have significant support, then a) they most likely have an even bigger group of potential voters and b) you alienate all those voters through defining the party as untouchable.
Voters aren't always moving between the 'expected' parties anyway - in Norway, in the past four years, we saw significant flocks of voters go from the progress party (far right economically, generally championed centralization because it's seen as more efficient) to the center party (center-left economically, strongly in favor of decentralization and focus on rural communities), because these two had quite a bit in common rhetorically and on social issues. (This movement was also facilitated by the progress party being in government for 6 years and voters seeing that they failed to uphold their promises.) Then the center party has been in government for the past year - and a bunch of voters are moving right back. Basically, while I as a leftist obviously don't want a far right party in government, the experience from Norway is basically that having our far right party be part of the government forced them to a) fail at providing some of their most lofty promises, which b) disillusioned their voters and made them less scary as a future opposition party and c) adopt more moderate policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
