Goldberg: Could it be that both parties are doomed?

[Mac1958]

The question is what makes a third party viable

Could it be that both parties are doomed?

I think it's possible that a viable third party could save them both, by causing each to return to Planet Earth or risk extinction.

Right now, both parties are an embarrassment. A cartoon.
.

Unfortunately the third parties aren't much better

Agreed, definitely, which is why I specified "viable" third party.

That wouldn't be easy to accomplish, given the powers entrenched in DC.
.

Well, by "viable", I'm talking about a party with a realistic chance of winning, in parity with the other two.

Obviously we're a LONG way from that.
.

 

[Foxfyre]

The question is what makes a third party viable

Could it be that both parties are doomed?

I think it's possible that a viable third party could save them both, by causing each to return to Planet Earth or risk extinction.

Right now, both parties are an embarrassment. A cartoon.
.

Unfortunately the third parties aren't much better

Agreed, definitely, which is why I specified "viable" third party.

That wouldn't be easy to accomplish, given the powers entrenched in DC.
.

Well, by "viable", I'm talking about a party with a realistic chance of winning, in parity with the other two.

Obviously we're a LONG way from that.
.

The closest thing we came to a viable third party was the Ross Perot led Reform Party in 1992. I honestly think had he not gone nuts and wigged out on us, he had the moxie and personal appeal that he could have won that year. As it was, with him running both in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with substantially less than 50% of the vote in both elections.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would LOVE to see the duopoly crash and burn!

Yes, but be careful you (the collective "you," not you personally) do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It takes some knowing stuff to ably run this country and put up logical laws and policy. So be careful in the purge that good thoughtful minds are still there to do our bidding.

Name some for me. Because if the Noah Flood occurred tomorrow and I had an Ark, I can only name 3 or 4 people on Capitol Hill I'd take aboard. The manual for running this country AIN'T in Congress. They can barely run their Post Office/Barber Shop..

I watch CSPAN sometimes and hear the words coming straight from the horses' mouths, and I hear them interviewed on issues they have specialized in on their subcommittees, and a good number of them are more knowledgeable than you think. If you or I or TN were somehow magically transported to D.C. and plopped into the chair of a Congresscritter, we would be humbled by what we don't know.
Tearing down is okay if you've got a plan for building something better.

They have no particular expertise in most ANY of the area that they legislate. That's what Aides and Staff is for. The member wears a suit and looks good in front of a camera. It's easy to sound knowledgable when you get 16 minutes total at a Committee hearing on CSPAN. And MOST of what comes out of their mouth is political distraction and what we call at USMB "off-topic". Watching a Committee investigation hearing is about 80% posing and political sparring.

I know what posing looks like, FCT, and I'm not talking about those pathetic free ads for the senators. I'm not saying EVERY Congresscritter is a well informed wonk, but now that we've elected Trump and some people seem to think it's great having a no-nothing in the driver's seat, I am a little worried that this "elect the one with no experience or background whatsoever" will become a thing.
It's not a good thing.

Trump is not a know-nothing. He was elected in part because he brought an expertise in instincts, observation, and economics that Obama seriously lacked. Obama was quite experienced and polished politically but was dismally a failure in solving problems and getting good things done.

But Trump was naive in what to expect from the permanent political class in Washington and did encounter a sharp learning curve in how government works.

So right now our choices are

a) inexperience in government
b) permanent political class

Given that we are certain to get screwed by 'b', I was willing to take a chance on 'a'.

 

[Mac1958]

The question is what makes a third party viable

I think it's possible that a viable third party could save them both, by causing each to return to Planet Earth or risk extinction.

Right now, both parties are an embarrassment. A cartoon.
.

Unfortunately the third parties aren't much better

Agreed, definitely, which is why I specified "viable" third party.

That wouldn't be easy to accomplish, given the powers entrenched in DC.
.

Well, by "viable", I'm talking about a party with a realistic chance of winning, in parity with the other two.

Obviously we're a LONG way from that.
.

The closest thing we came to a viable third party was the Ross Perot led Reform Party in 1992. I honestly think had he not gone nuts and wigged out on us, he had the moxie and personal appeal that he could have won that year. As it was, with him running both in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with substantially less than 50% of the vote in both elections.

Yeah, agreed. I was thinking of that campaign when I wrote that.

I'm watching for this rumored independent Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket. I'd be pretty excited by that, as much as by the THOUGHT of it as the ticket itself.
.

 

[Foxfyre]

The question is what makes a third party viable

Unfortunately the third parties aren't much better

Agreed, definitely, which is why I specified "viable" third party.

That wouldn't be easy to accomplish, given the powers entrenched in DC.
.

Well, by "viable", I'm talking about a party with a realistic chance of winning, in parity with the other two.

Obviously we're a LONG way from that.
.

The closest thing we came to a viable third party was the Ross Perot led Reform Party in 1992. I honestly think had he not gone nuts and wigged out on us, he had the moxie and personal appeal that he could have won that year. As it was, with him running both in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with substantially less than 50% of the vote in both elections.

Yeah, agreed. I was thinking of that campaign when I wrote that.

I'm watching for this rumored independent Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket. I'd be pretty excited by that, as much as by the THOUGHT of it as the ticket itself.
.

But Kasich couldn't even get 50% of the vote in the Ohio primary. What was it, 47%? And he wasn't even a contender in any other state finishing mostly in single digits everywhere. He is likable and he was one of my very favorites all during the Clinton administration where he was one of the chief engineers that led to welfare reform and the closest thing we have seen to a balanced budget since WWII.

He was on the ballot in New Mexico but I couldn't bring myself to vote for him because I just didn't see him as strong enough or having the vision I wanted in a President. I don't know whether shedding the GOP brand would help or hurt him. If I had to make odds on it though, I would say it would hurt him.

 

[Mac1958]

The question is what makes a third party viable

Agreed, definitely, which is why I specified "viable" third party.

That wouldn't be easy to accomplish, given the powers entrenched in DC.
.

Well, by "viable", I'm talking about a party with a realistic chance of winning, in parity with the other two.

Obviously we're a LONG way from that.
.

The closest thing we came to a viable third party was the Ross Perot led Reform Party in 1992. I honestly think had he not gone nuts and wigged out on us, he had the moxie and personal appeal that he could have won that year. As it was, with him running both in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with substantially less than 50% of the vote in both elections.

Yeah, agreed. I was thinking of that campaign when I wrote that.

I'm watching for this rumored independent Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket. I'd be pretty excited by that, as much as by the THOUGHT of it as the ticket itself.
.

But Kasich couldn't even get 50% of the vote in the Ohio primary. What was it, 47%? And he wasn't even a contender in any other state finishing mostly in single digits everywhere. He is likable and he was one of my very favorites all during the Clinton administration where he was one of the chief engineers that led to welfare reform and the closest thing we have seen to a balanced budget since WWII.

He was on the ballot in New Mexico but I couldn't bring myself to vote for him because I just didn't see him as strong enough or having the vision I wanted in a President. I don't know whether shedding the GOP brand would help or hurt him. If I had to make odds on it though, I would say it would hurt him.

From the perspective of a regular Republican or regular Democrat, I'd guess that ticket wouldn't hold a lot of interest. But for the rest of us, and I'm pretty sure that number is significant and growing, both parties are becoming more repulsive by the day.

Let's put it this way: A lot of people voted for Trump because they were sick of what they were seeing. Well, I am too, I just don't care much for either "major" party and would welcome another way of shaking things up.
.

 

[Foxfyre]

Could it be that both parties are doomed?

I say--a pox on both their houses..


"The GOP is running as smoothly as a dry Slip 'N Slide made from sandpaper. That the party is as dysfunctional as the human resources department at the Weinstein Company stems from a host of ideological, political and structural problems that are only compounded by the fact that the president grabs the public's attention like a spider monkey running through a church with a lit stick of dynamite.
The Democratic Party, meanwhile, has gotten drunk on the spectacle. And as with many a drunk, it's grown oblivious to its own decrepitude. Like a bitter lush sitting in his own filth amidst a sea of empty bottles, moldering pizza boxes and fried chicken bones, it shouts at the TV and boasts how it could do better.
Donna Brazile, the longtime high-ranking Democratic functionary, was made interim chair of the party shortly before the 2016 election in the wake of revelations that the previous chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, seemed to be playing favorites in the primaries, tilting the scales toward Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders. In an excerpt from her forthcoming book, "Hacks," Brazile reports that Wasserman Schultz wasn't simply partial towards Clinton. She was in fact Clinton's vassal."


"Brazile reports that the party was so hollowed out with debt that Hillary Clinton essentially scooped it up in a distress sale. Wasserman Schultz cut a deal with the Clinton campaign in which Clinton would raise millions ostensibly for the party, particularly at the state level. But those funds were sluiced back into the Clinton campaign coffers in Brooklyn, and the campaign extracted de facto control of the party's messaging and hiring. Team Clinton mocked Sanders as a paranoid dotard for claiming that the Democratic primary system was rigged against him. As it happens, his paranoia didn't go far enough.
It seems axiomatic that any party weak enough to be taken over by Hillary Clinton is not in good health."

"But the important point is that dysfunction isn't zero-sum. Right now, the best argument Republicans have is "we're not Democrats," and the best argument Democrats have is "we're not Republicans." Like two punch-drunk pugilists leaning on each other in the 12th round, if one falls, the other may well fall too.
Everywhere else in America today, disrupters -- Uber, Amazon, etc. -- are dismantling established institutions. Perhaps both political parties are the next institutions to crumble under creative destruction. Or maybe not. But if it happens, no one can say they didn't have it coming."

They are already crashing. The loyal memberships are falling, The "Big Middle" of Indies and 3rd parties and populist movements are rising.

The last 2 choices for Prez were just UNforgivable and INexcusable. The GOP got hijacked by a meglomaniac power whore. And a Meglomaniac power whore literally bought the DNC at salvage prices.

They are completely corrupt and non-productive. The 2 brand name parties HAVE been in decline for awhile now..

It would help if the semi popular third parties we have now would produce some decent people.
Gary Johnson was a borderline retard and Stein enjoyed defacing private property like a radical.

Gary Johnson was just too humble. He's not a meglomaniac like Trump or Hillary. And the public THINKS leadership is all about bragging and feeling entitled. He's a BIT retarded on National issues -- BUT

1) He's been correct on Foreign Policy, especially our too many interventions in the Mid East.
2) He ran New Mexico for 8 years and left it BETTER OFF with just simple principles and basic convictions.
3) He's absolutely solid on Civil Liberties. ALL OF THEM. And would seriously reform the surveillance programs and justice reform.
4) Only candidate that puts ending corp/govt collusion as a top priority. THAT is source of most of the corruption in the Swamp..

Humble is good. Apologizing for your gaffes is good. Do you prefer mad delirious tweeting at 4AM to double down on your LAST gaffe??

Bottom line -- Ticket SHOULD have been reversed. Should have been Weld on top. But that could never be sold at a Libertarian convention.

Gary was a popular governor of our state, and I know him to be a gentle, gracious, and good man. I have met him personally. I like him a lot.

I would not want him as President, however. He did some good things as governor and he made some serious mistakes as governor that we are still living with simply because he does not have the necessary economic instincts. And he is an absolutely wretched deal maker and made some really bad choices in who to appoint to key positions.

Under his watch the New Mexico budget went from $4,397 billion to $7,721 billion--almost double--the second worst record in state history. The state debt went from 1.8 billion to 4.6 billion which was unprecedented at the time and was exceeded since only by Vilseck (D) of Vermont in 2007.

With his support for legalized drugs, open borders, and religious views that would be seen as anti-religious freedom, along with his very checkered and too often negative track record as governor, he would be absolutely destroyed if he should start gaining any traction in a national election.

 

[Foxfyre]

The question is what makes a third party viable

Well, by "viable", I'm talking about a party with a realistic chance of winning, in parity with the other two.

Obviously we're a LONG way from that.
.

The closest thing we came to a viable third party was the Ross Perot led Reform Party in 1992. I honestly think had he not gone nuts and wigged out on us, he had the moxie and personal appeal that he could have won that year. As it was, with him running both in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with substantially less than 50% of the vote in both elections.

Yeah, agreed. I was thinking of that campaign when I wrote that.

I'm watching for this rumored independent Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket. I'd be pretty excited by that, as much as by the THOUGHT of it as the ticket itself.
.

But Kasich couldn't even get 50% of the vote in the Ohio primary. What was it, 47%? And he wasn't even a contender in any other state finishing mostly in single digits everywhere. He is likable and he was one of my very favorites all during the Clinton administration where he was one of the chief engineers that led to welfare reform and the closest thing we have seen to a balanced budget since WWII.

He was on the ballot in New Mexico but I couldn't bring myself to vote for him because I just didn't see him as strong enough or having the vision I wanted in a President. I don't know whether shedding the GOP brand would help or hurt him. If I had to make odds on it though, I would say it would hurt him.

From the perspective of a regular Republican or regular Democrat, I'd guess that ticket wouldn't hold a lot of interest. But for the rest of us, and I'm pretty sure that number is significant and growing, both parties are becoming more repulsive by the day.

Let's put it this way: A lot of people voted for Trump because they were sick of what they were seeing. Well, I am too, I just don't care much for either "major" party and would welcome another way of shaking things up.
.

So would I. But I don't think Kasich is outside the permanent political class, or at least not far enough outside it, to be appealing to many of us who are sick to death of the permanent political class.

Trump is President as the only viable option given us outside the permanent political class with the possible exception of Ted Cruz who shot himself in the foot way too early. Or maybe somebody like Ben Carson that too many thought too 'nice' and/or too 'gentle' and/or lacking in necessary experience/skills or Carly Fiorina who just doesn't have the skills to generate confidence or work a crowd like the Don could. Carly too often came across as a stuck up snippy persimmon type on camera. She is probably nothing like that in person.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, Kasich is running for the nomination in 2020, so whom he supports next year in the elections will identify the directions of policy that he will endorse.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, by "viable", I'm talking about a party with a realistic chance of winning, in parity with the other two.

Obviously we're a LONG way from that.
.

The closest thing we came to a viable third party was the Ross Perot led Reform Party in 1992. I honestly think had he not gone nuts and wigged out on us, he had the moxie and personal appeal that he could have won that year. As it was, with him running both in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with substantially less than 50% of the vote in both elections.

Yeah, agreed. I was thinking of that campaign when I wrote that.

I'm watching for this rumored independent Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket. I'd be pretty excited by that, as much as by the THOUGHT of it as the ticket itself.
.

But Kasich couldn't even get 50% of the vote in the Ohio primary. What was it, 47%? And he wasn't even a contender in any other state finishing mostly in single digits everywhere. He is likable and he was one of my very favorites all during the Clinton administration where he was one of the chief engineers that led to welfare reform and the closest thing we have seen to a balanced budget since WWII.

He was on the ballot in New Mexico but I couldn't bring myself to vote for him because I just didn't see him as strong enough or having the vision I wanted in a President. I don't know whether shedding the GOP brand would help or hurt him. If I had to make odds on it though, I would say it would hurt him.

From the perspective of a regular Republican or regular Democrat, I'd guess that ticket wouldn't hold a lot of interest. But for the rest of us, and I'm pretty sure that number is significant and growing, both parties are becoming more repulsive by the day.

Let's put it this way: A lot of people voted for Trump because they were sick of what they were seeing. Well, I am too, I just don't care much for either "major" party and would welcome another way of shaking things up.
.

So would I. But I don't think Kasich is outside the permanent political class, or at least not far enough outside it, to be appealing to many of us who are sick to death of the permanent political class.

Trump is President as the only viable option given us outside the permanent political class with the possible exception of Ted Cruz who shot himself in the foot way too early. Or maybe somebody like Ben Carson that too many thought too 'nice' and/or too 'gentle' and/or lacking in necessary experience/skills or Carly Fiorina who just doesn't have the skills to generate confidence or work a crowd like the Don could. Carly too often came across as a stuck up snippy persimmon type on camera. She is probably nothing like that in person.

I think there are plenty of people who don't look at this is an inside/outside of the "political class" thing, though. What we're more frustrated with is the binary, us vs. them bullshit. That certainly hasn't changed with Trump, and in fact, it's only gotten worse. If you're not with Trump you're a commie and a RINO. This "swamp" stuff is silly.

A more rational middle-of-the road ticket, one that would be built for cooperation and reason, appeals to us more than a bull in the china shop. We're sick of both "major" parties over-interpreting their "mandate" and trying to shove their winger agendas down our throats.

All that is leading to is wild swings. I've had enough of those.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

The question is what makes a third party viable

A party that has a KNOWN philosophy that you can extend to real issues and situations. And people IN that party that serve out of love of country and the Constitution --- NOT simply winning and obtaining power.

One of the reasons that LP doesn't get traction is that we simply WILL NOT stink up the process with the sniping and dirty tricks and MASSIVE CORRUPTION that we know see and expect from the existing Duopoly.. It's not about winning for us. It's about principles, humility and desire to fix things.

When voters get back to principles and humble servants -- we'll be there with a political philosophy that actually appeals to the heart of America.

The 2 parties are now bordering on tyranny. Because Congress doesn't matter much anymore -- the 2 parties control every move on Capitol hill. 531 Members are just bound and gagged surrogates of that power.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, but be careful you (the collective "you," not you personally) do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It takes some knowing stuff to ably run this country and put up logical laws and policy. So be careful in the purge that good thoughtful minds are still there to do our bidding.

Name some for me. Because if the Noah Flood occurred tomorrow and I had an Ark, I can only name 3 or 4 people on Capitol Hill I'd take aboard. The manual for running this country AIN'T in Congress. They can barely run their Post Office/Barber Shop..

I watch CSPAN sometimes and hear the words coming straight from the horses' mouths, and I hear them interviewed on issues they have specialized in on their subcommittees, and a good number of them are more knowledgeable than you think. If you or I or TN were somehow magically transported to D.C. and plopped into the chair of a Congresscritter, we would be humbled by what we don't know.
Tearing down is okay if you've got a plan for building something better.

They have no particular expertise in most ANY of the area that they legislate. That's what Aides and Staff is for. The member wears a suit and looks good in front of a camera. It's easy to sound knowledgable when you get 16 minutes total at a Committee hearing on CSPAN. And MOST of what comes out of their mouth is political distraction and what we call at USMB "off-topic". Watching a Committee investigation hearing is about 80% posing and political sparring.

I know what posing looks like, FCT, and I'm not talking about those pathetic free ads for the senators. I'm not saying EVERY Congresscritter is a well informed wonk, but now that we've elected Trump and some people seem to think it's great having a no-nothing in the driver's seat, I am a little worried that this "elect the one with no experience or background whatsoever" will become a thing.
It's not a good thing.

Yes...it does seem as though some American's long-standing distrust of intellect and intellectuals is spilling over into our electoral process. I had cherished the hope that Trump would serve as an object lesson..as to what happens when someone steps out of their niche and attempts to govern, without experience or expertise. But..it appears that 36% of America just does not care..about governing--but would rather watch him fail..just to see the sheer spectacle.

Governing effectively is both a skill and an art. But politicians have no minimum requirements for the job. All they have to do is fool a majority of the voters. So that is what they devote their energy towards.

The best government is that which governs least. Who Said "The Best Government Is That Which Governs Least"? | Eugene Volokh

If the above is true..perhaps we have the best Govt. in decades..LOL!

The FED govt is not the reservoir of brilliance, competence, innovation and expertise in this country. They can not stay ahead of trends, suck at managing anything they create and most of ALL ---

It now longer matters how brilliant you are in a Congressional seat. You cannot speak your mind and leave the party line. If you DO -- you will be relegated to a broom closet until they conspire against you in your next election. THAT"S WHY -- nobody and nothing EVER gets punished by Congressional hearings. The members don't decide -- the PARTIES do. And if you SEE AN OUTRAGE -- you check the party line before speaking.

All we have now is 2 way finger-pointing like some pre-teen brats making claims to "who it first or who did it worse". Time to have folks that can point out HOW WRONG IT IS -- no matter which side did it first. It's a race to the bottom otherwise. And EVERYONE knows and sees that now..

This idea of skilled politicians is a losing proposition because of that. All they LEARN -- is to serve the party. And apparently -- how to make a LOT of money while they serve.

 

[flacaltenn]

The question is what makes a third party viable

Agreed, definitely, which is why I specified "viable" third party.

That wouldn't be easy to accomplish, given the powers entrenched in DC.
.

Well, by "viable", I'm talking about a party with a realistic chance of winning, in parity with the other two.

Obviously we're a LONG way from that.
.

The closest thing we came to a viable third party was the Ross Perot led Reform Party in 1992. I honestly think had he not gone nuts and wigged out on us, he had the moxie and personal appeal that he could have won that year. As it was, with him running both in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with substantially less than 50% of the vote in both elections.

Yeah, agreed. I was thinking of that campaign when I wrote that.

I'm watching for this rumored independent Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket. I'd be pretty excited by that, as much as by the THOUGHT of it as the ticket itself.
.

But Kasich couldn't even get 50% of the vote in the Ohio primary. What was it, 47%? And he wasn't even a contender in any other state finishing mostly in single digits everywhere. He is likable and he was one of my very favorites all during the Clinton administration where he was one of the chief engineers that led to welfare reform and the closest thing we have seen to a balanced budget since WWII.

He was on the ballot in New Mexico but I couldn't bring myself to vote for him because I just didn't see him as strong enough or having the vision I wanted in a President. I don't know whether shedding the GOP brand would help or hurt him. If I had to make odds on it though, I would say it would hurt him.

I think it helps him at this point. And like Mac -- I'm thrilled to see it. NOT thrilled with Kasich tho. He went out of his way to BLOCK LP candidates running against him as Governor. He's got quite a political mean streak from being in politics that long. THAT is the biggest part of his baggage. He's PART of the political elite. Not a servant to the people.

 

[OldLady]

Yes, but be careful you (the collective "you," not you personally) do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It takes some knowing stuff to ably run this country and put up logical laws and policy. So be careful in the purge that good thoughtful minds are still there to do our bidding.

Name some for me. Because if the Noah Flood occurred tomorrow and I had an Ark, I can only name 3 or 4 people on Capitol Hill I'd take aboard. The manual for running this country AIN'T in Congress. They can barely run their Post Office/Barber Shop..

I watch CSPAN sometimes and hear the words coming straight from the horses' mouths, and I hear them interviewed on issues they have specialized in on their subcommittees, and a good number of them are more knowledgeable than you think. If you or I or TN were somehow magically transported to D.C. and plopped into the chair of a Congresscritter, we would be humbled by what we don't know.
Tearing down is okay if you've got a plan for building something better.

They have no particular expertise in most ANY of the area that they legislate. That's what Aides and Staff is for. The member wears a suit and looks good in front of a camera. It's easy to sound knowledgable when you get 16 minutes total at a Committee hearing on CSPAN. And MOST of what comes out of their mouth is political distraction and what we call at USMB "off-topic". Watching a Committee investigation hearing is about 80% posing and political sparring.

I know what posing looks like, FCT, and I'm not talking about those pathetic free ads for the senators. I'm not saying EVERY Congresscritter is a well informed wonk, but now that we've elected Trump and some people seem to think it's great having a no-nothing in the driver's seat, I am a little worried that this "elect the one with no experience or background whatsoever" will become a thing.
It's not a good thing.

Trump is not a know-nothing. He was elected in part because he brought an expertise in instincts, observation, and economics that Obama seriously lacked. Obama was quite experienced and polished politically but was dismally a failure in solving problems and getting good things done.

But Trump was naive in what to expect from the permanent political class in Washington and did encounter a sharp learning curve in how government works.

So right now our choices are

a) inexperience in government
b) permanent political class

Given that we are certain to get screwed by 'b', I was willing to take a chance on 'a'.

I agree with you, he has background in economics and that seems to be the one area where he feels comfortable getting into the weeds a bit on policy. If there was a hopeful spot on the horizon when he was elected, it was that. We'll see if it works. I worry, though, that we are selling a lot in order to gain prosperity.

 

[Avatar4321]

The question is what makes a third party viable

Agreed, definitely, which is why I specified "viable" third party.

That wouldn't be easy to accomplish, given the powers entrenched in DC.
.

Well, by "viable", I'm talking about a party with a realistic chance of winning, in parity with the other two.

Obviously we're a LONG way from that.
.

The closest thing we came to a viable third party was the Ross Perot led Reform Party in 1992. I honestly think had he not gone nuts and wigged out on us, he had the moxie and personal appeal that he could have won that year. As it was, with him running both in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with substantially less than 50% of the vote in both elections.

Yeah, agreed. I was thinking of that campaign when I wrote that.

I'm watching for this rumored independent Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket. I'd be pretty excited by that, as much as by the THOUGHT of it as the ticket itself.
.

But Kasich couldn't even get 50% of the vote in the Ohio primary. What was it, 47%? And he wasn't even a contender in any other state finishing mostly in single digits everywhere. He is likable and he was one of my very favorites all during the Clinton administration where he was one of the chief engineers that led to welfare reform and the closest thing we have seen to a balanced budget since WWII.

He was on the ballot in New Mexico but I couldn't bring myself to vote for him because I just didn't see him as strong enough or having the vision I wanted in a President. I don't know whether shedding the GOP brand would help or hurt him. If I had to make odds on it though, I would say it would hurt him.

You found him likeable? I didn't. Not a big fan of the unwarranted condescension

 

[Avatar4321]

The question is what makes a third party viable

Well, by "viable", I'm talking about a party with a realistic chance of winning, in parity with the other two.

Obviously we're a LONG way from that.
.

The closest thing we came to a viable third party was the Ross Perot led Reform Party in 1992. I honestly think had he not gone nuts and wigged out on us, he had the moxie and personal appeal that he could have won that year. As it was, with him running both in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with substantially less than 50% of the vote in both elections.

Yeah, agreed. I was thinking of that campaign when I wrote that.

I'm watching for this rumored independent Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket. I'd be pretty excited by that, as much as by the THOUGHT of it as the ticket itself.
.

But Kasich couldn't even get 50% of the vote in the Ohio primary. What was it, 47%? And he wasn't even a contender in any other state finishing mostly in single digits everywhere. He is likable and he was one of my very favorites all during the Clinton administration where he was one of the chief engineers that led to welfare reform and the closest thing we have seen to a balanced budget since WWII.

He was on the ballot in New Mexico but I couldn't bring myself to vote for him because I just didn't see him as strong enough or having the vision I wanted in a President. I don't know whether shedding the GOP brand would help or hurt him. If I had to make odds on it though, I would say it would hurt him.

From the perspective of a regular Republican or regular Democrat, I'd guess that ticket wouldn't hold a lot of interest. But for the rest of us, and I'm pretty sure that number is significant and growing, both parties are becoming more repulsive by the day.

Let's put it this way: A lot of people voted for Trump because they were sick of what they were seeing. Well, I am too, I just don't care much for either "major" party and would welcome another way of shaking things up.
.

Thing is I don't think Kasich on an independent would shake anything up

 

[Peach]

Try involving yourself in local party politics, clean up starts there. And accept that we are free to post how bad both big parties are, how much you dislike Trump, Clinton, Kasich, Warren, et. al. YES! We are not Zimbabwe.

 

[Avatar4321]

The question is what makes a third party viable

A party that has a KNOWN philosophy that you can extend to real issues and situations. And people IN that party that serve out of love of country and the Constitution --- NOT simply winning and obtaining power.

One of the reasons that LP doesn't get traction is that we simply WILL NOT stink up the process with the sniping and dirty tricks and MASSIVE CORRUPTION that we know see and expect from the existing Duopoly.. It's not about winning for us. It's about principles, humility and desire to fix things.

When voters get back to principles and humble servants -- we'll be there with a political philosophy that actually appeals to the heart of America.

The 2 parties are now bordering on tyranny. Because Congress doesn't matter much anymore -- the 2 parties control every move on Capitol hill. 531 Members are just bound and gagged surrogates of that power.

What use is principles if you don't put a real effort into getting them implemented?

I could believe in saving money for all time, but if when I get my paycheck I spend it on booze and strippers and don't actually try to put any in savings my principles haven't done jack for anyone

 

[Avatar4321]

And I have seen little evidence that libertarians are less arrogant than the other parties

 

[Foxfyre]

The question is what makes a third party viable

Well, by "viable", I'm talking about a party with a realistic chance of winning, in parity with the other two.

Obviously we're a LONG way from that.
.

The closest thing we came to a viable third party was the Ross Perot led Reform Party in 1992. I honestly think had he not gone nuts and wigged out on us, he had the moxie and personal appeal that he could have won that year. As it was, with him running both in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with substantially less than 50% of the vote in both elections.

Yeah, agreed. I was thinking of that campaign when I wrote that.

I'm watching for this rumored independent Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket. I'd be pretty excited by that, as much as by the THOUGHT of it as the ticket itself.
.

But Kasich couldn't even get 50% of the vote in the Ohio primary. What was it, 47%? And he wasn't even a contender in any other state finishing mostly in single digits everywhere. He is likable and he was one of my very favorites all during the Clinton administration where he was one of the chief engineers that led to welfare reform and the closest thing we have seen to a balanced budget since WWII.

He was on the ballot in New Mexico but I couldn't bring myself to vote for him because I just didn't see him as strong enough or having the vision I wanted in a President. I don't know whether shedding the GOP brand would help or hurt him. If I had to make odds on it though, I would say it would hurt him.

You found him likeable? I didn't. Not a big fan of the unwarranted condescension

Not so likable as much as competent during the Clinton administration. He was Newt's right hand in the Contract With America that saved Clinton's presidency and that, plus a rather unappealing Bob Dole as an opponent, netted Clinton with his second term though he still won with substantially less than 50% of the vote because Perot was still in there.

At that time I saw Kasich as a rising star in the GOP with unlimited potential. But after awhile he was just another rivet in the permanent political class that comprises most of the GOP and the Democratic Party.