quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well he didn't have one! "I have a plan. I big, beautiful plan! It will be huge." is just code for "I've no idea, but you fuckers don't know that."

Much of what he did propose specifically was (a) illegal, (b) unfeasible/unrealistic, (c) bizarrely expensive and thus not likely to happen.

So what's happened so far? A lot of tweeting. Because that's what happens when there's no plan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well he didn't have one! "I have a plan. I big, beautiful plan! It will be huge." is just code for "I've no idea, but you fuckers don't know that."

Much of what he did propose specifically was (a) illegal, (b) unfeasible/unrealistic, (c) bizarrely expensive and thus not likely to happen.

So what's happened so far? A lot of tweeting. Because that's what happens when there's no plan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

I hope to live to see a viable THIRD party actually WIN an election!!!!

An effective, powerful third party has been tried, played with, and talked about for quite a while, almost aways during some time of turbulence.

The history, and the structural organization of the US does not bode well for the emergence of a third party, through a natural progression of events.

I do think that there is a strong possibility that the Republican party will, however, transition to something closer to its stated principles, especially if the current logjam in Congress continues through the next election.

Both current parties can be broken down into two major factions. Using common political terminology, the Republicans are made up of "establishment" Republicans (GOPe) and "TEA Party" or "Conservative" Republicans (GOPc). Mostly, the GOPc is the Trump wing.

I think the odds are pretty high that in the 2018 elections, that the GOPc will gain a lot of seats and power within Congress and the GOP, and that split could engender a split in which the GOPe and the less radical Democratic Party members coalesce into a new third party.

That would leave the rump Democratic Party more of a socialist party.

Interesting concepts that I'm playing with, not sure how it might all finally play out.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I honestly believe he doesn't care whether anything happens or not. I think his whole purpose was to put aside 'political correctness' so that the serious concerns (whether you agree with them or not) that were bubbling like magma under the surface could be given a voice and heard loud and clear. Whether you agree or not, whether they are 'right' or 'wrong', half the country (at least) has some of the same concerns and thoughts as Trump. He did us all a favor by having the balls to put these issues front and center so everyone can see them. It is allowing everyone to discuss and debate and eventually... we will be able to move on.

quote:

Trump's squashing of PC stereotypes . . . many of the more conservative democrats will (or have) applaud and move to the inside with republicans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I won't say that Hillary was worse. The real problem is that Hillary offered just more of the same. Stability, sure, but nothing exciting at all.
There was no passion in her campaign, and no passion in her as a candidate. Just politics as usual. It's the same reason Gore & Kerry both lost to Dubbya. The same reason HW lost to Bubba. Trump has actually moved people, to a much smaller degree than Obama did, but movement nonetheless.
And of all the clowns that were in the Republican car last election, I still fear Trump the absolute least. And if he gets a second term, Dems only have themselves to blame again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
If Hill had selected Sanders as her VP, or seriously embraced him, should would have won by a landslide.
But you can't support the powers that be, and FIGHT for REAL change, it is incongruent.
It creates a conundrum for a corporate liberal.
Hillary is mainly only liberal on social issues, she is in bed with Wall Street/big business/corporations and the man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
If Hill had selected Sanders as her VP, or seriously embraced him, should would have won by a landslide.
But you can't support the powers that be, and FIGHT for REAL change, it is incongruent.
It creates a conundrum for a corporate liberal.
Hillary is mainly only liberal on social issues, she is in bed with Wall Street/big business/corporations and the man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Agreed it would be a difficult birth for any 3rd party.
That said:
- third parties bear responsibility when they advance protest candidates instead of broadly qualified ones
- The Whigs were once the other major party. Republicans did them in.
- Progressives are not happy inside the neo-Democratic party (the other oligarchy party).
- The current mess in the GOP is unsustainable long term. Something has to happen. Not sure what.
However:
- the Constitution strongly favors a 2-party system, given the requirement to win the presidency by 50+%.
- even if a third party "won" and carried 49% of the vote, the election would go to the House.
I suppose one "solution" is having a third party majority in the House first. That's . . . unlikely. Or a massive compromise deal. In today's Congressional environment, also unlikely.
One solution would be ranked voting. People could vote their conscience without "wasting" their vote. That would at least give a third party candidate a chance, if they were very, very popular.
And if party electors were faithful.
Or...change the Constitution to have runoffs. With ranked voting, that could happen automatically, without a second election.

quote:

But . . . the current 2-party Congress and state governments would have to agree.
And it's in their own selfish interests not to agree.
Best path? An amazing campaign by an Independent, faithful electors, and a takeover of Congress by third parties.
Not looking good. But we have to start somewhere.

That's why I encouraged people not supporting Trump/Clinton to vote Johnson/Stein. They weren't going to win, but it helps build the ballot line, matching campaign funding, and increases public awareness of options. I consider it a vote building toward the future in an election where I couldn't in good conscience vote for either primary winner.

quote:

And speaking of that -- I also favor open primaries in every state.
Surprisingly, Schumer supports that in NY (curious because the current shut-out helps establishment Democrats, but I'm glad he does. We'll see where it goes).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I don't know if Sanders would have accepted being her VP. I don't think he really believed in her platform.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Trump's squashing of PC stereotypes . . . many of the more conservative democrats will (or have) applaud and move to the inside with republicans.

If that's the case, then voters have the mentality of school children arguing on the playground, trying to talk tough.

Frankly, I don't think your characterization is fair to Republicans, who, despite this election, by and by are better than that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

There's a heaping load of opinion as if fact.

I'm sorry if my opinion of Republicans is higher than yours. Maybe that's part of the problem facing this country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Why would open primaries help?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
1) Yes, it would.
2) Because all voters, not just registered party members, would be choosing candidates. In the last election, 9% of voters chose Trump/Clinton, the choice the other 91% had to live with. (I'm not gonna look for it--I posted it several times before the election -- the NYT has a nice graphic on this)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

I'm thinking a lot along this line. The republicans have started to replace politicians with conservatives. I'm interested in how that plays out. I actually think a lot of that was precipitated by those on the left screaming about corporate bosses. But, I personally don't see that movement as something that will split the party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

On the other hand the socialist in the democrat party seem to be heading for a split. For instance, even in California, 40% of union members are registered republicans. I don't see them going with a socialist party or wasting a vote on a libertarian. Since the union's supply big money to the Democratic Party, and Trump has made greater effort toward jobs, I see a possible split there. If Trump actually shows he's working on jobs and beating down the republicans in the party that remain uninterested in labor, that split will more likely happen. Hillary et al, showed that the Dems only seem to care for them as voters and not constituents. If the Dems fracture, the socialist wing of the party will pull away the leftist population of labor but I don't see the republican union members voting pure union interests any longer. Which I think was demonstrated in this last election and will only steamroll.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Also, a lot of the forgotten democrats have always felt a little outside because, at least for the last decade or so, they have been ignored by the democrats pandering to identity pockets of the electorate. While Trump's squashing of PC stereotypes has the left and the media in a tissy, many of the more conservative democrats will (or have) applaud and move to the inside with republicans. That, of course, is if Trump continues to strong arm the entrenched power brokers remaining in the party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
1) Yes, it would.
2) Because all voters, not just registered party members, would be choosing candidates. In the last election, 9% of voters chose Trump/Clinton, the choice the other 91% had to live with. (I'm not gonna look for it--I posted it several times before the election -- the NYT has a nice graphic on this)

1) I'm not sure I see that happening then.

2) Where were the other 91% of registered voters? That they didn't give enough of a damn to show up and vote sure means something.

I like the idea I floated near the end of the election cycle. No party affiliations allowed on ballots. Everyone who meets the criteria and wants to run can run. First primary is in the Spring, and it narrows the field to 10 candidates. The next primary would be in mid-Summer and would narrow the field down to 5 or so. The November election would still not have any allowance for party affiliation on the ballot. Top two Electoral College winners are Pres/VP. Without an Amendment, we'd still be saddled with the 50%+1 EC vote requirement or it goes to the House, but even then, the election would be more open and, ultimately, more representative of America. I'd also love to see the field of 5 only be able to spend X number of dollars and those dollars solely coming from the Federal Government.