Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

And don't you find this truly amazing?!

More depressing, because results lead to continued behavior. More hardline approaches for all, less compromise. It creates winners and losers, leaving half the country feeling like their thoughts are not being implemented in legislation, which isn't ideal. Better if both sides feel like they have gotten and given something. But that isn't what people want these days.

[Kevin Seitzer]

And don't you find this truly amazing?!

No, not at all. The Republicans have spent the last 25 years hounding the moderates out of their party, the last 15-20 years bombarding their faithful with a propaganda news channel, and the last couple decades gerrymandering districts to tighten their grip. It's been a disaster for the country, but it has definitely solidified their hold over 40% of the electorate and ~50% of the legislative seats.

[Sour Masher]

No, not at all. The Republicans have spent the last 25 years hounding the moderates out of their party, the last 15-20 years bombarding their faithful with a propaganda news channel, and the last couple decades gerrymandering districts to tighten their grip. It's been a disaster for the country, but it has definitely solidified their hold over 40% of the electorate and ~50% of the legislative seats.

Well put. Hard to argue against these realities. It sucks. If the Dems steer hard to the left, I fear that leaves a whole bunch of people in the middle who feel they don't have an ideological home, with the GOP already veering so far right.

ETA: It may be time for a 3rd party to take up the middle ground, but I don't see that happening.

[Ken]

Well put. Hard to argue against these realities. It sucks. If the Dems steer hard to the left, I fear that leaves a whole bunch of people in the middle who feel they don't have an ideological home, with the GOP already veering so far right.

**raises hand**

[Sour Masher]

**raises hand**

A third party to fill the middle would be a nice choice for voters, I think. That would allow the Dems to fully embrace progressive ideals, like the GOP has embraced their ideals. Gives a space in the middle for candidates to mix and match ideas. I think a socially progressive/fiscally conservative third party would be popular. It might also force more compromise to have three parties.

[Ken]

I think a socially progressive/fiscally conservative third party would be popular.

**raises hand**

[Sour Masher]

**raises hand**

Clearly, the party would also have to extol virtues of civility, etiquette, and decorum such as hand raising rather than shouting to indicate agreement .

[The Feral Slasher]

So....just what does the Sour Ken party stand for ? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Sour Masher]

So....just what does the Sour Ken party stand for ? Inquiring minds want to know.

I should be clear, that such a party wouldn't necessarily be my party--it would likely be candidate specific for me, and I would likely vote for the progressive party more often than not, as I find myself pretty far left on two big issues--health care and climate change, and several other issues like gun control and military spending (although that seems to be a shared position on the right, so maybe that isn't "progressive"). But it just makes sense to me as the country becomes more ideologically polarized that a third party emerges. I know a lot of folks who see the insanity of the GOP, but are scared of the turn to the left and what it will cost. Folks like that should have a lane. It would set up the need for progressives and conservatives to court them to their side for specific legislation, and it sets up a party that could be courted. Now, it seems it is very hard to break people to your position from across the aisle.

[Sour Masher]

Having said that it probably wouldn't be my party, I can't help invent a hypothetical first few planks of the platform for this hypothetical party, so here it goes

The new party would include a diverse group of candidates--some more left, some more right, but all filling a niche on at least one or more important platform positions that are inbetween those positions held by the current extremes of both parties. For instance:

1. Candidates in this third party would believe in the role of government being larger than just police and military, but be more wary of government expansion than progressives.
2. Candidates would generally be more fiscally conservative than progressives, mostly preferring less costly and less big government solutions on some issues, but also embracing taxation and regulation to an extent taboo in the GOP.
3. Candidates would generally be more socially progressive than GOPers.
4. Candidates in this party would not be confined by the extremes of either current party dogma on controversial issues, and can tout themselves and individuals with particular thoughts rather than representatives of rigid positions historically held by both current major parties.
5. In a perfect world, this party could be formed from the ground up on the position of not taking special interest money to finance campaigns, allowing candidates to run on more ideologically pure grounds, stating positions as they are personally held, rather than how they align with a rigid preexisting party doctrine structured by the pockets backing that party. But that would put them at a disadvantage in elections.
6. The candidates in the party would look different, depending on district. In some areas, that means a candidate would be categorized as conservative in a different state or district, or liberal in another state or district. I am thinking specifically of blue dog dems in southern states that do not align very much at all with more progressive ideals in the Dem party, or GOPers in liberal states that are called RHINOs within the GOP. This party would likely include a lot of those folks.
7. Perhaps most importantly, expectations among voters for this party would be that their candidates could and would align on a case by case basis with those from the other two parties. It would not be a negative if they did so. It would be a way for voters to back someone that may align with Democrats on some issues, like health care, and GOPers on some issues, like gun control (I should add, as more evidence that I am not building my own party here, that I'm highly progressive on gun control; I wouldn't care if the government banned all hand guns, high capacity mags, added extreme background checks, etc; this is an example of the diversity of candidates though--they would fight it out in the party for which ideas to lean left and right on).

[The Feral Slasher]

I should be clear, that such a party wouldn't necessarily be my party.

Of course not, it's half Ken's party too

[Sour Masher]

Of course not, it's half Ken's party too

Ha, well, then I'd let him chime in to correct, delete, and add to my fictitious platform. As I wrote it out, I realized, I'd probably be giving up many friends and family to that party that are current dems that I'd be arguing with to vote progressive with me .

[The Feral Slasher]

Having said that it probably wouldn't be my party, I can't help invent a hypothetical first few planks of the platform for this hypothetical party, so here it goes

The new party would include a diverse group of candidates--some more left, some more right, but all filling a niche on at least one or more important platform positions that are inbetween those positions held by the current extremes of both parties. For instance:

1. Candidates in this third party would believe in the role of government being larger than just police and military, but be more wary of government expansion than progressives.
2. Candidates would generally be more fiscally conservative than progressives, mostly preferring less costly and less big government solutions on some issues, but also embracing taxation and regulation to an extent taboo in the GOP.
3. Candidates would generally be more socially progressive than GOPers.
4. Candidates in this party would not be confined by the extremes of either current party dogma on controversial issues, and can tout themselves and individuals with particular thoughts rather than representatives of rigid positions historically held by both current major parties.
5. In a perfect world, this party could be formed from the ground up on the position of not taking special interest money to finance campaigns, allowing candidates to run on more ideologically pure grounds, stating positions as they are personally held, rather than how they align with a rigid preexisting party doctrine structured by the pockets backing that party. But that would put them at a disadvantage in elections.
6. The candidates in the party would look different, depending on district. In some areas, that means a candidate would be categorized as conservative in a different state or district, or liberal in another state or district. I am thinking specifically of blue dog dems in southern states that do not align very much at all with more progressive ideals in the Dem party, or GOPers in liberal states that are called RHINOs within the GOP. This party would likely include a lot of those folks.
7. Perhaps most importantly, expectations among voters for this party would be that their candidates could and would align on a case by case basis with those from the other two parties. It would not be a negative if they did so. It would be a way for voters to back someone that may align with Democrats on some issues, like health care, and GOPers on some issues, like gun control (I should add, as more evidence that I am not building my own party here, that I'm highly progressive on gun control; I wouldn't care if the government banned all hand guns, high capacity mags, added extreme background checks, etc; this is an example of the diversity of candidates though--they would fight it out in the party for which ideas to lean left and right on).

If only Fox News and MSNBC and the DNC and the Republican party didn't exist the Sour Ken party might have a chance. It sounds like every Dem and Republican presidential candidate in the last 30 years (excepting Bernie and Donald) could fit in. But the real question....which one of you is at the top of the ticket ?

[Sour Masher]

If only Fox News and MSNBC and the DNC and the Republican party didn't exist the Sour Ken party might have a chance. It sounds like every Dem and Republican presidential candidate in the last 30 years (excepting Bernie and Donald) could fit in. But the real question....which one of you is at the top of the ticket ?

Those 24 hour politcal news networks are toxic. I try to stay away from them the best I can, but my wife treats them like background noise. Puts them on by default whenever she can. It amazes me how narrow their talking points are. So much that needs coverage, but always the same 2-3 things over and over again.

ETA: Warren is pretty darn progressive. I do not think she'd fit in a centrist party.

[DMT]

So here's Mayor Pete praising the Tea Party while Obama was president. Fuck that guy.

https://twitter.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1196607243728363522?s=19