More democrats want third party

[Peter1469]

More democrats want third party (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/wide-party-divide-could-be-opening-independent-candidate-n966296)

Although they don't agree on why. Some want a more liberal candidate, some want a more moderate candidate. But at least they are questioning the two party system.


The numbers over time show the Democrats have moved a little more in favor of the “more liberal” direction since 2008, but the lean toward favoring “more moderate” party overall has been consistent in that time.
Still, the main finding in the data — that the two major political parties in the United States are viewed as very different entities — raises a question as 2020 approaches: Does the movement mean there is room between the Democrats and Republicans for a third-party candidacy (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/howard-schultz-real-threat-hurt-democrats-2020-or-are-they-n963866)?


That’s a question on a lot of minds this week after former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz declared he is considering an independent run for president, and polling data from Gallup (https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094/majority-say-third-party-needed.aspx) suggests the answer may be yes — at least in theory.

[Common]

The democrats I know in the VFW, friends and the Elks are all a buzz and very unhappy with the democrat party.

They are not in love with trump but viewing him as a lesser evil than whats been borne out of this new crop of democrats.

Of course its not a substantial mix of democrats I admit its mostly middle age to senior whites

If democrats are scared, imagine the independents which decide the elections. Ive said it here time and time again, the far left and the far right get rejected by americans every single time.

America Rejected the teaparty far right and they"WILL" reject, the Racist, anti semetic, socialist democrats that are trying to take over.

The lionshare of america does not want it socialized, they do not want distorted and destroyed moral compass, they do not believe in a genderless society and they dont believe being a transgender is normal.

[Peter1469]

The democrats I know in the VFW, friends and the Elks are all a buzz and very unhappy with the democrat party.

They are not in love with trump but viewing him as a lesser evil than whats been borne out of this new crop of democrats.

Of course its not a substantial mix of democrats I admit its mostly middle age to senior whites

If democrats are scared, imagine the independents which decide the elections. Ive said it here time and time again, the far left and the far right get rejected by americans every single time.

America Rejected the teaparty far right and they"WILL" reject, the Racist, anti semetic, socialist democrats that are trying to take over.

The lionshare of america does not want it socialized, they do not want distorted and destroyed moral compass, they do not believe in a genderless society and they dont believe being a transgender is normal.
I can imagine identity politics does not go over well with older Americans.

[IMPress Polly]

My generation and today's teenagers tend to be distrusting of the two-party system, but more so of the Republican Party. I would say that, overall, these younger generations would probably prefer that the Democrats move a bit more to the left, though probably not actually as far as what Bernie Sanders represented. Overall, there are strongly-held differences of opinion on questions of the role of government in the economy, on race relations, and on the environment and questions of gay rights and other "queer" issues between these younger generations and the older ones, with the middle-aged Gen X sort of serving as the more centrist buffer zone between the two sides. On the other hand, I'd say that younger Americans are closer to the Republican Party's stances on certain issues like gun policy (unfortunately). Americans 35 and under I think are typically very individualist in terms of social values (more so than I am, I mean) like drugs and porn and all that, and are also mostly pro-choice to some extent or other, so adding that into the mix, you can see how they'd tend to dislike Republicans overall and feel that the Democrats overall aren't far enough to the left. I think they'd be satisfied with most of the candidates who are currently running on the Democratic side. The party seems to be moving to accommodate them to a significant degree after they didn't show up on election day of 2016 for Hillary Clinton, but had during the primaries for Bernie Sanders.

I, of course, am not an aggregate picture of my generation's attitudes and opinions overall. I don't think anyone is. I have my own individual opinions. That said, I too have mixed opinions of the Democratic Party. I am less individualistic in general than my generation and the one after it are in aggregate. I am well to Bernie Sanders's left on economic issues, favoring a full socialist reorganization of the economy and am more or less an open borders person opposed to not just the wall, but ICE, and also believe that aggressive action on the environment, as in like the Green New Deal, is urgently required, and these are key areas where I'm aligned with left type thinking. However, I am also worried about our current, rapidly-worsening epidemic of drug crises in this country (opioid addiction, alcohol addiction, marijuana, and e-cigarettes have even resurrected tobacco as a major issue of late) and think that we should have a general policy of public ownership of these things that obliges people to use state stores to purchase them (like what we do with alcohol here in Vermont), as that's the policy that minimizes consumption. And while I've regarded myself as an anti-imperialist, I'm currently worried about our foreign policy leaning too far in the other direction. I feel like, between Trump and the ascendant progressive wing of the Democratic Party, we're leaning toward just disbanding NATO and letting Russia overrun Europe and pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan and just letting ISIS regroup and run wild over the Middle East. I'm not really a proponent of overthrowing foreign governments with our military, but I do think we should take threats like Russia and the Islamic State seriously and have no problem with our government and Canada and the EU and other Latin American countries recognizing the new, alternative government in Venezuela either as long as there's no military intervention. Never before have I more seen the point of NATO. I also don't really feel that the Democrats have particularly distinguished themselves as fighters for women, if that hasn't been made clear yet; I feel that both the neoliberal and progressive Democrats are too soft on porn, too interested in legalizing the prostitution of women, too supportive of the beauty industry and gender identity politics (the transgender movement, etc.), and too passive on political Islam, among other things, and that all this is true especially of the progressive wing. And I'm more with the older generations of Democrats on gun control than with the passive progressive wing that doesn't care much about gun violence. There is no party or major institution or organized faction thereof that fully represents my views.

Personally, I view Howard Schultz's threat to run as an independent as a form of political extortion. Only billionaires can afford to make that threat and, entitled by Trump's ascendancy and victories, we're now seeing them do so a lot more often. We similarly saw Michael Bloomberg threaten to run as an independent in 2016 if the Democrats nominated Bernie Sanders. Likewise, Donald Trump famously threatened to run as an independent if he didn't win the Republican nomination. So far these threats seem to work. By threatening to throw the 2020 election to Donald Trump by running as an independent, Schultz will be able to keep the Democrats from embracing economic populism at the national level; he'll be able to keep the Democratic Party subservient to a corporate agenda either in the short run or the long run. If they nominate a progressive candidate, Schultz will run and Trump will win, and thus the Democrats will learn to never do that again lest the billionaire class revolt and the Republicans (who are already owned by the billionaire class) win, so this threat increases their likeliness to go with a traditional neoliberal like Joe Biden or Terry McAuliffe who won't raise their taxes or pursue Medicare for all or oppose the rolling privatization of our school system, as to appease characters like Schultz out of running. Political extortion by entitled billionaires is a way of maintaining a plutocratic system and I have no respect for that. I'm tired of this class of criminals feeling that they have the right to singularly shape the economic policies of this country. He should stay the hell out of this contest if he has any sense of decency or moral compass at all.

Overall though, there are lots of Democratic candidates who have either announced formally already or formed exploratory committees (which is basically a commitment to run, as I've never seen anyone who formed such a committee decide against running) who I would definitely vote for in the general election should they be the party's nominee. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cory Booker all come to mind immediately. I'm also open-minded to Jay Inslee, but need to know more details of what his platform is. I would have substantial areas of disagreement with all those candidates too, but not nearly such disagreement as I'd have with someone like Joe Biden, Terry McAuliffe, or Michael Bloomberg. I wouldn't vote for any of the latter. I mean basically economic, environmental, and border policy issues and the at this point near-elimination of abortion rights in this country combine to make me on balance side with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that never really wins. It will take a miracle for them to win at the national level, but I hope one of them does, even if it means that this billionaire jackass Schultz runs as an independent in protest to defend his class privilege, because at least then we'd have an honest contest. I've also heard that Larry Hogan, the Republican Governor of Maryland, may challenge Donald Trump in the Republican Party primaries, and I'd be interested in seeing that happen as well. I'd like to see how that contest would unfold (not that I'd vote for either, personally).

It would be more ideal if we had an instant-runoff voting system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) in this country, IMO, as that would enable people to vote for the candidate they like the best without having to worry so much about their least-favored candidate winning as a result, BUT I don't see the two governing parties backing such a reform ever, do you? Why would they challenge their own duopoly?

(Speaking of all this, I know @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) is someone who is actively involved in third party politics. I wonder what she thinks about all this.)

[countryboy]

The democrats I know in the VFW, friends and the Elks are all a buzz and very unhappy with the democrat party.

They are not in love with trump but viewing him as a lesser evil than whats been borne out of this new crop of democrats.

Of course its not a substantial mix of democrats I admit its mostly middle age to senior whites

If democrats are scared, imagine the independents which decide the elections. Ive said it here time and time again, the far left and the far right get rejected by americans every single time.

America Rejected the teaparty far right and they"WILL" reject, the Racist, anti semetic, socialist democrats that are trying to take over.

The lionshare of america does not want it socialized, they do not want distorted and destroyed moral compass, they do not believe in a genderless society and they dont believe being a transgender is normal.

For the record, The Tea Party was never "far right". And conservative Americans embraced The Tea Party, it's just that the charlatans who ran as "Tea Party", by and large screwed their constituents once they got to Washington.

[Common]

Polly everytime I respond to you, you get angry I hope not this time.

I think younger people have always been more liberal, especially my generation starting with viet nam protesting.
Americans get more conservative as they age for a variety of reasons. They have responsibility to others besides themselves, Wife, Children, extended famililes. They are old more mature and have see the reality of being a worker and a taxpayer in real time. They worry more about their kids future and then their grandkids future than their own.

I dont think millenials will be any different in the economic conservative sense, yes there will be social differences.

There is no more to give Gays they have EVERYTHING they asked for and more and more govt protection than anyone else. Personally the women are held back and under paid is over and just a continued rant and hate on men thing.
There will always be sex crimes unfortunately even when the take away genders as long as when you pull open the proverbial diaper and see two different things.

Race has ALOT of work to be done, my personal opinion is that the left is doing it all wrong and making it worse but they may realize that and not care and are looking to the future and have wrote all of us off as a lost cause.

I predict the california type nutjob far left politicians will be rejected nationally.

Getting elected by a landslide in your small district does not mean the nation embraces it. The new congress women, ocasio and ilmar etc will learn that eventually, they are still high on getting elected and not having a clue what to do yet.

[Ethereal]

And while I've regarded myself as an anti-imperialist, I'm currently worried about our foreign policy leaning too far in the other direction. I feel like, between Trump and the ascendant progressive wing of the Democratic Party, we're leaning toward just disbanding NATO and letting Russia overrun Europe and pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan and just letting ISIS regroup and run wild over the Middle East. I'm not really a proponent of overthrowing foreign governments with our military, but I do think we should take threats like Russia and the Islamic State seriously and have no problem with our government and Canada and the EU and other Latin American countries recognizing the new, alternative government in Venezuela either as long as there's no military intervention. Never before have I more seen the point of NATO.

There is no threat that Russia is going to overrun Europe. It's a fiction. NATO is totally obsolete. The US intervention in Syria, much like the US intervention in Iraq, is based on demonstrable lies. Given this, I'm not sure how you can regard yourself as "anti-imperialist" when your foreign policy seems to align quite nicely with the neocon and neoliberal consensus on most important issues.

The ONLY genuine "anti-imperialist" position that now exists is one that calls for the immediate withdrawal of US occupation forces from Europe, Asia, and South America, to include the nefarious CIA networks that are working CONSTANTLY to undermine the sovereignty of any country that displays even the slightest amount of independence relative to the US empire.

[Hoosier8]

My generation and today's teenagers tend to be distrusting of the two-party system, but more so of the Republican Party. I would say that, overall, these younger generations would probably prefer that the Democrats move a bit more to the left, though probably not actually as far as what Bernie Sanders represented. Overall, there are strongly-held differences of opinion on questions of the role of government in the economy, on race relations, and on the environment and questions of gay rights and other "$#@!" issues between these younger generations and the older ones, with the middle-aged Gen X sort of serving as the more centrist buffer zone between the two sides. On the other hand, I'd say that younger Americans are closer to the Republican Party's stances on certain issues like gun policy (unfortunately). Americans 35 and under I think are typically very individualist in terms of social values (more so than I am, I mean) like drugs and porn and all that, and are also mostly pro-choice to some extent or other, so adding that into the mix, you can see how they'd tend to dislike Republicans overall and feel that the Democrats overall aren't far enough to the left. I think they'd be satisfied with most of the candidates who are currently running on the Democratic side. The party seems to be moving to accommodate them to a significant degree after they didn't show up on election day of 2016 for Hillary Clinton, but had during the primaries for Bernie Sanders.

I, of course, am not an aggregate picture of my generation's attitudes and opinions overall. I don't think anyone is. I have my own individual opinions. That said, I too have mixed opinions of the Democratic Party. I am less individualistic in general than my generation and the one after it are in aggregate. I am well to Bernie Sanders's left on economic issues, favoring a full socialist reorganization of the economy and am more or less an open borders person opposed to not just the wall, but ICE, and also believe that aggressive action on the environment, as in like the Green New Deal, is urgently required, and these are key areas where I'm aligned with left type thinking. However, I am also worried about our current, rapidly-worsening epidemic of drug crises in this country (opioid addiction, alcohol addiction, marijuana, and e-cigarettes have even resurrected tobacco as a major issue of late) and think that we should have a general policy of public ownership of these things that obliges people to use state stores to purchase them (like what we do with alcohol here in Vermont), as that's the policy that minimizes consumption. And while I've regarded myself as an anti-imperialist, I'm currently worried about our foreign policy leaning too far in the other direction. I feel like, between Trump and the ascendant progressive wing of the Democratic Party, we're leaning toward just disbanding NATO and letting Russia overrun Europe and pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan and just letting ISIS regroup and run wild over the Middle East. I'm not really a proponent of overthrowing foreign governments with our military, but I do think we should take threats like Russia and the Islamic State seriously and have no problem with our government and Canada and the EU and other Latin American countries recognizing the new, alternative government in Venezuela either as long as there's no military intervention. Never before have I more seen the point of NATO. I also don't really feel that the Democrats have particularly distinguished themselves as fighters for women, if that hasn't been made clear yet; I feel that both the neoliberal and progressive Democrats are too soft on porn, too interested in legalizing the prostitution of women, too supportive of the beauty industry and gender identity politics (the transgender movement, etc.), and too passive on political Islam, among other things, and that all this is true especially of the progressive wing. And I'm more with the older generations of Democrats on gun control than with the passive progressive wing that doesn't care much about gun violence. There is no party or major institution or organized faction thereof that fully represents my views.

Personally, I view Howard Schultz's threat to run as an independent as a form of political extortion. Only billionaires can afford to make that threat and, entitled by Trump's ascendancy and victories, we're now seeing them do so a lot more often. We similarly saw Michael Bloomberg threaten to run as an independent in 2016 if the Democrats nominated Bernie Sanders. Likewise, Donald Trump famously threatened to run as an independent if he didn't win the Republican nomination. So far these threats seem to work. By threatening to throw the 2020 election to Donald Trump by running as an independent, Schultz will be able to keep the Democrats from embracing economic populism at the national level; he'll be able to keep the Democratic Party subservient to a corporate agenda either in the short run or the long run. If they nominate a progressive candidate, Schultz will run and Trump will win, and thus the Democrats will learn to never do that again lest the billionaire class revolt and the Republicans (who are already owned by the billionaire class) win, so this threat increases their likeliness to go with a traditional neoliberal like Joe Biden or Terry McAuliffe who won't raise their taxes or pursue Medicare for all or oppose the rolling privatization of our school system, as to appease characters like Schultz out of running. Political extortion by entitled billionaires is a way of maintaining a plutocratic system and I have no respect for that. I'm tired of this class of criminals feeling that they have the right to singularly shape the economic policies of this country. He should stay the hell out of this contest if he has any sense of decency or moral compass at all.

Overall though, there are lots of Democratic candidates who have either announced formally already or formed exploratory committees (which is basically a commitment to run, as I've never seen anyone who formed such a committee decide against running) who I would definitely vote for in the general election should they be the party's nominee. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cory Booker all come to mind immediately. I'm also open-minded to Jay Inslee, but need to know more details of what his platform is. I would have substantial areas of disagreement with all those candidates too, but not nearly such disagreement as I'd have with someone like Joe Biden, Terry McAuliffe, or Michael Bloomberg. I wouldn't vote for any of the latter. I mean basically economic and border policy issues and the at this point near-elimination of abortion rights in this country combine to make me on balance side with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that never really wins. It will take a miracle for them to win at the national level, but I hope one of them does, even if it means that this billionaire jackass Schultz runs as an independent in protest to defend his class privilege, because at least then we'd have an honest contest. I've also heard that Larry Hogan, the Republican Governor of Maryland, may challenge Donald Trump in the Republican Party primaries, and I'd be interested in seeing that happen as well. I'd like to see how that contest would unfold.

It would be more ideal if we had an instant-runoff voting system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) in this country, IMO, as that would enable people to vote for the candidate they like the best without having to worry so much about their least-favored candidate winning as a result, BUT I don't see the two governing party's backing such a reform ever, do you? Why would they challenge their own duopoly?

(Speaking of all this, I know @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) is someone who is actively involved in third party politics. I wonder what she thinks about all this.)

Originally it was called for those successful in business to 'volunteer' their time to the country. That has changed to a system of career politicians. If they had to volunteer, they wouldn't stay forever like it is currently. The closest we have come to that is Trump who forgoes his pay.

Socialism is not the answer. This country was not built on socialism and would not be what it is today if it were. Older Americans see the problems with the current push and the far left socialists of the democratic party will insure failure to get elected.

[donttread]

More democrats want third party (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/wide-party-divide-could-be-opening-independent-candidate-n966296)

Although they don't agree on why. Some want a more liberal candidate, some want a more moderate candidate. But at least they are questioning the two party system.

Great news. It would force the DNC to be a little less controlling for one thing

[Tahuyaman]

More democrats want third party (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/wide-party-divide-could-be-opening-independent-candidate-n966296)

Although they don't agree on why. Some want a more liberal candidate, some want a more moderate candidate. But at least they are questioning the two party system.


I saw this coming. This is obviously caused by the hard left swing within the Democratic Party.


The old school establishment types aren't happy about it. They are a bit more pragmatic. The young democratic socialist element want to go even further and faster to the extreme.