Thread: third parties in American politics? What say you?

There's more than two parties in the US? who knew

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

There's more than two parties in the US? who knew

Sure there are more than two parties in the US. To maximize their chances of winning they band together under the coalition parties we call "Democrat" and "Republican" instead of running their own slate and getting nothing. For example the Republican party in any given election is simply a coalition of a number of different issue-specific parties, such as the NRA, Fiscal Conservatives, Evangelicals, Zionists, Militarists, Water Rightists, Safe Borderists etc, each with their own different set of organizations that push their own candidates, all of which are sorted out during the primary election. None of these groups are particularly tied to the "R" or "D" label, though some of them have been in one camp for decades nonetheless they can and do drift between the two parties. The NRA for example was founded by a Democrat and was for many decades was in the Democrat coalition, but about 20 years ago moved fairly in the Republican camp. Social progressives used to be under the Republican umbrella (the Republican party was founded as a social progressive party) but were gradually wooed to the Democrat party over the recent decades. And there is plenty of evidence from the last election that many evangelical groups are getting ready to leave the Republican coalition for the Democratic coalition.

These umbrella parties have a very boring characterless public face because it's a homogenized projection of their components, carefully tailored for minimum offensiveness to your average sporadically-interested voter. But it's a mistake to assume that the two parties are exactly alike, or that the two parties are in any shape or fashion a monolithic entity. They're both very fractious coalitions, it's just that these coalitions are formed during the primary season (which is one reason the primary season is so long over here) instead of after the election.

Rabid Libertarian here.

Personally, I think Paul was trying to torpedo the bill with as many ridiculous riders and he could scare up, but it sort of backfired because of the panic and stupidity running rampant in DC right now.

(note: this is actually a pretty commonly used tactic. can't defeat a bill you don't like? then add a bunch of stupid **** to it so that NO ONE will vote for it)

Originally Posted by jockeys

Rabid Libertarian here.

Personally, I think Paul was trying to torpedo the bill with as many ridiculous riders and he could scare up, but it sort of backfired because of the panic and stupidity running rampant in DC right now.

(note: this is actually a pretty commonly used tactic. can't defeat a bill you don't like? then add a bunch of stupid **** to it so that NO ONE will vote for it)

That isn't what he said in the transcript.

Great thread Mark, thanks. Ill comment later, right now Im packing for my trip to Omaha.

Originally Posted by JMS

That isn't what he said in the transcript.

I hadn't read the article, but now I have.

Seems to me he's using it as an underhanded tax credit to his constituency, which is in keeping with his philosophy. He seemed pretty ****ed off during the interview, the message I got was "well, the system is hopelessly broken, I might as well try and run damage control for my constituents now"