Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Xanikk999, Aug 1, 2011.
It's still outdated
The efforts of the Vast Extreme Right-Wing Propaganda Machine (TM). Again, it does not show that the US is a "center-right" nation. Even throughout the timespan, moderates have been attempting to make a comeback. Plus, you've never even defined what it is. For all we know, your definition of center-right would to most of us be more on the lines of extreme right-wing. Really, what's the beef with liberalism and moderates?
Also, capitalize the "g" in my nick, thank you.
Also, FYI before you judge me as a liberal. I lean towards the moderate scale.
How many Socialists actually vote Socialist, rather than Democrat...?
I see it on this forum all the time. Obama sucks, but he's better than <insert GOP contender here>. You can hate someone and still vote for them.
For most people, an election isn't who you want, but who you DON'T want.
The burden of proof is on you. How many close elections has the GOP or Democrats actually had a chance of losing to the Libertarians or Constitution Party?
As far as I know, only the Tea Party's been an actual threat in recent years, having unseated a fair amount of incumbents in the primaries.
(can't you see my username is "madviking" and not "Mad Viking"?)
But you haven't convinced me that there should be a term to describe America. Consider this oversimplification:
There are 3 people (Jim, Tim, Kim) and each possess a political view that is triametrically opposed to the others'. And each are extremists in their view. But, if you did some like a Political Compass test on each of them, and averaged their scores, you'd find that the average would lie exactly at (0, 0). So this means that the society is centrist? Of course not. Each of them would kill the others for their view to rule. So in this case, other than the meaningless classification of "extremist", I cannot find a term that would suitably classify them. What do you say?
Pretty sure 20% of American voters say socialism would be preferable to the current system.
Whereas 99% of Americans don't know what "Socialism" really is.
I can agree with that. It's like socialism is a dirty word in America and the ignorant masses who don't know what it means instantly think free-loading and communism.
Inherent joke being many Americans don't know the dictionary meaning of Communism either.
Though that's excuseable; I suppose we define our terms by what we've seen them associated with. We hear Communism trumped up by the Stalinist regimes and whatnot, so we assume Communism is a harsh statism(though this would be closer to dictionary socialism to my knowledge).
Not sure how socialism came to be so twisted though. I assume social democracy/social capitalism were twisted into what Americans know socialism to be.
How can people possibly wonder why "socialism" is a bad word in America when for years we fought against first National Socialists and then Soviet Socialists, and when communists defend their ideology by claiming that the eastern totalitarian regimes were "socialist, not communist"?
All of them. If you vote Democrat, you're not a Socialist. You're a Democrat.
I know; I see that too. People who vote that way aren't Socialists. They're Democrats, if angry and reluctant Democrats.
"Losing TO the Libertarians or Constitution party" isn't what I said. I said "losing BECAUSE OF". With that correction made: in presidential elections, at least three. 1992, 2000, and 2004. 1992 wasn't thrown because of a Libertarian or a Constitutioner specifically, but it was because of an independent--Ross Perot. His presence caused Bush Sr. to lose. Independents (and Libertarians and others) have ganked a lot of elections that way.
In the 2010 midterms? I actually had several examples (Libertarians posed a threat to both Big Parties in many Congressional elections), but then I found the Holy Grail. I'm just gonna skip to that one. That's how awesome it is. It's a triple-chocolate eclair that made me gain ten pounds just thinking about it. In the 2010 Colorado election for governor, Tom Tancredo of the American Constitution party DEFEATED THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. Yes. I said DEFEATED. In a STATE level election. A Republican was beaten by the Constitution party. And not by a nose, either. Tancredo got THREE TIMES as many votes as Republican Dan Maes. You should be thanking your lucky stars that Tancredo actually came in second--he was beaten by Democrat John Hickenlooper.
So, when you asked "chance of losing"? That was out of date. The American Constitution party has already shown it can beat the Republicans. That should be alarming to many people in this thread.
Public ownership of the means of production. (NOT government ownership, public ownership)
Dude, I think you have some sort of gland problem if you gain ten pounds just by thinking about chocolate.
Dammit. You just made me gain ten more.
I wonder, if we keep posting about chocolate, will you eventually attain a mass greater than that of the Earth? If so, we should probably stop, because that sounds like it would be a bad thing.
I'm sorry, but I am going to have to strongly disagree with you on this. Are the socialists who vote Democrat part of the Democratic party? No they are not! Does an independent who votes Democrat 75% of the time considered a democrat? No they are not!
Voters do not fit into your world of pigeon holes.
Relevant flash game
No such thing. Socialists refuse to vote Democrat, because all Democrats are capitalists. Democrats and Republicans both stand for everything Socialists hate, and true Socialists see no difference between the two. (One radical nutcase described it as the "Property Party" with two wings, Republican and Democrat)
That "Nutcase" isn't far off from the truth.
Hate to point this out, but the consensus among modern political scientists is that Perot's voters were about equally split between people with Bush as their second choice and people with Clinton as their second choice. He didn't impact the results.
The problem with this example is that Maes is both crazy (bicycle lanes are a UN plot), unpopular with his base, and a horrible campaigner. Tancredo, nasty little Know Nothing that he is, is popular and a former member of the House. Even then, he only jumped in after it was clear that Maes wasn't going anywhere. Hickenlooper is also no slouch of a politician.
There are some lessons to be learned, but they're more in the realm of "recruit better candidates".
Whether it's true is irrelevant--that's what real socialists think.
.....mostly confirmed by the raw numbers. Some of the exit polls (but not all of them) show Perot drawing evenly from Reps and Dems; the demographics do not reflect this. Perot received more votes from hardcore Republicans than from hardcore Democrats; more votes from moderate Republicans than from moderate Democrats; and more votes from centrist Republicans than centrist Democrats. Perot was a bigger draw for Republicans of all three persuasions.
Not very conclusive, but good enough for me. Party draws aside, Perot not only drew 20% of the popular vote, but pulled ahead of both Bush and Clinton during the campaign. Independents can beat The System; Perot very nearly did. His own idiot decision to pull out in the middle and then jump back in is what killed him.
So what?? Obama is two of those things right now. Politicians campaign badly all the time.
From Colorado 2010, it's clear that some voters out there do consider a radical nut like Tancredo to be a better prospect than a bad Republican. Rather than sticking with the Two Big Parties, as the OP said, those voters in Colorado 2010 went the other way; they swung WAY to the right and voted radical. The choice for them was NOT between the Democrats and the Republicans. So there is more than one lesson to be learned here: that good third-party candidates can beat The System, that the radical right is making a lot more headway in the U.S. than the radical left, and that the desire for additional parties in U.S. politics could backfire disastrously.
Thanks for the explanation on feasiblity of third party.
Separate names with a comma.