Good Convo between Yang and Cuomo about his new political party and why the US should have more parties in general.
2022 US Elections
- Thread starter calodo2003
- Start date
Whatever the message is, I am not buying a gram of what either of those two are selling.
Cuomo isn't selling anything. Yang is talking about the Forward Party and makes some good points about the need to escape the binary D vs R world.
His mere continued existence as a "journalist" is enough of a turnoff. The only person he should be interviewing is himself in the mirror, and the only question should be "why am I such a horrible person?"
I am all for the need to evolve a more diverse political environment, but I fear for the short- and medium-term consequences should the necessary schism occur for this to happen.
The second sentence is a good point, although at some point one has to ask whether just going for it and dealing with the initial turbulence of giving the other side an advantage would yield a better political system for all in the long run.
Pre-2012 I would have agreed 80%, but back then the GOP at least pretended to be a good faith actor. Their politics were still reprehensible, but they could still be viewed as having some principles if you squinted hard enough. Now? Now I think that if the GOP gained total control, including 60 seats in the senate, the damage done could be permanent. Voting and civil rights would be the first target and I don't know how you recover from that. Living in Wisconsin really hardened my view on this. The state is a slight Dem lean, but it is enough of a lean that ever statewide office except for Ron Johnson is a D. However, the state has a 60%+ R legislature and when Walker lost to Evers in 18 he conspired to strip the Gov office of as much power as possible. The result is a state so Gerrymandered, and power so concentrated in the legislature, that I do not see a way out for WI. I fear that is the fate of the US if the GOP gains total control. Minority rule.
I think it would be more attractive if it had a mix of independents from both parties, so as to avoid the perception that a new party is merely a subset of Dems. Otherwise we are trapped in the binary world for at least another generation or two.
And we'll get this sort of nonsense.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-says-gop-103731242.html
Marjorie Taylor Greene says a GOP-led House will investigate companies that stopped donating to Republicans after the Capitol riot
- Marjorie Taylor Greene said a GOP-led House would probe firms that stopped donating to Republicans.
- She said some "big corporations" and lobbyists have ceased donations after the Capitol riots.
- Greene also accused the corporations of "corporate communism."
I think the only way the US could transition from now to multi-parties is if both D and R parties fracture into two parties. I think a third party is almost impossible because to have any chance it would have to be able to pull equally from both D and R parties. I suppose that could be theoretically possible if all the old-school establishment Republicans were willing to abandon their party and aligned with the establishment Dems like Feinstein. I can't see that third-party scenario working though as it would take all the people who benefit the most from the two-party system being willing to form a new party. So I think the realistic scenario from the ground up would really need to be both D and R breaking down into two parties each like this article discuss. It would even be better if we could then get to 5 or more parties so you could really have realignments and coalitions that evolve.
The only way the US is ever going to have more than two parties is to ditch first past the post, winner takes all. Otherwise the best you will ever do is a cycle or two of genuine multi-party democracy if a large party-realignment happens.
...and electoral reform will never happen without a revolution, in the USA at least. Small chance of a shift in the right direction in the UK, if you have Lib Dems propping up a Labour government. But I suspect even then you'd see a Trudeau-esque U-turn.
It’s looking more likely by the day.
How bad a candidate do you have to be to lose to Walker? And possibly lose by a few points.
It’s utterly perplexing that after January 6th and with democracy so clearly balanced on a knife edge, Republicans are going to take back control of congress in the first midterms.
Inflation and gas prices appear to be the main issues for most.
Abortion is very low on the list in polling.
Also killing Roe after all these years.
Biden’s approval rating is correlated to gas prices. Dems made a slight comeback in Sep when gas prices came down.
That said, the Dems have also been losing undecided or moderate votes by letting the less liberal (“progressive”) sections of the party have a bigger voice. Most Americans in the middle are generally not political and don’t want to get dragged into one.
Its all tied to economics. Congress already polls at about 20% approval, so when average voters look at voting in mid terms, the tendency is to vote out whoever is in Congress and send a message to the WH. If the Dems were banking on the Abortion ruling bailing them out, they are risking massive disappointment.
Was predicted to happen for a while now going off of historical results. Summer made a dent in it, but now the house is gone (basically was always gone), but I think the senate will remain dem.
I still think that there is somewhat significant underpolling of newly registered voters which might be what saves the senate.
Polling errors can go both ways for sure, but given the last few years I think it'd be folly to rely on a polling error to save the Democrats here. 538 has the Senate as a toss-up now, and it's only been going one way lately. Fearing the worst.
Last edited:
Shit's been razor thin for years, it might just be incomplete polling that is the margin.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
Especially when that same candidate toppled former GOP Senator Loeffler on the first shot. Warnock shot himself in the foot by being underprepared for the debate AND for not pummeling Walker when the latter was down.
Barack Obama was not holding back at all on Walker yesterday. That is what Warnock should have done from the very beginning, and feck that good guy image.
Yep, he has felt that due to his pastor status he wasn’t going to go negative or on the attack. Could be a fatal mistake.
Even more depressing when you realise 2024 is going to be way rougher for the Dems in the senate. We are dawning on the real likelihood that the Dems are about to lose control of the Senate until 2026.
I cannot believe I am writing this living in the UK given the state of our politics, but the US has far too many elections. An incoming president seems to have 18 months rather than 4 years to achieve anything given the mid terms.
Obviously if everything wasn't gerrymandered to hell that would be a big help too.
Obviously if everything wasn't gerrymandered to hell that would be a big help too.
It was less of an issue when the country was more politically and socially homogenous (basically until the 94 mid terms). Until then, there was a degree of collegiality where people sought to work across the aisle, which gave Presidents more leeway to get things done. Clinton's election in 92 and the GOP's Gingrich led contract for America campaign during the 94 mid terms poisoned the well between both parties, which continued through the Dubya war years, into Obama and the Tea Party response, and ultimately into Trumpism. I don't see it changing any time soon unless one of the parties completely implodes, giving all the leverage to the one left standing.
Then there were those who claimed it was a deliberate tactic by Warnock in that debate because he was so far ahead in the polls and didn't want to attack Walker to keep the lead or something. It's funny, because I don't recall any of the leads in these elections ever staying the same, and in some cases, they even reversed at the polls. If he loses this election, it will be one of the biggest blunders.
Nah back then you would've viewed them as utterly deranged and dangerous in a way they'd never been 10 years ago same as you do now. That's politics and the hollowing out of centre
Cool, cool…. So nice to have a stranger tell me what I was thinking a decade ago.
Anyways, 10 years ago I was a registered independent voter who voted pretty evenly for both parties based on candidate platforms and (if previously a politician) voting records. I still vote using the same criteria (voting record, platforms) but this week marked off only one Republican when voting.
Fair man I was making a point outside of your personal views about peoples seeming constant perception that things have accelerated beyond reason in their time..
No worries, just being grumpy old man tonight and you were on my lawn.
That peooke will see the Republican party and the luntics they have contesting and think yeah, they will have my vote is incredible. Basket case country.