Third Party & Independents: Archives

David,
Good analysis!

I think of independents and moderates as two different groups. Independents can be all over the political spectrum, ranging from Greens to Libertarians. Moderates occupy the swing position, the middle of the spectrum.

As you noted, there will probably be little anti-incumbent fever once we are past the primaries. I am cautiously optimistic that a Democratic president and legislature could work together to address some significant issues.

Congress deservedly receives a very low approval rating. However, that low rating reflects the ability of Democrats and Republicans to work together. The Republicans are united in lockstep with Bush, which enables them to filibuster like crazy or rely on a presidential veto. The Democrats lack the unifying leadership of the Executive Branch. Given that leadership, and near supermajorities in one or both houses, they could be in a good position to address critical issues. It seems like the best we can hope for at this point.

Of course, a year is an eternity in politics. But the course of action chosen by Republicans, “staying the course,” seems like madness. I think they know this- many Republican Senators are retiring, and not one- NOT ONE- Democratic Senator is retiring- and yet the Republicans seem helpless & hapless. In spite of the disastrously low approval ratings for Bush, and the low ratings for Congress which Republicans share, they seem unable to break free of the 25% or so which represents their base.

Agreed, among the Republicans, Giuliani alone seems to be running a campaign with an eye to actually winning in 2008. But his stands on social issues are anathema to the Republican base. If Giuliani somehow wins the nomination, the Republican base might run an independent, third party candidate. Why not, if they think they will lose anyway? It would be an opportunity to demonstrate to the party their dominant role, and need for the party to heed them.

At any rate, something will presumably change for the Republican presidential candidates between now and the primaries (which are not that far away!). Without change, they face the prospect of fielding a candidate unelectable on a nationwide basis. Not even Hillary hatred will be able to save them…

David, Hopeful and very critical.
You said
“Independent voters hoping to avoid a one party government have two choices, vote for a Republican president, or vote for a Republican Representative and Senators.”
I would also think its time for the smaller parties to step up and run serious campaigns, why if given a decent candidate this might be the year I would vote libertarian or green for my representative in Congress.

I think that a pretty high percentage of the dissatisfaction we see in the polls right now has to do with Democratic and Republican voters being a). especially angry about the behavior of the opposition party and b). frustration at their own party’s inability to vanquish the other main party and enact their own party’s goals.

I see this in many areas. A prime example is Democratic voters who want to end the war and are frustrated that their party is unable to do so even though they control Congress.

It would be a huge stretch, however, to say that such voters think they’d ultimately find greater satisfaction by DECREASING their favored party’s power (by flirting with third party candidates) instead of INCREASING that power as much as possible. To put it another way, Democrats are unhappy because they don’t think their party has enough power and that Republicans have too much—and vice versa.

J2t2,
I just do not see independents making any significant headway in the next few years. If the GOP fragments into a regional, social conservative party, and the Democrats make a hash of a few years in power, then, maybe then, an independent party could make real headway.

Global Warming could give the Greens a boost, but the Democrats, led by Gore, have already incorporated the issue into their outlook.

The social conservatives of the GOP seem like the most likely group to make an independent run. Something will have to change in a big way for the GOP or they will endure a historic shellacking. I have not seen a party in this much trouble since… I dunno… the Democrats in 1980, I suppose.

Phx8, I’m always intrigued by the often-repeated suggestion that the Republicans are becoming a “regional” party. Just look at this map. It seems to me that it could be equally if not more-so said about the Democrats.

Draw a line across the country, and discounting California, it appears that Democrats are clustered in the northeast and on the coasts and have real trouble picking up electoral votes anywhere south of San Francisco, while Republicans have won everything on a north-south diagonal from Idaho all the way to Florida.

As far as potential third party challenges which could somehow play a “spoiler” for one major party or another in 08, I think it’s just as likely if not more likely that a fervent anti-war third party candidate might appear in response to Hillary as it is that a socially-conservative alternative would emerge in response to Guliani.

What intrigues me about the likely Guliani-Clinton face-off is that even if a socially-conservative alternative to Guliani appears, it would hurt Guliani in the popular vote, but what states would it put in play for Hillary? Places like Ohio and Colorado might and probably will go blue, but for reasons totally separate from the social conservatives. You could siphon off a very large number of votes in the South for a social conservative without endangering those electoral votes for a Republican. And meanwhile, Guliani is going to be extremely competitive in places like New Jersey and Pennsylvania which Hillary wouldn’t be able to count on.

Here is the map I was trying to link to.

Loyal Opp, I think you safely look forward to that map changing fairly dramatically in 2008. In 2006 many more voters who voted Republican in 2000 - 2004, changed their vote to Democratic.

Since the 2006 election, many, many more voters who voted for Bush and Republicans in 2000 - 2006, have also changed their minds, as the polling numbers show. The first real proof of this, if its true, will come with early voter registration data.

The last numbers I saw, if I recall correctly, were 34% registered Democrats, 30% registered Republicans, 36% Independent. There are some very large demographic shifts occurring as well since the 1990’s, some of which are likely going to finally change the color map. Which is what makes the Independent voters the group to decide the 2008 election, and to some extent the post election color map.

phx8, The only party that I find lacking in decent qualities more than the dems are the repubs. I dont think Im alone when I say the morally bankrupt corporatist running the country have bought off both parties. As lackluster as any of the other parties are I find it hard to argue that they will make significent headway however as Davids title to this post says”Hopeful but critical” am I.
If the social conservatives jump from the repub ship, and I hope they find the courage to do so, then perhaps the libs and greens can make headway at least at the congressional level. Who knows with the repubs splintered the thought process a lot of us use (lesser of two evils)to perpetute the 2 parties may not come into play this election at the congressional level.
Because the president picks the SCOTUS judges Im voting democrat for president this time out. However when it comes to any other office up for election at that time it will be a lib or green party vote from me. We need to have more choice in this Country and the only way I can see to do that is to vote for the smaller parties.

Draw a line across the country, and discounting California, it appears that Democrats are clustered in the northeast and on the coasts and have real trouble picking up electoral votes anywhere south of San Francisco, while Republicans have won everything on a north-south diagonal from Idaho all the way to Florida.

This map is a result of our current “winnter take all” state electoral votes…I would like to see each state colored red/blue in proportion to the actual party votes cast in the presidential elections…very few states would be overwhelmingly a single color…if colored on a county by county basis, you would see a pretty even mix…the differences between urban and rural areas…and if you mixed the red and blue according to proportion of votes, you’d have lovely shades of purple, not red nor blue…recent presidential elections have been decided by a relatively few votes…and the current red/blue maps don’t even begin to show this.

LO
“discounting California” ? Most populated state in the union. Might as well discount ,as usual, any other annoying little facts that contradict your opinions.

DR
The reason most congresspeople will be re-elected is because most people are happy with their own representitives. Simple as that.
I am very happy with mine,Woolsey D-CA. Shes has been anti-Iraq war from the beginning. She is pro-labor,has a sensible and compassionate approach on immigration issues etc.She is the one that invited Cindy Sheehan to Bush’s State of the Union speech.The right hates her,always a good sign and she easily wins re-election and has for some time.
One party rule? That depends on on the party.Near every major piece of social justice legislation we enjoy in this country occured when the Dems controlled the federal government.SS,Medicare,Wagner Act,nearly all civil rights laws,the family leave act,even womans suffrage are the result of the Dem Party. The Dems are the only party that can deal with entitlements fairly,that can deal with immigration realistically,that can deal with the healthcare crises sensibly, that can preserve and bolster the New Deal programs the Reps have been savageing. I look forward to their long overdue ascention.

J2t2,
Yes, money and corporate interests play a destructive role in elections, and Hillary Clinton is the current beneficiary of their largesse. But it is not just her. Democrats are raising enormous amounts of money. Republicans are not. This puts the Republicans in the very difficult position of playing defense, and makes it hard for them to contest close districts and states.

In addition, as BillS points out, the Democrats have an overwhelming advantage on the issues. On nearly every issue, the majority of Americans favor the Democratic approach.

And it gets even worse for the GOP; demographic trends favor the Democrats, especially among minorities and young voters. An awful lot of young people have no interest in being cannon fodder for GOP chickenhawks.

LO links an electoral map of the 2004 election. However, the 2006 midterms were an absolute debacle for the GOP. Many Republican incumbents received the boot. Not one incumbent Democrat lost to a Republican. Not one. That is astounding, and it undermines the whole “vote out the incumbents” philosophy.

Despite their maddening weakness, lack of unity, and lack of a spine, Democrats have huge advantages going into 2008, and it should transform states outside the GOP strongholds in the south & midwest solidly blue- states such as Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and others- leaving the GOP an essentially regional party controlled by social conservatives.

The strategy of the GOP in 2008 is already easily foreseeable. With the issues & demographics and funding going against them, the Republicans will resort to the only tool left: the smear.

If everyone can be dragged down into the mud, and enough voters can be discouraged and disgusted, the GOP might even up races. They will do everything possible to debase the elections. Just watch.

BillS said: “The reason most congresspeople will be re-elected is because most people are happy with their own representitives. Simple as that.”

No, it is not that simple. At all. Most Americans haven’t a clue how their representatives actually voted on the many bills before them, nor why they voted as they did. Ignorance, by and large, has to be the main reason incumbents are reelected.

Because, if government results were the criteria for the people’s votes, based on knowledge of how their representatives voted and the consequences of those votes, the people would never assent to keeping the status quo, as the polls demonstrate, which an incumbent vote in most cases supports.

Your Representative Woolsey never met an Agricultural subsidy bill she didn’t like. Do you support her vote Yes votes for tax dollar subsidies to corporate farmers? Do you support her taking contributions from Agri-Business to keep her in office in exchange for her voting record? If so, they you support the 9 trillion national debt and deficits which are bankrupting American children’s and senior’s future.

Woolsey voted against Foreign Drug Imports to aid seniors in obtaining quality Rx at substantially lower cost.

Woolsey voted against:

09/23/2004 Increased Child Tax Credit bill

05/20/2004 Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004

05/05/2004 Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004 and,

04/28/2004 Marriage Penalty Tax bill

Did you know this? Do you know why she voted against these bills? I can understand a voter supporting an incumbent whose every vote they don’t agree with, but, whose overall voting record they do agree with. No politician is going to consistently vote the way every constituent wants them to. But, at some point as a nation heads toward demise, the voters have a responsibility to themselves and their nation’s future to step back and ask if this road to demise is being pursued because of the way voters are voting?

It is a democratic republic afterall. And if the nation is heading in the wrong direction, which most American’s agree is true, then the voters have an obligation to vote against the incumbency status quo that is pursuing the path to demise. Democrats and Republicans alike are supporting the current wealthy special interest control of legislation. Both parties and incumbents continue to put their reelection party dominance ahead of solving the monumental problems destroying our future and whose solutions will require voter sacrifice in order to save the nation and the children’s future.

Woolsey has opposed the Republican agenda on many fronts, much to her credit. But, she is not addressing the issues which are destroying our economic future, corporate subsidies and dominated legislation and SS and Medicare and health care cost reforms. What good does it do to save the patient’s arm if the patient dies for neglect of other traumas?

Bill said: “Near every major piece of social justice legislation we enjoy in this country occured when the Dems controlled the federal government.SS,Medicare”

And of course, America’s economic future is on the brink because of SS and Medicare, which are unaffordable and unsustainable. Democrats are indeed responsible for these, including the Medicare Rx drug boondoggle giveaway of tax dollars to the pharmaceutical industry, further bankrupting our nation’s future. And you consider these facts a feather in Democrat’s cap?

Bill, my point about California was not that it should be ignored but that when we talk about “regions” of the United States geographically along a North-South axis, California is sort of in its own category. It reaches as far North as about the southern tip of New Jersey and as far South as Mississippi. That was my only point and it relates to whether or not the Republicans should be considered a “regional party” when the Democrats are much more tied to specific regions—namely the Pacific Coast and the the North East. California is more accurately described as part of the West, but the West as a whole is—or at least has been— pretty evenly divided between the parties.

I don’t necessarily agree that 2006, which saw a lot of very conservative Democrats elected (often by very thin margins), necessarily means either future triumphs for the Democrats or future debacles for Republicans. For one thing, 06 occurred under circumstances which just won’t be the same in future elections, not insignificantly an unpopular Republican-controlled Congress. In the next election, we’ll be dealing with a Democrat-controlled Congress that is even MORE unpopular than the Republicans were.

Loyal Opp, whether the 2009 Congress is more unpopular is very unlikely. A big component of the dissatisfaction today is the frustration with the absence of movement on the Iraq war. That of course will change in the 2009 Congress. Hence, polls will trend upward. Second, it appears there may be an overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress, which means movement on a range of other issues as well, currently blocked by Republicans.

Large minorities of the American public may not like the direction the 2009 Congress goes, but, the majority will be pleased that substantial action is finally undertaken on the Iraq War, Health Care availability and possibly health care cost inflation control, as well as increased taxes on the very wealthy which will help deficits go down, at least for awhile. Education will get a shot in the arm. And these will curry favor in the polls. But, where Democrats are vulnerable and weak are on illegal immigration control, border security and therefore national security, and salvaging Medicare and SS which would require increased costs for all Americans and likely some cuts in program measures as well, which Democrats are likely not to enact.

But, no matter how you cut it, it appears to me compared to the deadlocked present, the 2009 Congress will fare better in the polls, not worse. Doesn’t say much for America’s long term future, however.

These many regressive systems are becoming more and more apparent to voters.
Voters are starting to realize that their tax system is regressive.
Inflation erodes their earnings.
There politicians pit American citizens against illegal aliens.
Their government is FOR-SALE (83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more) come from only 0.15% of the 200 million eligible voters).
They realize they were lied to about some facts used to start a war.
They see the disparity trend worsening (for over 30 years).
And while the nation’s pressing problems grow in number and severity, their Do-Nothing Congress grows increasing corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, arrogant, and unaccountable.
But then, despite the 11% to 18% approval ratings, too many voters do a strange thing: too many voters reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.

• Stop Repeat Offenders.


• Don’t Re-Elect Them!

DR
Yes I am very proud of SS and Medicare. We ended poverty abject poverty for the elderly,provided a national widows and orphans fund and a safety net against disability for all.SS with no changes will remain solvent till 2042 at which point will be able to pay 70% of benefits. Small changes before that,like raising the cap,will push it through until us boomers no longer need it. The problem is with priorities. Some would rather spend the fund reserves on useless and dangerious weapons systems than people for example.
Medicare does much more than just help seniors. It helps us all with ageing parents. For myself and my sisters it has been a Godsend in careing for my 84 yo mother. Damned right I am proud to be part of the party that put it through. We both know its expense problem cannot be fixed without the real medical cost controls only possible with universal,largely single payer healthcare system.That will only happen with the Dems in charge.
That stupid drug bill was a Rep bill and again can only be fixed through universal healthcare approaches.
I have spent a good deal of time in countries that do not have systems like SS and Medicare. Most of the beggars are old women. The old men are dead. That and children because parents decide to have way too many hoping that their children will care for them when they get too old to work. Is that your dream for America? What is unaffordable is not having SS and Medicare and yes I am damned proud my party got them through.

Dr
Most of the bills you listed contained big hooks to give more tax breaks to the wealthy and would definetly not improve the deficit.
Farm subsidies can be looked at from differnt prepectives also. Agi-business does not have much to do with her getting re-elected. She is enormiously popular with the Reps only putting up token candidates.

phx8
Yes they will use the smear. Also they will use another tried and true tactic,immigrant bashing,to greater effect.

BillS said: “Agi-business does not have much to do with her getting re-elected.”

Sounds just like Republicans who denounced that corporate contributions had no effect on their votes or legislation or election. Yeah, right, BillS. It always amazes me to see partisans on the left act just like partisans on the right, but call it something quite different when its on the other side of the aisle.

BillS said: “Yes I am very proud of SS and Medicare.”

You are proud that these dignifying programs have become the greatest threat to America’s economic future?

“We ended poverty abject poverty for the elderly,provided a national widows and orphans fund and a safety net against disability for all.”

Agreed, in the past these programs did far more good than harm to Americans and America. Going forward from here is a very different situation however.

“SS with no changes will remain solvent till 2042 at which point will be able to pay 70% of benefits.”

Well, let’s get some facts straight. Soc. Sec. becomes a deficit maker in less than 14 years. And if left unchanged, it will pay 74%, not 70%, of current benefits. But, that is assuming Medicare and Medicaid don’t bankrupt the economy and government long before, which it is poised to do.

If foreign investors stop loaning our treasury money, an ever looming possibility, Soc. Sec. revenues will be diverted to other even more pressing issues of national threat and concern.