The race for re-election isn't looking good, so Joe is thinking of back up plans... My hope is that if he is will to run as an independant for Senate, he would be willing to do so for President and take a couple of true conservatives with him to form a 3rd MODERATE party in the US.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/14/D8I84U105.html

A piece I enjoyed on those "create a 3rd party in the middle" suggestions.

If he can't win his party's nomination - he shouldn't run as an independent. I don't believe Connecticut's primary is a closed one. If he wants to win, he should bring everyone to the polls that he can to support him. If he can't do that in August, it would be bad for his state for him to try it again in November.

The race for re-election isn't looking good, so Joe is thinking of back up plans... My hope is that if he is will to run as an independant for Senate, he would be willing to do so for President and take a couple of true conservatives with him to form a 3rd MODERATE party in the US.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/14/D8I84U105.html

Here is a discussion question on that topic... Which would be more effective - creating a viable third party, or having the leaders of one party or the other drag the party back towards the middle?

Here is a discussion question on that topic... Which would be more effective - creating a viable third party, or having the leaders of one party or the other drag the party back towards the middle?

 

I think if another party was formed, eventually one party would end up falling out of favor and we'd be back to our two party system.

Here is a discussion question on that topic... Which would be more effective - creating a viable third party, or having the leaders of one party or the other drag the party back towards the middle?

 

Answer: abolish the electoral college.

Answer: abolish the electoral college.

 

 

And do what make it based on the popular vote? You realize how much controversy we would have. This is something the founding fathers took into consideration 225 years ago so you think it would eliminate controversy now

 

Fixing the electoral college is the answer not eliminating it

And do what make it based on the popular vote? You realize how much controversy we would have. This is something the founding fathers took into consideration 225 years ago so you think it would eliminate controversy now

 

Fixing the electoral college is the answer not eliminating it

 

Ok I will bite, how do we fix it? and how to do it with out upsetting the states, remember that California (55), New York (33), Texas (32), Florida (27) and Ohio (22) are not going to be too willing to just give up there status.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by BHAMBARONS

Here is a discussion question on that topic... Which would be more effective - creating a viable third party, or having the leaders of one party or the other drag the party back towards the middle?

 

That hasn't seemed to work at all so far. There are significant portions of America who can't identify with either political party, as they have deserted the entire middle 80% of the US. If you aren't on one extreme or the other, you haven't been represented in decades anyway, so while being a valid enough reason to do away with the electoral college, evidently for some it isn't reason enough for a third political party, like we have seen many times through out our history.

 

A piece I enjoyed on those "create a 3rd party in the middle" suggestions.

 

Yeah, because the "other party" did so incredibly well when it was completely in charge

 

I should have known hope for a third party would turn into a "Republicians are the bane of all that is evil in politics" thread, I just would not have guessed it would have happened within the first post.

That hasn't seemed to work at all so far. There are significant portions of America who can't identify with either political party, as they have deserted the entire middle 80% of the US. If you aren't on one extreme or the other, you haven't been represented in decades anyway, so while being a valid enough reason to do away with the electoral college, evidently for some it isn't reason enough for a third political party, like we have seen many times through out our history.

Yeah, because the "other party" did so incredibly well when it was completely in charge

 

I should have known hope for a third party would turn into a "Republicians are the bane of all that is evil in politics" thread, I just would not have guessed it would have happened within the first post.

 

I would have to disagree on two points here.

 

First, the parties were not this far apart until recently. In fact, the American political parties (the two big ones) were far more centric than parties in countries like, say, Europe. Until recently, that is. While they are centering, we are pulling to the outsides. Interesting trend. But I don't think they've been this polarized for "decades", at least not in the broad view.

 

Second, where and when did this turn into a Republican-bashing thread? I seriously do not see a single post that does that at all. In fact, I was surprised to see that it hadn't happened. The only off-shoot I really saw here was the electoral college bit (which has been argued on this board ad nauseum).

I would have to disagree on two points here.

 

First, the parties were not this far apart until recently. In fact, the American political parties (the two big ones) were far more centric than parties in countries like, say, Europe. Until recently, that is. While they are centering, we are pulling to the outsides. Interesting trend. But I don't think they've been this polarized for "decades", at least not in the broad view.

 

Second, where and when did this turn into a Republican-bashing thread? I seriously do not see a single post that does that at all. In fact, I was surprised to see that it hadn't happened. The only off-shoot I really saw here was the electoral college bit (which has been argued on this board ad nauseum).

 

Check out the link in post #2.

Check out the link in post #2.

I did - sort of. The tone of the article was snippy and annoying so I stopped reading. But from what I read, I got the impression it was more lambasting the idea of a 3rd party than the Republicans. Maybe I should have finished it.

I did - sort of. The tone of the article was snippy and annoying so I stopped reading. But from what I read, I got the impression it was more lambasting the idea of a 3rd party than the Republicans. Maybe I should have finished it.

 

The last two paragraphs are where it gets good...

 

The problems in America are, by any reasonable standard, overwhelmingly the Republicans’ fault.

 

Is my personal favorite line...

The last two paragraphs are where it gets good...

Is my personal favorite line...

Well now that is just a ridiculous line. Now I'm REALLY glad I stopped reading.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by NorthSideSox72

I think if another party was formed, eventually one party would end up falling out of favor and we'd be back to our two party system.

 

Agreed. America was also very polarized in the late '60s and early '70s, yet the two-party system prevailed. And as much as I hate to listen to the two parties bicker back and fourth, I imagine that three or four constantly attacking each other would be even worse.

 

If Lieberman is interested in making a run for the Presidency, he should stick with his current party rather than run as an Independent. He wouldn't get the vote of the anti-war left as an Independent, but he would get most of it as a Dem simply by default. Lieberman would also get LOTS of votes from moderates on the right who typically vote Republican... especially if the Rep nominee isn't particularly strong (Romney, Bloomberg) or polarizing (Gingrich).

 

On the other hand, if Joe feels inclined to switch parties, a Lieberman/Gingrich ticket could be highly-successful in '08.

I totally agree that would be highly successful in 2008 - for the Democrats. Even Walter Mondale would be able to crush the Joementum from a Lieberman/Gingrich ticket.

Even Walter Mondale would be able to crush the Joementum from a Lieberman/Gingrich ticket.

 

I don't know about that. Lieberman would probably appeal to moderates across the board (most moderate Republicans already like him) and Gingrich would appeal to the more conservative wing of the Republican party.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by WCSox

Joe Lieberman seems to be someone that people like less the more people see of him - like John Edwards.

 

And Gingrich in the VP slot will probably matter little because the story will invariably become Dem nominee v GOP nominee.

Joe Lieberman seems to be someone that people like less the more people see of him - like John Edwards.

 

Maybe among Democrats.

 

And Gingrich in the VP slot will probably matter little because the story will invariably become Dem nominee v GOP nominee.

 

Having a more conservative VP to offset a more liberal nominee would have some impact among Republican voters. How much is debateable, though.

 

Who among the Dems would beat Lieberman if he was the GOP nominee? Hillary? Gore? Kerry? Edwards? Neither party seems to have a strong, front-running candidate right now (unless Guiliani would change his mind).

Maybe among Democrats.

Having a more conservative VP to offset a more liberal nominee would have some impact among Republican voters. How much is debateable, though.

 

Who among the Dems would beat Lieberman if he was the GOP nominee? Hillary? Gore? Kerry? Edwards? Neither party seems to have a strong, front-running candidate right now (unless Guiliani would change his mind).

 

 

McCain?

Maybe among Democrats.

Having a more conservative VP to offset a more liberal nominee would have some impact among Republican voters. How much is debateable, though.

 

Who among the Dems would beat Lieberman if he was the GOP nominee? Hillary? Gore? Kerry? Edwards? Neither party seems to have a strong, front-running candidate right now (unless Guiliani would change his mind).

 

Generally any frontrunner in 2006 isn't the frontrunner by the time of the convention. And it really should end someone's political career if a longtime senator can't win reelection in a primary where you don't have to be a democrat to vote in the primary.

McCain?

The guy's a flip flopping prick. You think Kerry was a flip-flopper? s***. McCain works in friggin' Burger King with the flopper whoppers he tells.

 

Hell, Hillary would almost be a better candidate, because with her you at least know what you're getting.

 

We need a b**** in the White House. /now THAT's a campaign slogan right there.

 

(and I'm not saying that all females that run for political office are, just this particular one.)

Guiliani is the guy I want to see run for the GOP nod. He's got star power and he's a proven leader in the face of crisis. I can't think of a more qualified candidate.

Guiliani is the guy I want to see run for the GOP nod. He's got star power and he's a proven leader in the face of crisis. I can't think of a more qualified candidate.

Won't happen. Too much smut.

The guy's a flip flopping prick. You think Kerry was a flip-flopper? s***. McCain works in friggin' Burger King with the flopper whoppers he tells.

 

Hell, Hillary would almost be a better candidate, because with her you at least know what you're getting.

 

We need a b**** in the White House. /now THAT's a campaign slogan right there.

 

(and I'm not saying that all females that run for political office are, just this particular one.)

Finally, someone other than me says that about McCain. Yay.