Comments on: Politics, Clinton, and the Democratic Party

By: Michelle

Michelle — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:12:44 +0000

It’s possible, but the fact that the US has such a winner take all system truly works against third party candidates.

Consider TR’s Bull Moose Party–arguably one of the most successful third parties of modern politics. The Republicans came in third in that election, but because the vote was split, Wilson won.

Although I’d love to see a split of the Republican party again, I think that we’d simply see a repeat of 1912. Not to deny the advances made by and because of the Bull Moose Party, but in the long term it served, in my opinion, to solidify the two party system in the US.

By: Thogek

Thogek — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:31:40 +0000

“In fact I’m wondering whether the Republican party is heading for a split between the religious wing-nuts and the true conservatives.”

I suspect so. I think that a lot of those true conservatives are discovering that the Republican Party ain’t what it used to be. Some are finding their way into the Libertarians, so… maybe…

IAC, we do effectively (if not inherently) have a two-party system, but only as long as the American sheeple refuse to do basic comparison shopping outside of the same old Coke-and-Pepsi duopoly that they’ve been fed for so long.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:59:34 +0000

No there is nothing inherent. In fact we were warned by Washington in his farewell address (I hope I’m remembering correctly) not to devolve into a party system. Yet this is the system we have, and the system with which we have to work.

And you stated the main issue in your second paragraph: “(t)hey effectively replaced the fading Whig Party…” The fading Whig party is kinda my point. Only because one party was on the outs was another party allowed to enter the system, and it didn’t add to the system, it replaced the system.

The problem with third parties in American presidential elections is that historically the ones that have had any momentum are those that were based on personalities. Ross Perot. John Anderson. Teddy Roosevelt (Bull Moose Party). These strong candidates and personalities are able to draw attention to their candidacies, however, they tend to work not as true alternatives, but as spoilers. (See not just Ralph f’ing Nader, but also Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party.)

Can it happen again? Certainly. In fact I’m wondering whether the Republican party is heading for a split between the religious wing-nuts and the true conservatives.

By: Thogek

Thogek — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:08:09 +0000

Just to quibble with one point…

The U.S. is effectively a two party system for and only as long as the voting citizenry of the U.S. allows itself to be convinced that there are only two choices. There is nothing inherent in the U.S. governmental or political systems limiting us to two choices; only the staunch efforts of those two choices make entry by others so difficult.

And remember, the Republican party was once an upstart third party, created in 1854 in specific opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. They effectively replaced the fading Whig Party, and rose up to challenge the established Democratic Party and the new Constitutional Union Party with some nobody candidate named Abraham Lincoln…

By: Vince

Vince — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:33:02 +0000

I’m not a Democrat with a big D, I’m more of an independent libertarian with small “i” and small “l”. But you’re exactly right. Although I’ve seen too many adults do the “I’m not getting my way so I’m taking my toys and going home” reaction to be particularly surprised.

By: Susan

Susan — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:03:37 +0000

Feels like a major case of sour grapes to me. Because they really thought it was supposed to be The Year of the Woman President or something, and then here came this upstart MAN who had the nerve to take it away from Her. Like She was Entitled or something. Or even that THEY were entitled; it’s that personal. So they’ll just all cut off their noses to spite him, and go vote for McCain. You’d think they’d have a clue just whom they’re really hurting with that sort of tactic, but apparently not. And, um, yeah, in some cases, I suspect there’s a bit of racism involved too. I don’t have a clue how much. I wonder how many of them would have gotten behind a strong black woman candidate with similar background & experience. Just as many? (Note: I did not watch, listen to, or read any news today (I’m still at work) so I’m not reacting to much that’s happened very recently. Just what I remember from Clinton’s campaign, especially near the end of it, and a small bit of rumbling from recent days that sounds as if they haven’t changed much.)

By: MWT

MWT — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:55:01 +0000

Heh, there’s a token neocon in the RPoL chat channel, and his reasoning for not voting Obama consists of “because he’s black” and “because he’s Muslim” and then when those two don’t get him any agreement, he moves on to “because he’s for abortion.” This guy is not exactly reputed for his reasoning abilities (translation: he’s incapable of stringing more than two thoughts together at a time), so there’s no arguing with him (or the neocon radio talk show guy he gets all his opinions from).

Also, I had a friend in 2004 who wanted the candidates to “work for” his vote by pandering more. I pointed out that maybe he should do it based on whether he agreed with their platforms or not, which seemed to be a novel concept to him.

As for the Clinton fans… maybe they’re just being loyal fans. Not so much due to something as well-thought-out as racism, but because she just has their undying loyalty.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:32:12 +0000

If–if–it’s racism, I doubt it’s overt. I doubt any of them would realize that’s a factor at all. We’re not talking, you know, people who would necessarily ever use the “n-word” much less, I don’t know, burn down a church.

No, if it is you-know-what, then it’s that subtle, insidious kind.

Problem is, it’s hard to come up with what else it could be, you know? I mean, there can be no possible doubt that Clinton and Obama are closer to each other on nearly every issue than Clinton and McCain. “Experience,” or the perception of it? But if that’s the value, why not just support McCain outright? Or why weren’t these folks Biden supporters last year? It’s hard to see that dog hunting, but I sure would like for it to. Like I said, I’d prefer to think the Clintonistas were stupid.

But I’ve got a bad feeling.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:26:12 +0000

Um… I’m not sure what this says, but despite living in WV, I never even considered the idea of racism.

Bastards.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:14:51 +0000

Amen. You have to wonder what the hell they’re thinking. (Or not: I can think of one thing many of these Clinton supporters have in common with McCain and Clinton that they don’t have in common with Obama, and frankly I’d rather think they were stupid than conclude they’re racists. There, I said it, I put it out there–and I’d be thrilled to be absolutely wrong.)

I wasn’t a Clinton supporter, but if she’d been the nominee, I would have supported her. And I’m not a big-D Democrat: I’m an independent. And that’s part of what you’re saying–I’d be thrilled if there was a viable third-party that was even closer to my views (on some days, it could almost be the Greens), but if my choice is Democrat or Republican, the Dems are by far closer to what I consider important than the Republican-party-at-large. Hell, sometimes the Dems are closer to my values when they’re doing nothing to advance them, just by not being actively hostile to some of my values the way Republicans are.