My question is whether these possible third party voters will remember their recent history - i.e. can they remember all the way back to 2016 when they handed the White House to Trump. Seems to me that that is our job in the next year - remind them, in constructive ways, that protest votes backfire.
Thinking of this just a bit more - we need to separate the possible third party voters from the third party organizers, because it’s so evident that those running the show don’t give a fig about the people who might vote for their candidates.
We need to continue to expose the agenda of No Labels, the supposed ‘Green’ party - because it’s grift all the way down, as well as getting Trump back in office. So, we need to patiently and regularly show their prospective voters that these groups do not have their best interests at heart.
Dan, you seem cynical about No Labels as well as third parties.
Nowhere near cynical enough, in my opinion. These platforms are started and run by failed candidates/egoists who just can’t stand the rejection and the loss of attention (No Labels, Forward), and hapless activists who can’t make change happen (Green). All this is perhaps best embodied by the moralizing prig, Joe Lieberman, a stalwart of the No Labels (ought to call it No Chance party. Or perhaps Second Tier Intellect party). These groups are good at finding other bruised egos to run (Nader, Stein, perhaps RFK jr. or Manchin).
They don’t care who they elect—to this day Nader will tell you his 24,000 votes in FL did not elect GW BUSH—because that isn’t the point. The point is really ego, attention, and spoiling the chances of a more successful politician. In boxing, a spoiler is one who has no chance of winning a title, but can spoil another’s chance st doing so.
Democrats tend to focus on the Republican opponent and soft-pedal the fight against the third-party opponent, be that Wallace, Stein, or Nader, etc. Tellingly, Clinton focused beating the snot out of Perot as well as Bush 1, and had a better outcome. I hope Biden takes on every opponent vigorously.
To those who might think the magic answer is a different Dem nominee, I would say that no back-room deal gave Joe the office he has. He won it with votes. If someone wants to take away his chance to defend his office, they would have to take it away with votes. So far, every Democratic professional politician has looked at that and decided, career suicide.
In fact, Joe Biden was clearly the candidate that most Democrats selected--and this began with South Carolina--and also after his political funeral was being arranged. I have heard some cynics complain that the fix was in or that the party leadership controlled the board--and it just was not like that in the end. The way Joe won without money or organization in many places says it all--and despite those who might be disappointed or worried about Biden's age a second time around-- let's not underestimate him. He is a good President, there is a good team in the WH, and we need to lean in. The margins are too close in five states to gamble with the "soul of the nation" in 2024.
We have a two party system because of the way the system is organized--not because Americans can't count past two. There is no "fix" against a broader plurality of viable choices. We have a single-member district electoral system (by and large), federalism, and the electoral college. America is a presidential system--not parliamentary. Hence, we do not have party government as found in the parliamentary models, or those with more proportional electoral systems. Third party candidates are spoilers. They will cause chaos somewhere--and although at times very meaningful (remember George Wallace campaign in 1968--running the American Independent Party--he won five states with a little over 9 million votes at nearly 14% of the vote), they will confound a close election. In these times, if you don't want Trump (or another Republican) to win, you need to vote for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. If we want more, multi-party elections and results, we would likely need to change the electoral rules.
I could sure use some thoughtful guidance on how to craft messages around this threat.
From my narrow experience fighting off a third party (independent) gubernatorial candidate in Oregon last year, there is no time to wage in talking to voters about this.
Carrie--have you noticed that folks who call for third parties think they are doing the "smart thing" and because of that (sometimes smug) position, it becomes hard to persuade them to vote "wisely." In those moments we commonly get the "are you telling me to waste my vote" argument? Being dissatisfied is not a sin. There can be good reasons. BUT--being dissatisfied because you are ill informed, uncommitted and "crabby" is more a pose. I come from Oregon. And I have family in Eastern Oregon. I can feel your frustration. But--we have to make the effort. Here in Florida it is all just hard--and it is all about turnout.
Hi Tom! Sorry for late reply... but yes! The people I talked to leaning toward Betsy Johnson (the independent candidate) were smug and/or fed up; the fed-ups were mostly focused on Oregon's homelessness and addiction crises. Republicans had been masterful and unrelenting at portraying these very real issues as being created by Kate Brown, the retiring Gov, and painting the Dem candidate as "Kate Brown 2.0". Betsy Johnson exploited the GOP's work and marketed herself directly to that construct. When I was able to get a little doubt from voters, it was when we talked about Johnson's abysmal record on climate and her lack of even a single pro-choice endorsement. Talking about national increases in homelessness and increases in Johnson's district didn't get me anywhere. For now at least, we don't have a No Labels record to canvass against like we did with Johnson here in OR. So I'm right there with you: seems like the best thing we can do now is focus on those projects and messages that will help drive motivated D turnout.
And ps - I lived in Florida an embarrassing number of decades ago and have dear friends still there. You folks are doing heroes work!
I like your categories: Smug and Fed Ups. Their worst default position when cornered in conversation: "All the politicians are liars. The government is all corrupt. Everyone is no damn good." It is so wrong and so frustrating.
No Labels represents the most serious threat we face.
That's not hyperbole.
Someone on this august forum has mentioned (several times) in the past that a cohesive third party bloc would rule a perfectly split Washington.
Ignoring every single thing on the right - everything they say, everything they do - we must feel that we are countering with our very best efforts.
Our responses must meet the moment.
Now with yet another threat on the horizon, another task of divining future actions from bad actors, Democrats are presenting the answer as a man who is too fucking old to manage a stage.
A vision as cloudy as a Beijing sky. A momentum locked in a glacier.
I'm not going to be nice. Nice isn't working.
The United States is going to go into Empire ON OUR WATCH if we don't stop it now and we must rely upon the Democratic Party to act as it is the only institution in a position to do so.
So what the fuck is it going to be, Democrats? Is this the very best leadership available to us in this moment? Are we all just victims here?
Or is a small group of bad actors just too much for the entire 180-year old Democratic Party to counter?
The answer to this question will answer everything on the horizon.
What *is* Nate Silver’s role here? I mean, how he explicitly positions himself not politically but as to what he’s doing. Sorry if it’s obvious but after leaving Twitter I’m not tracking him.
Sorta glad Silver is fading from the scene. His cynicism and know-it-all attitude has overshadowed any possible positive contribution. I don’t miss him.
Thanks, Dan, for increasing my anxiety level just before the weekend! :(
Dan, this sounds like a field of dreams for Russian election interference....alarming!
My question is whether these possible third party voters will remember their recent history - i.e. can they remember all the way back to 2016 when they handed the White House to Trump. Seems to me that that is our job in the next year - remind them, in constructive ways, that protest votes backfire.
Thinking of this just a bit more - we need to separate the possible third party voters from the third party organizers, because it’s so evident that those running the show don’t give a fig about the people who might vote for their candidates.
We need to continue to expose the agenda of No Labels, the supposed ‘Green’ party - because it’s grift all the way down, as well as getting Trump back in office. So, we need to patiently and regularly show their prospective voters that these groups do not have their best interests at heart.
Dan, you seem cynical about No Labels as well as third parties.
Nowhere near cynical enough, in my opinion. These platforms are started and run by failed candidates/egoists who just can’t stand the rejection and the loss of attention (No Labels, Forward), and hapless activists who can’t make change happen (Green). All this is perhaps best embodied by the moralizing prig, Joe Lieberman, a stalwart of the No Labels (ought to call it No Chance party. Or perhaps Second Tier Intellect party). These groups are good at finding other bruised egos to run (Nader, Stein, perhaps RFK jr. or Manchin).
They don’t care who they elect—to this day Nader will tell you his 24,000 votes in FL did not elect GW BUSH—because that isn’t the point. The point is really ego, attention, and spoiling the chances of a more successful politician. In boxing, a spoiler is one who has no chance of winning a title, but can spoil another’s chance st doing so.
Democrats tend to focus on the Republican opponent and soft-pedal the fight against the third-party opponent, be that Wallace, Stein, or Nader, etc. Tellingly, Clinton focused beating the snot out of Perot as well as Bush 1, and had a better outcome. I hope Biden takes on every opponent vigorously.
To those who might think the magic answer is a different Dem nominee, I would say that no back-room deal gave Joe the office he has. He won it with votes. If someone wants to take away his chance to defend his office, they would have to take it away with votes. So far, every Democratic professional politician has looked at that and decided, career suicide.
In fact, Joe Biden was clearly the candidate that most Democrats selected--and this began with South Carolina--and also after his political funeral was being arranged. I have heard some cynics complain that the fix was in or that the party leadership controlled the board--and it just was not like that in the end. The way Joe won without money or organization in many places says it all--and despite those who might be disappointed or worried about Biden's age a second time around-- let's not underestimate him. He is a good President, there is a good team in the WH, and we need to lean in. The margins are too close in five states to gamble with the "soul of the nation" in 2024.
We have a two party system because of the way the system is organized--not because Americans can't count past two. There is no "fix" against a broader plurality of viable choices. We have a single-member district electoral system (by and large), federalism, and the electoral college. America is a presidential system--not parliamentary. Hence, we do not have party government as found in the parliamentary models, or those with more proportional electoral systems. Third party candidates are spoilers. They will cause chaos somewhere--and although at times very meaningful (remember George Wallace campaign in 1968--running the American Independent Party--he won five states with a little over 9 million votes at nearly 14% of the vote), they will confound a close election. In these times, if you don't want Trump (or another Republican) to win, you need to vote for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. If we want more, multi-party elections and results, we would likely need to change the electoral rules.
I could sure use some thoughtful guidance on how to craft messages around this threat.
From my narrow experience fighting off a third party (independent) gubernatorial candidate in Oregon last year, there is no time to wage in talking to voters about this.
Carrie--have you noticed that folks who call for third parties think they are doing the "smart thing" and because of that (sometimes smug) position, it becomes hard to persuade them to vote "wisely." In those moments we commonly get the "are you telling me to waste my vote" argument? Being dissatisfied is not a sin. There can be good reasons. BUT--being dissatisfied because you are ill informed, uncommitted and "crabby" is more a pose. I come from Oregon. And I have family in Eastern Oregon. I can feel your frustration. But--we have to make the effort. Here in Florida it is all just hard--and it is all about turnout.
Hi Tom! Sorry for late reply... but yes! The people I talked to leaning toward Betsy Johnson (the independent candidate) were smug and/or fed up; the fed-ups were mostly focused on Oregon's homelessness and addiction crises. Republicans had been masterful and unrelenting at portraying these very real issues as being created by Kate Brown, the retiring Gov, and painting the Dem candidate as "Kate Brown 2.0". Betsy Johnson exploited the GOP's work and marketed herself directly to that construct. When I was able to get a little doubt from voters, it was when we talked about Johnson's abysmal record on climate and her lack of even a single pro-choice endorsement. Talking about national increases in homelessness and increases in Johnson's district didn't get me anywhere. For now at least, we don't have a No Labels record to canvass against like we did with Johnson here in OR. So I'm right there with you: seems like the best thing we can do now is focus on those projects and messages that will help drive motivated D turnout.
And ps - I lived in Florida an embarrassing number of decades ago and have dear friends still there. You folks are doing heroes work!
I like your categories: Smug and Fed Ups. Their worst default position when cornered in conversation: "All the politicians are liars. The government is all corrupt. Everyone is no damn good." It is so wrong and so frustrating.
No Labels represents the most serious threat we face.
That's not hyperbole.
Someone on this august forum has mentioned (several times) in the past that a cohesive third party bloc would rule a perfectly split Washington.
Ignoring every single thing on the right - everything they say, everything they do - we must feel that we are countering with our very best efforts.
Our responses must meet the moment.
Now with yet another threat on the horizon, another task of divining future actions from bad actors, Democrats are presenting the answer as a man who is too fucking old to manage a stage.
A vision as cloudy as a Beijing sky. A momentum locked in a glacier.
I'm not going to be nice. Nice isn't working.
The United States is going to go into Empire ON OUR WATCH if we don't stop it now and we must rely upon the Democratic Party to act as it is the only institution in a position to do so.
So what the fuck is it going to be, Democrats? Is this the very best leadership available to us in this moment? Are we all just victims here?
Or is a small group of bad actors just too much for the entire 180-year old Democratic Party to counter?
The answer to this question will answer everything on the horizon.
What *is* Nate Silver’s role here? I mean, how he explicitly positions himself not politically but as to what he’s doing. Sorry if it’s obvious but after leaving Twitter I’m not tracking him.
Sorta glad Silver is fading from the scene. His cynicism and know-it-all attitude has overshadowed any possible positive contribution. I don’t miss him.
Horrifying 😱