Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

[vt]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-demographics/

Both parties will be replaced in the next 10 years by a fiscally conservative, socially moderate party.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-demographics/

Both parties will be replaced in the next 10 years by a fiscally conservative, socially moderate party.

I'll take the other side of that bet.

[Raz]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

I'll take the other side of that bet.

Me too, but I sure hope he's right!

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

I've posted here before that a 3rd party in American politics would be like trying to found the Vietcong in the Fulda Gap circa 1987 right in between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, which will both be out to kill it.

It would not survive as a conventional political party.

At best, it would randomly and erratically influence the guaranteed victory between the two main adversaries, much like Ross Perot did in the 90's.

Perot was unique in that he was not only right in retrospect, but also amongst the very small exclusive club that could self-fund a campaign, or rely less on special interest money politics.

A new 3rd party would be just as vulnerable to special interest money politics unless it had a multi-billionaire benefactor.

I've always hoped Ross Perot would throw some serious money at founding and funding a non-partisan disruptor movement. Fingers are still crossed there.

-----

What I've also posted before is that I think a filter rather than a party has the potential to effect, and dramatically shape, change.

-----

We've seen websites that collate campaign finance money amounts/origins for each candidate.

We've seen websites that collate incumbent votes.

But have we seen a resource that puts it all together like a Consumer's Report for Politicians that is apolitical on issues and only concerned with any corrupt correlation between stimulus(money) and response(voting)?

It's hard to directly attack a one issue movement with the sole purpose of disrupting special interest influence in the political process that specifically caters to the unfulfilled needs of that near majority of Independent voters.

If you can't win, and you don't want to join, why not disrupt(in a perfectly legal way) to more closely achieve the intended outcome?

----

Aren't many folks looking at this backwards?

I would think it is to achieve the greatest desired outcome for the least investment.

I would think the desired outcome is a change of behavior in the current 2 party system.

How do you achieve it?

A forcing function.

Turn incumbents who have a strong correlation between campaign finance inputs and congressional voting outputs into the political equivalent of lepers, spies, and paedephiles.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

Me too, but I sure hope he's right!

Me, not so much. The one party thing never did it for me. It sounds too much like Singapore.

All kidding aside, don't get me wrong. I'd probably get along alright with the social moderate part. It's not a label I hear often, and it sounds reasonable enough. We'd have to see where the rubber hit the road on that label.

But fiscal conservative - that's a label I can't get behind. It doesn't mean what it used to. At least it doesn't seem like it to me.

Gone are the days of thinking about it like Burke. The idea that spending more than you take in isn't good. It was simple. But that isn't the core of what the power brokers mean by "fiscally conservative" today. It's not what they're selling under that label. That's just not what it means any more to any of them.

Now you have to think about it like some Austrian nobleman, since everyone else that matters does. That means that it's not about balancing the budget. It's just about promulgating free trade agreements, cutting taxes into a deficit, and deregulating finance.

Fiscally conservative is not about Burke and Jefferson any more. It's about Von Hayek and Von Mises now. And I never put my faith in nobleman. Probably got burned into my brain as a wee one somewhere between the Pledge of Allegiance and reading Psalm 146 in religion class.

But I still prefer Thomas Paine to the lot of them.

[vt]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

DC you make a good point about fiscal conservatism. There are times the government needs to help out.

I'm renaming it to being fiscally responsible. This is a far cry from what's happening now.

I don't envision a one party system. Maybe more of one very successful party and one or two weaker ones. I believe we're headed in that direction.

Definitely get rid of special interests by only allowing government funding of campaigns. This would take away the advantage the two parties have now over a new independent party. Also our President wastes time and taxpayer dollars going on all these fundraising trips.

[BK]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

Are independents really independent?

For example in places like Massachusetts, Democratic stronghold, lots of folks are independents and they vote a straight Democrat ticket every time ( with the exception of fairly regularly voting for a Republican Gov Romney).

I'd bet there are also a fair huge number of Independents who vote republican 90% of the time.

Isn't the challenge in a two party system that people are often stuck voting for the least bad choice (which I think results in the independent voting for the party they identify with most).

[vt]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

Yes, there are real independents, but what real choice do they have?

If an independent is socially moderate, but detests excessive spending they hold their nose and vote Republican.

If an independent is fiscally responsible, but detests a Republican stand on abortion they hold their nose and vote Democrat.

You are correct in they vote for who they dislike the least. Many don't vote at all.

However, if they did have a solid candidate that was fiscally responsible and socially moderate, they would vote and in large numbers.

I'm betting that if future campaigns can be publicly funded only, the media would publicize a strong independent with a real chance to win.

[Raz]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

Me, not so much. The one party thing never did it for me. It sounds too much like Singapore.

I should have read vt's post with more care. "Replaced" is not what I meant, and I doubt that's what he meant either. Defeated would be a far better term, and as vt later said we could substitute "responsible" for conservative in fiscal matters.

All kidding aside, don't get me wrong. I'd probably get along alright with the social moderate part. It's not a label I hear often, and it sounds reasonable enough. We'd have to see where the rubber hit the road on that label.

But fiscal conservative - that's a label I can't get behind. It doesn't mean what it used to. At least it doesn't seem like it to me.

Gone are the days of thinking about it like Burke. The idea that spending more than you take in isn't good. It was simple. But that isn't the core of what the power brokers mean by "fiscally conservative" today. It's not what they're selling under that label. That's just not what it means any more to any of them.

You're correct. That's not what the politicos take it to mean today.
To them it means "our turn to loot".

The best solution would be for the two of us to work out an enforceable plan for governing as co-equal emperors.
Nobody gets everything they want, everybody compromises, but the ten commandments remain as a guide for law.
(A guide - NOT a theocracy.)
Growth in size of government is frozen, corporate welfare ends, nation building (the empire) ends - totally, the tax code changes to reward productive investment - not house flippers and stock traders, ALL fraudsters go to jail, labor gets the same stock deal percentage wise through an ESOP as CEOs who get multiple millions in options, elections are publicly funded, and on and on.

We could work it out; as you once said - we're just not that far apart.

But I still prefer Thomas Paine to the lot of them.

I'll have to think about that one. Paine was not one of my favorites.

[vt]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

If 2016 sees Clinton vs. Bush the timetable could speed up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1

He could come out of center field. The People's Perot, without the wealth or oddness.

In January, 2007 no one thought Obama would run, much less beat Hillary, for the nomination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_...campaign,_2008.

No matter if it's 2016 or 2020, no one will have heard of him, but it will appear perfectly sensible when it happens.

[Woodsman]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

What, with "independents" like you voting GOP every time?

So which independent candidates did you vote for in the last election. For congress alone you had three Independent or third-party candidates to choose from. This is the fourth of fifth time I've asked since the morning of election day and each time you dodge and weave and avoid or ignore the question? How come? It's a reasonable question and your consistent avoidance of it is causing me to doubt your sincerity, vt.

You seem very excited about Independent and third party candidates until it comes time to actually vote for them.

[vinoveri]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

However, if they did have a solid candidate that was fiscally responsible and socially moderate, they would vote and in large numbers.

Ha ha ha; the ideal candidate huh, fiscal conservative and social moderate; the same recipe that gave us the yuppie culture of "whoever dies with the most toys wins" mantra.
There are no more fiscal conservatives in mainstream politics, unless of course you mean those who advocate privatizing the public functions in order to reduce the size of gov; the Treasury debt , now that it is apparent to all can be monetized at will and whim, the gov is a giant feeding trough to be enjoyed with abandon
And "social moderate", give me break with that Orwellian phrase; moderation in anything is anathema to our current economic culture based on consumerism and debasing hedonistic materialism.

[vt]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

None of your business.

And I have voted for independents and Democrats in elections.

You seem to be very obsessed. This can be seen by your background:

"The reason I know what I know and think what I do about the right is because I spent the early part of my adulthood in the thick of it working on the staff of a congressmen with a 100 ACU rating. From there I moved to one of the most conservative, right wing lobbies in the nation. Many of the young men and women I started with are now chiefs of staff or other similarly equipped positions."

Woodsman 4/14/2014

While I was working, living with the poor, and being paid poverty wages you were probably with your lobbying right wing buddies. I was also calling Nixon guilty early in 1974.

Please leave me out of your personal internal conflicts.

[lektrode]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

Ron Paul: "Reality Is Now Setting In For America... It Was All Based On Lies & Ignorance"


kinda long'n'windy, but still one of the most pertinent of the independent voices....

Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity,
If Americans were honest with themselves they would acknowledge that the Republic is no more. We now live in a police state. If we do not recognize and resist this development, freedom and prosperity for all Americans will continue to deteriorate. All liberties in America today are under siege.

It didn’t happen overnight. It took many years of neglect for our liberties to be given away so casually for a promise of security from the politicians. The tragic part is that the more security was promised — physical and economic — the less liberty was protected.
With cradle-to-grave welfare protecting all citizens from any mistakes and a perpetual global war on terrorism, which a majority of Americans were convinced was absolutely necessary for our survival, our security and prosperity has been sacrificed.

It was all based on lies and ignorance. Many came to believe that their best interests were served by giving up a little freedom now and then to gain a better life.

The trap was set. At the beginning of a cycle that systematically undermines liberty with delusions of easy prosperity, the change may actually seem to be beneficial to a few. But to me that’s like excusing embezzlement as a road to leisure and wealth — eventually payment and punishment always come due. One cannot escape the fact that a society’s wealth cannot be sustained or increased without work and productive effort. Yes, some criminal elements can benefit for a while, but reality always sets in.

Reality is now setting in for America and for that matter for most of the world. The piper will get his due even if “the children” have to suffer. The deception of promising “success” has lasted for quite a while. It was accomplished by ever-increasing taxes, deficits, borrowing, and printing press money. In the meantime the policing powers of the federal government were systematically and significantly expanded. No one cared much, as there seemed to be enough “gravy” for the rich, the poor, the politicians, and the bureaucrats.

this is just the opener - the rest (VERY long...) below:


Warfare/Welfare State Requires Police Control

[Woodsman]

Re: Way More Independents Than Democrats Or Republicans

You got me, cowboy. Dead to rights.

But back to independents; how much longer do you think you'll play with this sock puppet?