Excellent, but not surprising news. There is no candidate they could put forward that would ever have a "credible path to winning the White House." They should have known that from the beginning.
Guess Cornell West was too smart for them, huh? That leaves the moronic runt of the Kennedy litter. He's so far out in outer space. Guess that leaves RFK jr the maggot crowd, they will glom on to his anti-vax, conspiracy theory leaden brain. What an embarrassment for a family used to producing highly intellectual children. Don't think any party wants RFK jr, either.
I think there is a place for "centrist" parties of both the centre-left and centre-right, and also more hard-core parties to the right and left of the majors. But for such parties to emerge and prosper you must have either preferential voting (aka "ranked choice voting"), or some form of proportional representation voting.
If you had ranked choice, then the two major parties could divest themselves of their more extreme factions, and stop having to be such huge unwieldy tents. The MAGAs could form a splinter party, and compete in the market, and so could the Socialist Dems ... it also eliminates the need for primaries.
In no other serious democracy in the world does the entire ideological spectrum have to be crammed into just two parties ... and prior to the Gingrich / Tea Party / Trump / MAGA takeover of the GOP, there were a lot of similarities between R and D ... it's hard to identify much policy or ideological divide between say Bill Clinton and George W Bush.
Anyway, your first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all system is to my mind both restrictive of political expression, and really unfair. If the Democrats win California by 55% to 45%, then they should only get 30 of the 54 Electoral College votes, and so on.
It wasn't primarily about trigger-happy. It was about making Iraq safe for "democracy," which in Republican-speak means "capitalist investment." I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton's, but that wasn't one of his blind spots. P.S. If we're talking 2003, we're talking Gore, not Clinton, and though I'm not a fan of Gore's either, there's no way he would have been suckered by 9/11 the way Bush II was suckered. Even with Republican-in-Democrat-clothing Joe Lieberman off in Blair House.
Cargill, I'm sure you're aware of the difference between parliamentary democracy and the U.S. system? How would you map a parliamentary system on a country as large and diverse (in myriad ways) as the U.S.? Different regions of the country have different, sometimes conflicting, interests. Different constituencies within each region -- think urban/suburban/rural, or white/Black/brown/Asian, or Christian/Jewish/Muslim/non-theist, or upper/middle/working class, or male/female, etc. -- have different priorities that occasionally conflict. Explain to me how a parliamentary system wouldn't fragment all of the above to the extent that the default would most likely be white guys with money.
I found enough differences when I was a pup. And, WOW, now they barely live on the same planet. Change may be good, but let’s not jump from the frying pan….into HELL
No Labels sounds like a generic brand, maybe even centrist, but all their excitement moved far enough right to tip over their own canoe. Good. Now they'll all have to get real jobs.
If these folks were interested in a "responsible course of action" they never would have started this mess.
Thank all my stars and garters! Now we can concentrate on exposing RFK Jr. for the wackadoodle he is.
Just point to the giggling Trophy Bimbo he chose for his VP.
Tom, I have seen his wife. Cheryl Hines. She should have stayed 'married' to Larry David.
My Mom used to say stars and garters. Thanks for that memory
Excellent, but not surprising news. There is no candidate they could put forward that would ever have a "credible path to winning the White House." They should have known that from the beginning.
Dopes.
Dumb dopes
No Labels would have done better to push for ranked choice voting before trying to put up a candidate. What idiots.
Perhaps they have a future in a roving rollout Holloween Horror Show. THey did their best to scre the shit out of us.
They were never going to do shit.
No Labels/No Brains/No Chance of Ever Winning Anything
I personally don't trust
anything that doesn't have
a label. You never know what
you might be getting. 😉
A lot of noise, ending up with nothing.
A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Guess Cornell West was too smart for them, huh? That leaves the moronic runt of the Kennedy litter. He's so far out in outer space. Guess that leaves RFK jr the maggot crowd, they will glom on to his anti-vax, conspiracy theory leaden brain. What an embarrassment for a family used to producing highly intellectual children. Don't think any party wants RFK jr, either.
One spoiler down, now how to pitch RFK (not the real one) in the trash bin.
I think there is a place for "centrist" parties of both the centre-left and centre-right, and also more hard-core parties to the right and left of the majors. But for such parties to emerge and prosper you must have either preferential voting (aka "ranked choice voting"), or some form of proportional representation voting.
If you had ranked choice, then the two major parties could divest themselves of their more extreme factions, and stop having to be such huge unwieldy tents. The MAGAs could form a splinter party, and compete in the market, and so could the Socialist Dems ... it also eliminates the need for primaries.
In no other serious democracy in the world does the entire ideological spectrum have to be crammed into just two parties ... and prior to the Gingrich / Tea Party / Trump / MAGA takeover of the GOP, there were a lot of similarities between R and D ... it's hard to identify much policy or ideological divide between say Bill Clinton and George W Bush.
Anyway, your first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all system is to my mind both restrictive of political expression, and really unfair. If the Democrats win California by 55% to 45%, then they should only get 30 of the 54 Electoral College votes, and so on.
I'm pretty sure Clinton wouldn't have invaded Poland, er, I mean Iraq, back in 2003.
I dunno ... Clinton was pretty trigger-happy!
I'm no fan of his, but invading Iraq was soooo stupid only a Republican would have thought it a good idea.
Yes, let’s not try to hang that around Bill’s neck. He got his own heavy baggage.
Invading Iraq was when I burned my Republican Party membership card, which action was reinforced by trying to democratize Afghanistan by force.
It wasn't primarily about trigger-happy. It was about making Iraq safe for "democracy," which in Republican-speak means "capitalist investment." I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton's, but that wasn't one of his blind spots. P.S. If we're talking 2003, we're talking Gore, not Clinton, and though I'm not a fan of Gore's either, there's no way he would have been suckered by 9/11 the way Bush II was suckered. Even with Republican-in-Democrat-clothing Joe Lieberman off in Blair House.
Cargill, I'm sure you're aware of the difference between parliamentary democracy and the U.S. system? How would you map a parliamentary system on a country as large and diverse (in myriad ways) as the U.S.? Different regions of the country have different, sometimes conflicting, interests. Different constituencies within each region -- think urban/suburban/rural, or white/Black/brown/Asian, or Christian/Jewish/Muslim/non-theist, or upper/middle/working class, or male/female, etc. -- have different priorities that occasionally conflict. Explain to me how a parliamentary system wouldn't fragment all of the above to the extent that the default would most likely be white guys with money.
I found enough differences when I was a pup. And, WOW, now they barely live on the same planet. Change may be good, but let’s not jump from the frying pan….into HELL
No Labels sounds like a generic brand, maybe even centrist, but all their excitement moved far enough right to tip over their own canoe. Good. Now they'll all have to get real jobs.
Excellent news! Thank you, T.C.!