New political party

F

flaja

New member
If you were in charge of organizing a new political party, how would you go about it?

A new party couldn’t get established if nobody joins it. But would anybody want to join a party without knowing what its platform will be? And how do you have a platform before people join the party?

Also, what kind of leadership structure should a new party have? Would you have a party with a small membership/leadership base and hope voters would vote for your candidates even if they don’t formally join the party, or would you want a mass-membership party and have individual party members compete with each for leadership positions?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
there's no room for a new party except in the middle.....and it's tough to get the middle to join anything.....
Click to expand...

Actually, what I see happening is a party that is conservative on social issues and center-center left on economic issues.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...conservatives_9_fiscally_and_socially_liberal

As of 2007 41% of Americans say they are say they are conservative on fiscal issues while 43% are moderates and only 12% are liberals. 37% are conservative on social issues while 30% are moderates and 30% are liberals. The biggest single group is the 24% that is conservative on both fiscal and social issues while only 17% are moderates and only 9% are liberals both socially and fiscally.

I don’t have the statistics at the moment, but I have seen it reported that while Obama carried the state of California with majorities from both black and Hispanic voters these same voters gave majority support to California’s ban on same-sex marriage even though Obama supports same-sex marriage/civil unions. I haven’t seen the electoral breakdown, but Obama also carried the state of Florida while Florida voters were enacting a same-sex marriage ban.

There is a reservoir of social conservatism in the minority community that Republicans will never be able to tap in to because of their unholy alliance with libertarians. And at the same time social conservatives may someday decide to abandon the GOP because the GOP really doesn’t want social conservatives around except on Election Day.

Election results show that most voters vote mainly on economic issues, but at the same time a candidate/party is not hurt by being socially conservative. If McCain and Co. had gotten off of their less government rhetoric, the last election would have been much closer. But then the country cannot afford a bigger government.
 
Watermark said:
That's a stupid thing to say.

The only group that needs a new party is liberals, because they're by far ignored the most in the two parties desperation to adopt as many moderate fascist or pure fascist policies as possible.
Click to expand...

I agree....you should form a new party to the left of the Democrats and get as many people to join it as you can.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I agree....you should form a new party to the left of the Democrats and get as many people to join it as you can.....
Click to expand...

A liberal party would make a lot of sense; due to the nature of our political system, we'd capture all the urban and northeastern areas easily, with only token Democratic opposition. The Democrats and Republicans would be left to duke it out amongst the trash in the center of the country.
 
flaja said:
Actually, what I see happening is a party that is conservative on social issues and center-center left on economic issues.
Click to expand...

In other words, a party that more closely matches your views?

Well, isn't that just a new thing? Someone coming on here and whining about how we need a new party because the "political center" (IE said posters personal beliefs) aren't given dominance. In reality, any such party would go down in flames faster than you can say has-been.
 
Watermark said:
we'd capture all the urban and northeastern areas easily
Click to expand...

boy, that would suck.....the Republicans wouldn't have any senators or representatives from big cities or the Northeast......I have a suggestion for a name for your party......you could call it the "A Different Name for Democrats" Party......
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
A liberal party would make a lot of sense; due to the nature of our political system, we'd capture all the urban and northeastern areas easily, with only token Democratic opposition. The Democrats and Republicans would be left to duke it out amongst the trash in the center of the country.
Click to expand...

Your level of respect for the American electorate is sickening. Someone is trash just because they don’t support your political views? I seriously doubt that you are qualified to live in a democratic society, let alone have any role in governing one.
 
Watermark said:
In other words, a party that more closely matches your views?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily since I am not center/center-left on most economic issues. However, unlike you I would be willing to adapt center/center-left economic positions to my conservative goals- meaning (unlike the libs here) I would be willing to compromise for the sake of getting something accomplished.
 
I think a party that is conservative on fiscal issues and libertarian on social issues would garner a huge block of voters.

I think the biggest issues that have disgusted voters is wasting tax dollars and interfering in private lives.
 
WinterBorn said:
I think a party that is conservative on fiscal issues and libertarian on social issues would garner a huge block of voters.
Click to expand...

Isn't this what the Libertarian Party already is? As near as I can tell this 40 years old party doesn't even make it to 3rd place any more in presidential elections.
 
flaja said:
Isn't this what the Libertarian Party already is? As near as I can tell this 40 years old party doesn't even make it to 3rd place any more in presidential elections.
Click to expand...

It hasn't gotten many votes in presidential elections, but it has more elected officials than the rest of the third parties combined.

It has been discussed several times whether the republicans need to court the social conservatives or abandon them.

I am still of the opinion that the social issues fro the conservatives will cost them elections in the future if they continue to press those issues.
 
WinterBorn said:
It hasn't gotten many votes in presidential elections, but it has more elected officials than the rest of the third parties combined.
Click to expand...

Documentation? But my point remains. If the ideal political party is liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues, the Libertarian Party would be viable rival to the Democrats and Republicans.

[/quote]I am still of the opinion that the social issues fro the conservatives will cost them elections in the future if they continue to press those issues.[/QUOTE]

How so considering there are more social conservatives than social moderates or social liberals? Social moderates would not join the liberals to put a Democrat in office without a bad economy. In most places the only way a social conservative loses an election is when he promises less government during a bad economy.
 
flaja said:
Documentation? But my point remains. If the ideal political party is liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues, the Libertarian Party would be viable rival to the Democrats and Republicans.
Click to expand...
I am still of the opinion that the social issues fro the conservatives will cost them elections in the future if they continue to press those issues.[/QUOTE]

How so considering there are more social conservatives than social moderates or social liberals? Social moderates would not join the liberals to put a Democrat in office without a bad economy. In most places the only way a social conservative loses an election is when he promises less government during a bad economy.[/QUOTE]

More and more people are walking away from social conservatives and the intrusion by the government that this group advocates.

The conservative movement has been most successful when it focused on fiscal issues and stayed away from social issues. It worked well for Reagan, and he has become the patron saint of republicans.
 
WinterBorn said:
More and more people are walking away from social conservatives and the intrusion by the government that this group advocates.
Click to expand...

So is that why bans on same sex marriage pass whenever they go before the electorate while a majority of Americans now call themselves pro-life?

Your rhetoric does not match reality.
 
Based on the Rasmussen data:

24% of Americans are conservative in both categories (social and fiscal) and another 21% is conservative in one category or the other. So 46% of Americans are not liberals either socially or fiscally.

17% of Americans are moderates in both categories.

Only 29% of the Americans are liberals in one category or another.

So conservatives would need the votes of only 29.4% plus 1 vote of the moderates to win an election (29.4% of the 17% that are moderates in both categories to have 50% of the vote plus 1 vote to have a majority). Liberals could win 100% of the votes from moderates and still only have 46% of the vote.

The only reason liberals ever win an election in a two-way race is because few people who are conservative on social issues make their electoral choices based only on social issues. A fiscally moderate party that has conservative positions on social issues could easily win an national election.
 
flaja said:
Based on the Rasmussen data:

24% of Americans are conservative in both categories (social and fiscal) and another 21% is conservative in one category or the other. So 46% of Americans are not liberals either socially or fiscally.

17% of Americans are moderates in both categories.

Only 29% of the Americans are liberals in one category or another.

So conservatives would need the votes of only 29.4% plus 1 vote of the moderates to win an election (29.4% of the 17% that are moderates in both categories to have 50% of the vote plus 1 vote to have a majority). Liberals could win 100% of the votes from moderates and still only have 46% of the vote.

The only reason liberals ever win an election in a two-way race is because few people who are conservative on social issues make their electoral choices based only on social issues. A fiscally moderate party that has conservative positions on social issues could easily win an national election.
Click to expand...


So your party would still pander for votes? Instead of doing what needs doing?

BAU
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top