That’s why I usually describe myself as a “small-ell, pragmatic libertarian”.
Libertarianism is a pretty broad term; it’s a shame that the Libertarian Party is so nutty, and some people are using the term “libertarian” as cover for some pretty horrible beliefs. Unfortunately, it’s the term that best applies to the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and generally laissez-faire” political viewpoint that I subscribe to.
Social liberal, fiscal conservative people unite!
I like this part.
(though my definition of “huge” may be different from yours)
In my neck of the woods, fast food/etc. are offering about $11-14/hr with same-day payment. Some claim up to $16, but almost surely that means with previous management experience, etc. I haven’t seen sign-on bonuses for minimum wage.
I’m listening…
Saw on sign on local McDonald’s that says you start at $16/hr. Spendy area though.
“Ken, I’d like ‘Least Surprising Things About the Forward Party’ for $200, please.”
If they were serious about improving things their platform would push for approval voting or ranked choice or pretty much anything except the fptp system we have now.
This just looks like they want to pick up the pieces when/if the Republican party officially implodes.
When I Googled “forward party platform”, I got this:
I’m not sure they even want that. For all the shit The Lincoln Project caught when it started up, it at least stated up front what its goals were. If people involved made a shitload of money along the way, … OK, fine, let’s not pretend everyone involved was completely altruistic.
You can’t articulate one short-term goal or one long-term goal? You can’t articulate one concrete idea you stand for? You can’t articulate one concrete idea you don’t stand for?I would have expected that to at least be figured out before you decide to go make a national splash, so people can read through and decide if they want to throw money at your nascent effort. Send us money, we’ll let you know what we stand for later? Nah, I’ll pass. I’m sure shitloads of people will.
Wait, they have 3 ideas - all related to voting. OK, fine. I don’t think you need to launch a political party just for that. What’s your ideas on national defense spending? The Federal Reserve? Immigration? Taxation and budgets - especially budget deficits and the national debt and bringing both under control? Separation of powers between the federal government and state government? Controlling health care costs? Possible constitutional amendments you think are necessary?
Nothing? Nothing at all? Yeah, I’ll take a pass.
It’s a start. They should lead with that imo.
Whoa, this Party sounds better and better.
I don’t think you need to launch a political party just for that.
Why not? Or rather, why do you suppose there’s nothing to gain for those that care about the idea?
It seems like Voting Reform is handicapped because it has no representation. Just poorly organized referendums.
To be clear, I think third parties are usually dumb, but I don’t see why a voting reform party is less sensible than a Green Party or a Libertarian Party or a Communist Party.
I’m not saying there’s not something to be gained by advancing those three items. There is. [Though I think the excitement over ranked choice is overblown.] I’m saying that as a political party no one is getting so excited over voting reform - especially when 40% of the country has been brainwashed to believe that “if I lose an election, it was stolen from me” and not “if I lose an election, the voters don’t want me in that elected office” - that you’re going to attract millions of people and hundreds of millions of dollars to support your cause.
If Elon Musk were to show up today pledging $500 million to support the party [ignoring the question of where he’s coming up with said $500 million, considering he couldn’t do his takeover of Twitter without heavily financing it and now he’s mired in that court fight], then it’s (sort of) a different story because he’ll bring scores upon scores of Muskovites who follow him in almost cult-like devotion. Even then, you’re talking a heavy right-wing slant where the voting reform ideas will get lost behind “shut down free speech that’s critical to me” and “advertise my products” and “solicit more government subsidies of my products so my company can stay afloat even longer” and so on.
Does a party need to be popular to be worth forming? Does it need to win elections?
I suppose it would be pretty hilarious if they ended up spoiling a bunch of elections.
If they end up spoiling a bunch of elections, it’s more likely to be in favor of the party that’s actively anti-democracy, pro-authoritarian and more than playing footsie with white supremacists.
That will undermine all the “better, more fair elections” talk in the platform for decades to come. Quite the Faustian bargain there.
Honest Q - why assume that it will benefit Rs? They may just as well take people who can’t stomach voting for a D but are repulsed by the R nominee. They certainly aren’t aiming to siphon off the extremes like the Green party did.
All current Rs are going to vote R no matter who the candidate is and how utterly disgusting they are. There are zero exceptions to this.
All current Ds will vote D if they’re sufficiently liberal, sufficiently diverse, agree to various promises to do stuff, … on and on. If those demands aren’t satisfied, a number of them will sit at home in protest. About 5% of them will completely flip out and go vote R in protest.
That fact alone will tip the scales toward Republicans, meaning Democrats need to pull in more of the self-proclaimed independents. If it’s a pure D vs. R choice, they’re more likely to hold their nose and vote D. Giving them a 3rd party to choose gives them a clear conscience that I was never voting Republican, but I really didn’t want to vote Democrat - I’ll pick someone else instead of just staying at home and lamenting having to choose.
The only way a 3rd party wins is if Democrats don’t put someone up or the Democrat in the race is particularly shitty, and whoever runs as the 3rd party runs in the relative middle to everyone else and attracts those independents. There are very few such races where that’s possible.
Utah Senate race seems most likely and even that’s looking bleak. WY-AL would be another possibility if the Dems chose to withdraw.
Disagree. One example to counter the “zero exceptions”-
2016 Utah results
Trump - 46%
Clinton - 27%
McMullin - 22%
Others 5%
2020 Utah results
Trump 58%
Biden 38%
Others 4%
So the 3rd party candidate got 12% of people who voted for R in next election, 11% of those that went to D in the next election (ignoring R to D crossovers).
Odd situation, but just shown to disprove the “zero exception” statement.