2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum55% Want 3rd Party Run Against Clinton & Trump
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-20/silent-majority-55-americans-want-independent-run-against-trump-clinton#commentsIts happening! According to a new poll, Americans have finally maxed out their tolerance for lesser evils in presidential politics. The survey, published by independent research firm, Data Targeting, found a majority of Americans now want an independent candidate to take on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump two of the most disliked candidates in recent history.
Researchers for the poll, conducted among 997 registered voters via both home and mobile phones this month, reported that 58% of respondents are dissatisfied with the current group of Republican and Democratic candidates for President and that 55 percent believe there should be an independent ticket (it is unclear why 3 percent apparently dislike the current candidates but puzzlingly do not think there should be another option). In perhaps the most extreme finding of the analysis, a shocking 91% of voters under the age of 29 favor having an independent candidate on the ballot. Considering younger generations lack of party allegiance and disillusionment with the status quo, their disapproval of Clinton and Trump seems predictable but 91 percent constitutes near-total rejection.
Tellingly, over 68 percent of participants in the poll were over the age of 50. Older generations are more likely to be attached to party identity, making their acceptance of other options a telling indicator of the populaces distaste for their current options.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)kaleckim
(651 posts)and don't bother with the "Trump, Supreme Court, boo!" stuff. The state I live in will go for Clinton anyway, and will vote for her if you could tell me why she's better than Stein (or another third party candidate), which you can't.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)anything but Jill Stein. Supreme court? Baaa, her family won't be affected. Why would the Greens care about Trump or anything else that happens in the real world and doesn't affect them or their trust fund kids personally?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Response to JRLeft (Reply #3)
Post removed
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)That would ensure that people's wishes were honored.
then people could vote for candidates without fear that their votes would be wasted if their first choice did not win.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Demsrule86
(68,735 posts)Many GOP types want a third party knowing they will throw the election to Hillary...such is their disdain for this unqualified man.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Data Targeting, the Republican political consulting firm that went to legal war for the last year to keep its redistricting documents shielded from the public record, has had some fun this holiday season at its own expense.
RELATED NEWS/ARCHIVE
Judge rejects Legislature's redistricting map, recommends plaintiffs' plan
7 Months Ago
U.S. Rep. Wilson asks court to choose a different congressional map
7 Months Ago
Democrats want legislators to be fined for violating anti-gerrymandering law
7 Months Ago
It's animated Christmas card comes with jingling bells and features Pat Bainter in a Santa coat with colleagues Matt Mitchell and Mike Sheehan at his side. It announces "But there's one 'secret' we've made sure they'll never get."
A countdown clock notes that the message will self destruct in 15 seconds, and the card then slides into a paper shredder and ends with: "Merry Christmas."
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/data-targetings-christmas-card-reveals-its-secret-message/2210988
amborin
(16,631 posts)Does that sound like anyone else?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)documents that would have proved that the GOP was cooking numbers that were to be used to redistrict in favor of GOP candidates.
Facebook Twitter Google + Email Comment Print
Members of the House of Representatives rise for prayer at the opening of a special session Thursday, Aug. 7, 2014, at the Capitol in Tallahassee, Fla. Legislators are meeting for a rare summer one-week special session, to redraw the boundary lines of two congressional districts ruled unconstitutional last month. (AP Photo/Phil Sears)
Legal 'battlefield' takes shape in Senate redistricting fight
Senators begin hiring outside attorneys to prepare for the legal fight.
By MATT DIXON 07/07/15 10:22 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
TALLAHASSEEAfter a nearly three-year wait, the outline of a battle over Floridas state Senate maps is taking shape. Subpoenas are being served and a bitter fight has resumed between consultants and the voting groups that accuse them of illegally influencing political maps.
A coalition of plaintiffs, including the League of Women Voters of Florida, filed a legal challenge to the state Senate maps shortly after they were approved during the 2012 redistricting process. They argue the new lines were drawn for incumbent and partisan favoritism. Thats in violation of constitutional amendments passed by voters in 2010 that no longer allow redistricting to be used to favor political parties or protect incumbents.
Plaintiffs take specific issue with 28 of the states 40 state Senate seats, while attorneys for the Legislature argue that political consultants from both parties tried to influence the process, but failed.
Plaintiffs cannot show that the efforts of those individuals corrupted the intent of the Legislature as a whole, wrote attorneys representing the Legislature, in a response filed with the court last week.
If the court tosses the state Senate lines, it would be seen a blow to the Republican-dominated Legislature. The new maps passed the Senate on a 31-6 vote and in the House on a 61-47 margin. The only Republicans in opposition were a handful of House members from Miami who were angry that the map did not create an a fourth Hispanic-majority seat.
The legal challenge to the state Senate maps has sat largely dormant as a separate lawsuit challenging the congressional maps worked its way through the courts. Trial is set for September in Leon County Court, but it could be delayed as a number of issues remain unresolved.
The nationally watched congressional lawsuit was also filed by the League of Women Voters and led to Tallahassee circuit judge Terry Lewis forcing lawmakers to redraw those maps last summer.
Lewis said the original version favored Republicans, which is at odds with the 2010 anti-gerrymandering amendments. Lewis approved a second set of maps, which now awaits Florida Supreme Court approval. That much-anticipated ruling could come this week.
Political observers involved in the redistricting process have said they believe partisan dealmaking was a much more ingrained part of Senate map-drawing. That means a legal unpacking of the process could set off a dramatic fight involving the Legislatures upper chamber.
The Florida Supreme Court already rejected a work product created by the Senate. In 2012, justices ruled the first version of new state Senate maps was constitutionally invalid because some seats favored incumbents. The court later signed off on a redrawn version of the maps, which are the subject of the current lawsuit.
In late May, attorneys for the Legislature subpoenaed documents from, among others, Democratic pollster Dave Beattie; FairDistricts Now, Inc., the group the spearheaded the constitutional amendments; and NCEC Services, a Washington-based Democratic consulting firm that helped draw maps during the 2012 redistricting process.
In April, plaintiffs sent a round of subpoenas to lawmakers and Republican consultants, including Senate President Andy Gardiner of Orlando; Don Gaetz, a Niceville Republican who is a former Senate president and headed the Senate redistricting committee; and Gainesville-based political consultant Pat Bainter, who also played a starring role in the congressional lawsuit.
Starting last week, a handful of senators started filing objections to the subpoenas on the grounds that they are too broad, seek documents they do not have, or request records that are already public.
Senators formally objecting to the subpoenas include Republicans Gardiner, Gaetz, Alan Hays of Umatilla, and Jack Latvala of Clearwater. Democrat Bill Montford of Tallahassee also filed an objection.
There is also a round of depositions scheduled next week at the Tallahassee offices of law firm GrayRobinson, which represents the Legislature. Those scheduled to be deposed include Chris Clark, who served as Gaetzs top aide, and John Guthrie, the former staff director for the Senate Reappointment Committee.
Meanwhile, Gardiner has offered each of the 21 Senators who have received subpoenas up to $5,000 in taxpayer funding to hire outside attorneys. Those who have already done so include Republicans Hays, Latvala, and Lizbeth Benacquisto of Fort Myers, along with Democrats Montford and Audrey Gibson of Jacksonville.
In a separate but related matter, plaintiffs are in a fight with Gainesville-based GOP political consulting firm Data Targeting over 1,295 documents they say will help them prove that outside political operatives influenced the state Senate maps.
The fight is a continuation from the congressional lawsuit in which the firm was forced to make public more than 500 documents out roughly 1,800 turned over for court review. The firm, which is not a party to either lawsuit, has fought the release because they said the documents include trade secrets and were protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiffs are now after the documents the judge kept private during the congressional lawsuit.
During a June 26 hearing, Tallahassee circuit judge George Reynolds ruled those documents should be made public. He did make exceptions, however, after a handful of political consultants not associated with Data Targeting filed motions arguing some of the documents mention them, and therefore should be kept private.
The group of prominent Republican consultants includes Rich Heffley, Joel Springer, Andrew Wiggins, Jim Rimes, Frank Terraferma and Marc Reichelderfer. They are collectively referred to the Heffley group in court documents.
The group says that if any of the
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/legal-battlefield-takes-shape-in-senate-redistricting-fight-119832#ixzz49IpeVv9f
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
And yet here they are on DU being touted as a legitimate polling org. Hmmmm.
primnickel
(38 posts)If anything this anti establishment primary season has opened the door a big shift in the coming future. The two party system will eventually fall.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)the R's and D's and often little gets accomplished because it is so polarized. We definitely need a strong 3rd party in the US to help break up the log jams.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)playing completely scripted good-cop/bad-cop kabuki theater.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)I'm fed up with both parties under one party.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)fed up with US politics. I will vote as unaffiliated/Independent, apparently a huge group the "new" democratic party does not care about or need.
Response to RKP5637 (Reply #51)
cyberpj This message was self-deleted by its author.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's too much in the design of our government that favors two parties. So even if you get multiple parties in the short run, it will coalesce into two parties again. We have far too many "winner take all" aspects to our government for multi-party coalitions to be stable.
Those two parties do not have to be the Democratic and Republican parties, nor do those two parties have to remain in their current ideological position.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I completely agree with you that, except for occasional short-term fluctuations, we'll have a two-party system, barring a major change such as replacing plurality elections with IRV.
IMO, however, those two parties do have to be the Republican and Democratic parties. Any new party would face enormous obstacles in getting any traction. Furthermore, even if it were to take root and grow, for a long time it would face the problem of being the spoiler between the two major parties. If it somehow manage to surmount that and continue to grow, it would face a further period of suffering from the spoiler effects of the dying but still strong party it was trying to replace.
When you compare all that with just taking over an existing party, the latter course is much easier.
There's been no change to the Democratic/Republican hegemony since the advent of primaries. If the Whig Party had had primaries, people like Abe Lincoln (who was elected to Congress as a Whig) wouldn't have needed to start a new party.
An ideological realignment is possible, though. The notable example, speaking of Lincoln, is how the parties switched positions on civil rights.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and the Republicans were an insignificant third party.
IMO, there's serious danger of the Republicans going the way of the Whigs. They're entirely reliant on an increasingly-crazy base. That crazy base is the only reason they're in power at all, so they can't moderate their positions.
The Democratic party, in name, will likely continue. What we don't know yet is if it will be the right of center party that replaces the Republicans, or if it will be pulled back to the left.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The Republican Party was never "an insignificant third party." In the first presidential election it contested, that of 1856, its candidate came in second.
The last election in which there was a Whig candidate for President was 1852. The Republicans didn't start small and then grow to the point where they could displace the Whigs. Instead, the collapse of the Whigs and the rise of the Republicans all occurred over one election cycle.
It's hard for me to see the Republicans now going the way of the Whigs. Tea Party victories in primaries have cost the Republicans some winnable races, but more recently the establishment Republicans have been fighting back against that increasingly crazy base. If Trump gets clobbered, that trend will continue. If Trump wins, he might prove to be just a temporary aberration, or he might lead the GOP into a new role as a nativist/populist party.
The most important factor is that there are now institutional reasons that work against the emergence of a new party. Party loyalties are very strong; millions of respectable establishment Republicans will hold their noses and vote for Trump, just as millions of movement conservatives held their noses and voted for McCain and Romney. Rules for federal financing and the televised debates work against a new party. Finally, as I mentioned before, the availability of primaries makes the intra-party battle easier than it was in the 1850s.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)actually vote in the General Election!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)New voter registration is through the roof. The reason so many people don't vote is because of how corrupt the system and the politicians are. That percent you are talking about are not showing up to vote because of politicians like Hillary and Trump. We are going to see very low voter turn out this GE if our two choices are Hillary and Trump. But in future elections if we start to see more populist politicians we will see much more than that 10% you are speaking of. Democrats can keep their heads in the sand if they wish. I won't stop the changes that are coming.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)they were there on the ticket.
Nobody wants to vote for Trump but a great many people would likely stay home and not vote for Hillary as a way of sending a message to the neoliberal/neocon wing of the party that the country's future is being thrown away in no small part because of them and their greed and arrogance.
MineralMan
(146,341 posts)Last edited Sat May 21, 2016, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)
to Clinton and Trump? Sure sounds like it to me.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Be careful or a more cynical person might conclude you're just being an asshole.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)corporate puppets. The republicans are dead, Democrats still have an option between status quo and positive change
I'm afraid that we will have to hit rock bottom before we get critical mass on this though. We haven't hit bottom yet, but we're on the way and moving fast.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)always lots of talk, but no fruition.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)by plurality winner take all state elections then yes we are stuck with the shit we have.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But regardless, it needs to be scrapped and replaced with an instant runoff direct vote system, oh and we need to drain out every last dime of the obscene flood of money going into the political system, and the right to vote needs to be codified at the federal level along with uniform policies and practices.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)all of the levers, and millions of Americas seem to be so easily and constantly misled by the propaganda and lies.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Response to amborin (Original post)
Baobab This message was self-deleted by its author.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I think this hope really depends on Sanders agreeing to run outside.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, they wonder why people don't bother to vote.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Many have just said they've given up caring. They're just fed up with the whole system and nothing but politicians trashing each other. They're also fed up with hearing about the next election and endless requests for donations. And after one is elected, the entire dismal campaigning begins again. Now they feel it's just about who has the most money to buy the election. Often they feel their vote is not counted and the voting system is corrupt as well as congress, the entire shebang. I don't blame them.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)frustrated_lefty
(2,774 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)If they had a party of the left, that could represent them, they would not want another one.
I think that its time for the Democratic Party to decide, whether it wants to become Republican Lite for good or dump the neoliberalism and trade deals, "with prejudice".
Make a statement to that effect.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)I couldn't live in a place like that.
It may have a lot to do with age. Younger people are less likely to have registered Democratic even if they are left leaning.
This shift became most visible in the 90s with the Clintons. Who never were very progressive. Older people remained Democratic and bitched a lot. Younger people just registered as unaffiliated.
This is the chance for the Democratic Party to recapture its lost relevance or bid it goodbye for good.
Zorro
(15,751 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)The question will appear on the ballot as follows:
Do you want to change Maine election law to allow voters to rank their choices of candidates for U.S. Senate, Congress, Governor, State Senate and State Representative?
Greens + Democrats are working on it.
Helpful hint, if you're not going to be part of solving the problem, get out of the way
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In fact, this OP did not advocate a 3rd party, but simply reported a poll worthy of attention. These kinds of alerts are over the top themselves.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Reporting a news article.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is not advocating.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ridiculous alert. the poster was not advocating anything, but was posting a poll result.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)What the fuck is the matter with alerts lately?
This place needs an enema.
randome
(34,845 posts)Just as with Sanders' 'revolution', the rallies are unsupported by actual votes and delegates fail to show up for the tallies. I'm fine with third parties but I don't think the environment is favorable for one.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
jwirr
(39,215 posts)that would be most shaken by this idea would be the down ticket candidates. They would not know where to go.
coyote
(1,561 posts)Perhaps they will nominate Bernie.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)third party.
The earliest this could happen would be 2020 and if you have ever been involved in "third party" movements you'll know just how unlikely it would be.
Want to make substantive change? Primary your local Congress-critter.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Pastiche423
(15,406 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)I'm saying there are 3rd party candidates out there right now. I'd personally like to see Bernie run third party, but also people like Johnson gain traction, to really kill off the 2 party system.
Demsrule86
(68,735 posts)And I have just as much chance of getting one. It is too late baby!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)State filing deadlines for independents are all this summer, with Texas already gone, and each state requires thousands of signatures:
https://ballotpedia.org/Filing_deadlines_and_signature_requirements_for_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,375 posts)Go Cruz!!!11!
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)All this endless hyperbolic shit in the corporate media about the NOTHING story of the emails and R attacks. Well, now we're going into the general election and the dynamics will change again.
And Bernie hasn't been vetted at all. Given a huge pass. If was nominated, it would be endless right wing attack ads night and day and an avalanche of corporate media shit thrown at him night and day too, and his numbers would plummet.
This desire for a third party candidate is all a bunch of crap.
merrily
(45,251 posts)in the Libertarian and Green Parties, respectively.
IMO, we need to stop using the term "third party."
First, it is hopelessly inaccurate. Many national political parties exist besides the two largest. In 2008, six parties ran a candidate for President: Constitution, Democratic, Green, Independent, Libertarian and Republican. In 2000, it was Constitution, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law and Republican. I am not sure what, if anything, the Working Families Party did those years.
Second, using it again and again as though it were accurate keeps re-branding in our minds the falsehood that the two largest political parties are the only ones, unless someone suddenly pops up to tilt at windmills.
We needed to wake up back in 1985, but we didn't. Now that the Democratic Party chooses its Presidential nominee eight years in advance, and has fensies on incumbents, we really need to wake up, look around and stop reinforcing falsehoods in our own minds.