Jump to content
270soft Forum

Recommended Posts

One thing to keep in mind is that this is a somewhat fictional scenario, so we can add a candidate that probably wouldn't run in real life, so we could include Sanders if we choose to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

Greens should be strongest in the West Coast States, mabeye around say 25%

Socialists should be strongest in the Rust Belt

Reform should be ahead in Minnissota and a chance of winning Michigan, iowa, and Wisconson

25% is a bit high. I would say between 8-13%. However it depends on the scenario. the OP said that the two parties are still pretty strong, but with crumbling support in some states. So if the greens are going to be 25% anywhere i'd give them WA or CA maybe even VT. However 25% still seems a bit high for a third party even if the two parties are starting to fall apart.

I don't see why Socialist would be strong in the rust belt. Is the rust belt pro labour? Hell yeah but on social issues the rust belt is a complete 180 opposite of the socialist party.

What about the Tea Party? Think Glenn Beck and other Libertarian Republicans could break away and form it in this scenario? If they did I believe they'd be pretty well liked everywhere except in the Rustbelt and Great Lakes. However they're base would be states like VA, Texas, Sunbelt and the Rocky mountain states. Or states with voters that tend to vote more with they're pocket book than bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

25% is a bit high. I would say between 8-13%. However it depends on the scenario. the OP said that the two parties are still pretty strong, but with crumbling support in some states. So if the greens are going to be 25% anywhere i'd give them WA or CA maybe even VT. However 25% still seems a bit high for a third party even if the two parties are starting to fall apart.

I don't see why Socialist would be strong in the rust belt. Is the rust belt pro labour? Hell yeah but on social issues the rust belt is a complete 180 opposite of the socialist party.

What about the Tea Party? Think Glenn Beck and other Libertarian Republicans could break away and form it in this scenario? If they did I believe they'd be pretty well liked everywhere except in the Rustbelt and Great Lakes. However they're base would be states like VA, Texas, Sunbelt and the Rocky mountain states. Or states with voters that tend to vote more with they're pocket book than bible.

Hate to break it to you, but Glenn ain't libertarian, he's quite a war monger when it comes to Iran... I also think that this scenario is dead in the water.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a genuine possibility that in order to make a remotely plausible scenario with the real minor parties (Green, Libertarian, etc.) being competitors, you need to get rid of the major parties. I think it's realistic for the Tea Party to have become a genuine player by 2012, especially if they ran Palin, but I think it's just too far-fetched to try to have any Socialist or Libertarian beating the Democrats or Republicans in any states. You could have Green vs. Socialist vs. Libertarian vs. Constitution vs. etc. if you wanted to. I like Socialists strong in the Midwest, just because that is their historical base; Greens are strong in Washington, Oregon, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, and reasonable in New Jersey. I'm not as much of an expert on the right-wingers' relative strengths, but I would guess Libertarian out west, Constitution or something like it in the South.

Maybe have some single-state parties? Maybe off by default?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to break it to you, but Glenn ain't libertarian, he's quite a war monger when it comes to Iran... I also think that this scenario is dead in the water.

What about the Tea Party? Think Glenn Beck and other Libertarian Republicans

not necessarily full on libertarians.

And yes to the poster above me. The American Socialist movement did originate there. However the social policies of the Socialist Party are far left. Middle America is not far left when it comes to abortion/gay marriage/stem cell research and what not.

Yeah the Libertarian leaning party would have it's greatest strength in the west. However small pockets around the country: VA/NC/SC, TX, and NH would also be strongholds, or where libertarian leaning candidates would do well. You could also make the argument for Florida to be grouped in there as well.

I don't think Palin would be a leading candidate for this third party, or even commit to it. However after all this is a scenario so it could very well happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What differentiates Socialists from Greens is their focus on economic issues. Yes, they are as socially liberal, if not moreso, than Greens, but that's not their main focus. You're right, New Hampshire is a very libertarian state, but it really means it; that is, it's libertarianism is true libertarianism, whereas the U.S. Libertarian Party is only slightly distinguishable from conservative Republicans. That is also the answer to Glenn Beck: no, he's not a libertarian, not in the traditional, international-political-ideology sense of the word, but he calls himself one, and would fit quite well in the American Libertarian Party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of a Socialist Party, wouldn't a populist-style party be more likely to garner support? The thing that would be likely to obtain support is not an explicitly socialist party, but one that takes a parochial line. "America first" rhetoric combined with economic populism - strongly anti-NAFTA, protectionist, strict penalties to prevent outsourcing - and that rural brand of social conservatism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Hate to break it to you, but Glenn ain't libertarian, he's quite a war monger when it comes to Iran... I also think that this scenario is dead in the water.

Classic Liberals then. Glenn Beck is not a Libertarian he is a Liberal Republican in the real sense of the word liberal. Look it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as someone currently taking a Modern Political Theory course, "liberal" can mean anything from a libertarian Lockian capitalist to a communalist Rousseauian socialist. Plenty of modern liberal political theorists, e.g. John Rawls, are pretty much liberals, in the conventional U.S. sense (which largely means someone who isn't too fond of inequality). And plenty of liberals critique Rawls from the left; more, I think, though I'm not certain of this, than critique him from the right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as someone currently taking a Modern Political Theory course, "liberal" can mean anything from a libertarian Lockian capitalist to a communalist Rousseauian socialist. Plenty of modern liberal political theorists, e.g. John Rawls, are pretty much liberals, in the conventional U.S. sense (which largely means someone who isn't too fond of inequality). And plenty of liberals critique Rawls from the left; more, I think, though I'm not certain of this, than critique him from the right.

Words generally mean nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heheh. Liberal has a meaning; more specifically "illiberal" has a meaning, and a useful one, particularly in thinking about political theory outside of the context of a liberal democracy, which ours is, and which even the philosophy of Ronald Reagan would continue to constitute. (I reserve the right to quibble about whether the most extreme version of Tea Partyism is a form of liberal democracy.) It just has little use in differentiating modern American conservatives from modern American liberals, since both can plausibly claim to be heirs to the liberal tradition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
True Liberals do not support illegal wars, like Beck does.

Beck is more of a minarchist libertarian than anything else. Ron Paul is pretty much classical liberal in every sense of the word, not at all a liberal in the incomprehensible sense in the US or Canada which means social-democrat elsewhere in the world.

The difference, between a liberal if you look at the term right now in the US and a social democrat in any country in the world is very sparse. They all want a big statist and interventionist government to attend a sort of social justice. The former president and current president of the US have also many points in common according to that and I am not only talking about national defense.

If you look north of the border, the centrist/center-left Liberal (only in name) Party have a leader which have a very interventionist view on foreign national defense (he was VERY pro-Iraq War in his academic life, even more so than the Conservative Party Leader).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that everywhere outside the U.S a "liberal" is someone who supports small government and very little government intervention in the economy, personal lives and foreign affairs. Only Americans tend to define it as people who support a stronger government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberalism is a belief in maximum personally liberty so it would make sense.

That's way stretching it. Liberalism is a belief in liberty, yes, I'll grant you that, but the term "maximum liberty" is confusing since it ignores, for instance, what kind of liberty is being maximized. Solely liberty from state coercion? Easy, abolish the state. Except that doesn't work: there's this thing about life's becoming "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Which suggests that it's more complex than that; thus the subtleties of the word. In modern parlance, liberalism is largely a belief in the idea of citizens as free and equal, and I think that people could make <i>plausible</i> arguments that just about anyone in American or British or whatever politics endorses those beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberalism is the belief in liberty from the state, not complete liberty but "maximum practical liberty." In order to preserve some personal liberties a state must be in place otherwise the rights to life would quickly collapse and war lords would rise.

I read once that anarchy is one step from tyranny and I find this very true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...