21 replies on “Patriot Party? After Party? Trump says NO”
Bongino says some things that make no sense, harping on how third parties always split the votes, but forgetting when the mere existence of the third party causes the party it is replacing to disappear.
That aside, much as it may suck, we really do have a two party system. And it doesn’t matter what the two parties are, just that the division of labor and power breaks down over a majority party and an opposition party. A third party will not succeed until such time as it completely supplants one of the established parties. Until then, it’s Ross Perot or John Anderson.
I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t like it when people tell me what I can and can’t do.
If it’s time for a new party then perhaps we should do it. I know I’m never voting Republican again unless we throw out every single one of them and start over, but the party has been tarnished (IMO) for years & actions since the election have been “icing on a shitty tasting cake”.
Unrecoverable? I don’t know.
If they were my employees (which they are), I’d replace every single one of them with independents or 3rd parties. Both houses. I’d do that at the state level too, especially in the far left hell holes with Napoleonic governors, mayors and city councils.
I might make an exception IF they had a Constitutional voting record AND did the right thing over the last 4 or so years.
Sorry for the rant.
Nice rant. And indeed it’s ridiculous idea that the 2nd most popular block is not supposed to create a party just because the 3rd most popular block will be too selfish down the road to cling on a fraction of voters.
They certainly can do that, but in normal circumstances at most one time. And in any case, election coalition and nominations start way ahead and can be handled once we got there. Till then should do what is the most reasonable.
If you guys don’t think a DJT party, along with a robust overhaul of the whole system like Bill W is brainstorming, along with a robust conservative media and pop culture, can win – WTF? Are you throwing in the towel already?
I think it’s going to be a matter of focusing efforts in key areas, since resources are going to be extremely limited. If Bill is so sure that he can even win over Democrat areas, those would be the ideal targets. Namely the districts that were responsible for this mess in the first place. The secondary targets would be Republican districts that stabbed Trump in the back. It’s also going to require getting people into the right positions on a local level that will implement the election rules properly. I keep mentioning Robert Barnes because he’s actually working to put out information on how to do that.
Good points. I would drill deeper on this “grass roots” idea, and campaign against the idiots who voted for Biden and enabled this shit storm. We all have to stop worrying about “relationships” and “feelings” and social circles and doxxing and all of it.
The true ROOT of grass roots is your friends and neighbors. I have turned against all of them, and will never forgive them for what they have done. This is UNACCEPTABLE and could literally get us killed!
I have disowned my goddaughter, who we practically raised and love very much. That one is a long story. I still have friends and family who I love and who voted for Biden, and I am trying to save those relationships for my wife’s sake. I have made it clear to all of them that we can stay close if NO POLITICS is allowed between us. If/when they slip up, I remind them. If/when they just can’;t stop their BLM / Harris Biden / Covid / Climate Change bullshit, they are dead to me. Forever.
This is a SERIOUS problem and we need to take it seriously AF
Yep, Bangino can’t think more than a day ahead. But the point is out there, Bill eventually have to address that part. He did in part in fragments. There iare times when you “advandce to the rear”. We know generals who can’t stand losing a single battle tend to lose the war bigtime.
Also he’s really inconsistent too. “Just get a quality candidate like DT.” The what? Did he sleep over the last year? We just tried that. And saw what happens: the GOP arranges the coup. (Never mind the part he also missed that the same GOP will prevent it happening again too.)
I wouldn’t be opposed to an internal party movement like the Tea Party was, but so long as the GOP establishment is in control of the primary process and the purse strings, I don’t think they’ll allow for another usurper like Trump to appear. New challengers face an uphill battle with fewer resources, support, and name recognition. Perhaps the approach needs to be dependent upon the district. If the GOP allows for a fair primary, great. If not, run independent. If this election and the threat of a third party doesn’t put the fear of God back into the Republicans, they don’t deserve to win.
The after party is a great idea. More as a parody perhaps, but I like it. The worst that could happen is it would be taken as a cheap knock off of the All night party from Marvel Comic’s Howard the Duck back in the 70’s a bit of satire that hasn’t aged well, or maybe that’s just me.
Look how many seats Farage’s party won in the EP. Coming from nothing — collecting all the protest votes.
The almost won seats even in the general despite declaring they don’t want and only engaged to split the labor.
In ’16 Trump won because he looked like not politician. Against the already massive hate.
It’s not Parrot time. Now a true centrist independent could easily win against gop+dnc if it was a snap election helt tomorrow without a campaign. So as Bill says it would be just an engineering problem to arrange an actual win, not a political one. As opposed to clinging to the status quo. Especially out of fear or habit.
Haha. That’s what I thought when I Bill was floating the idea.
That’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Ross Perot split the conservative vote. Had he not done that then there was no way a nationally unknown governor from Arkansas would have won the Presidency. It all went downhill from there. Oh I know, we were heading downhill for decades, spare me all the “gotcha!” bullshit if that’s what you were about to say.
We were sliding downhill, Bill Clinton’s sudden vault to ultimate power greased the slope. That would not have happened if dimwits who can’t count hadn’t encouraged Ross Perot to run then voted for him. He wasn’t going to be President, no significant number of Democrats voted for him, he was just going to make certain that Democrat Bill Clinton won.
That wasn’t Ross Perot’s intention but it was the inevitable result of his action. If you couldn’t see this back then you weren’t looking hard enough.
So learn a lesson from history, for many of you and including me, it’s a lesson from our personal, recollectable memory. No more stupid stuff like this, we have to be smart about things now or we’re screwed. We don’t need a new party, we need to take what belongs to us back again and make it ours. Maybe if we can do that I’ll start calling myself a “Republican” again, a label I have shunned for several decades now. It would be nice to see the Republican Party stand up for what it claims to represent before I die.
But what’s the lesson here? That you can’t ever get rid of Mitch and company because that would temporarily help the dems? And you must settle for the “lesser” evil that looks more like equal in the name of not allowing the other color? And never play the LONG game due to known short term setbacks?
Yeah, splitting a party means the coalition on the other side will win, till the split completes with the new fraction getting ahead. That takes its course. But shouldn’t you decide if you’re for the principles or just for the raw power as the leftists?
I never said any of that. I said splitting the CONSERVATIVE VOTE will result in defeat on a long term basis. It’s not about “principles instead of raw power” it’s about math. Full stop.
Ignoring the reality of math is not a conservative trait, wishing the world you want to believe exists is a Leftist trait.
America has had a two party system for so long not because of ennui, or habit, or indifference. We’ve had a two party system because of necessity. Prior to the founding of the Republican Party there were multiple parties*. This is the evolution of our system and indicative of the differences between the two most basic ideologies.
I don’t like Turtle-Head Mitch any more than you do. I didn’t vote for him, his constituency did. If you don’t want people like Mitch in power then get involved in getting people to replace people like him WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO CAN WIN.
Splitting the conservative vote will not accomplish that. There is no reason to think nor any evidence indicating success of this idea that “the split will complete with the other faction getting ahead”. When might that happen, in time to save the Republic? Not even close, if it ever does.
In fact, just the opposite at this point in our history. The Democrats are already trying to consolidate their grip on government to preclude ANY OTHER PARTY from ever gaining power again. This would most especially include a nascent conservative party. Splitting the conservative vote is a sure fire way to aid them in their goals. They would love to see the Republican Party fragment at this time more than ever. Why would anyone think giving them what they want is a good idea?
People said exactly the same things you’re saying about Ross Perot. We know how this story ends.
The best solution I can see that has any historical support for being effective is a party-within-a-party scenario like we had with the Tea Party. There was no formalized “Tea Party”, the people who called themselves that voted almost solely Republican and in doing so they changed the course of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has serious problems and it needs to be steered back on course. It can be steered and the Tea Party proved it. If that’s what you really want, that’s what gets you there.
As you can see by the headline above, Trump understands that splitting the vote would be catastrophic and condemns the idea outright. He’s a smart guy, smart enough to read the handwriting on the wall.
This who concept of splitting off into another party is a “Crazy Eddie”** idea. It sounds good to some people but it’s an act of base desperation. This is the kind of “trying something new” that Leftists are for. I’m not a Leftist, I’m a Conservative and the best way forward is to keep what works and improve what does not. Scrapping the whole thing is far, far too likely to result in disaster.
*(And there still are ore than just the two parties. If you want to see what good that does look at the results of the last election. Fewer right-of-center parties and most of the members thereof may have changed the outcome if combined into a Republican vote. In fact, many Libertarians have switched over to voting for a Republican because while the Republicans may not check every box in their ideology, the Democrats don’t check a single one. That could only help, not hurt if you think Trump getting a second term is a good thing and I do.)
**(See the Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle novel “The Mote in Gods Eye” for an understanding of the Crazy Eddie principle.)
Hm, “math” seems like inserting “science” last year in all kinds of justifications. Most of them directly contradicting any actual science. And for this case you can paint a formula on a current ad-hoc poll made on the thin air, but beyond that all conclusions are moot. Banging it louder will not change a thing.
It’s obvious that the setup pushes toward a 2-party system, but says nothing about what 2 parties. What is the percentage of potential voters who are all-in for any of the 2 parties? And agree with everything they do? As opposed to voting them as a smal or big compromise, or even just to keep the other party away? A third? Half? Two thirds? I;d expect a huge number even if we just look at actual voters instead of potential ones. With that assuming figures like 46% sure democrat vote not even looking what is also on offer is IMHO plain stupid. But at the least looks for a solid explanation. To even get on the table.
Also, even the term “conservative vote” is enough to call foul. WTH is “conservative” these days? When all the other political terms shifted all around and many mean the former opposite? (including “liberal” and even “democrat”). Post election we had a nice room full of people, Dave Rubin — he never identified as conservative, then we had Bill and the whole DW crew. Those supposedly all are, but I observed massive difference. And “democrat vote” camp also includes both bernie-bros and biden thugs and blm terrorists and ex-republican TDS guys. And a lot more.
As I see a vast majority of cast votes are protest and contra votes. And if so, the exactly the holding GOP as is creates the big number in the other camp.
Dems/swamp working on fixing their power is what they do. Regardless what else is happening. And if the split is so good for them why you also think they would go against it? Can we invoke LOGIC too besides the math?
I’m looking at US from the outside, from here P never looked anything but a clown and without any hope to win. And I do recall my thoughts from 1992 marking USA engaged on the slope breaking through with the stupidity. As Bush IMW was a good choice (unlike his debil son later), and taking the sour pill with driving against his readmylips slogan should have been a strong PRO point. While Clinton looked exactly as BS as he turned out. But it was no ways surprising. And blaming that on parrot is again only good to not learn the basics of “democracy”. And the effect of propaganda/brainwashing. That did not start this year, but goes on for at least 3-4 decades, and some older guys project it back to older times outside my view.
And while at P, did he have 24% on total voters? And more that of GOP by a fair margin? My recollection is not really.
Mote is a great book, but invoking it is nothing but name-calling to replace actual arguments for your point. That could use actual support from either the past or accepted models.
In other replies I also pointed out that we just tried the suggested method of running the outsider within the established GOP. Exactly following what Bangino suggests. Spent 4 years of Trump doing twitter-warrioring because his supposed party was all against him. And finally did him in.
Some say the definition of crazy is repeating the same and expecting different results. And you appear to bang for that in this case.
You seem to like the word “bang” an awful lot.
“Hm, “math” seems like inserting “science” last year in all kinds of justifications …”
Um, no. Sorry. Math is just math. One plus one always equals two. If I hold up four fingers it doesn’t really matter if Big Brother says there are five fingers held up. During a trial Abraham Lincoln reportedly asked a witness “How many legs does a cow have?”. The witness replied “Four’. Abe then asked “If we count the tail as a leg how many legs does a cow have?” The witness replied “Five”. Abe then stated that “A cow has four legs no matter what we call its tail.” This is a perfect demonstration of the absolute value of math.
You equating actual mathematics with dubious politicized “science” does not change a thing. That’s a form of sophistry. Math IS logic, not reasoning, not sophistry, not opinion, logic.
“I;d expect a huge number even if we just look at actual voters instead of potential ones. With that assuming figures like 46% sure democrat vote not even looking what is also on offer is IMHO plain stupid.(SIC)”
Provide some facts and figures and we’ll both do the math together. I’m not aware that there are any useful facts or figures which makes this simply your opinion. Which is null for the purposes of this discussion. Perhaps this is why you think math and “science” seem similar?
Or are you talking about that ridiculous, single ad hoc survey that means nearly nothing mathematically or statistically? (Note, statistics are not simple math, they are the massaging and manipulation of math and often fall under the same suspicion as the “science” you previously mentioned)
It’s pretty simple math to deduce that if more people leave the Republican Party than Democrats for the “new” party, the side of the populace that votes for conservative prinicipals will lose. I have seen zero evidence to expect that not to be the case and again in the one instance in living memory where we saw that happen the results are obvious.
Likewise, “Conservative” means conservative. I’m using the dictionary definition and do not acknowledge your or anyone else’s redefinition of the word. If you’re going to redefine common words to suit our own narrative then this whole communications thing is futile and that is something the Left does with disturbing regularity. Post-modern Neo-Marsist Leftism uses this tactic to its advantage in order to avoid real communication.
“Some say the definition of crazy is repeating the same and expecting different results.”
Yes, that is a very good description of the Ross Perot catastrophic third major party experiment that put Bill Clinton into office. Thanks for bringing that up.
Start a third party and once the damage is done by splitting the vote, it’s done for good and all. There’s as of now no reason to believe that sufficient numbers of either party are going to jump ship to allow any hope for success. Things are already bad enough and throwing gasoline on the fire is in fact not calling names, it is a perfect example of the Crazy Eddie principle.
I’m sorry, I would really like to continue this discussion with you but I can’t decipher much of what you said. Most of what you wrote between the citations I posted falls into that category. You’ll notice I strive for clarity and as correct as I’m able to be on grammar and syntax. I avoid abbreviations without first spelling them out so that there’s no confusion.
I’m not criticizing your writing and I’m not claiming mine is perfect. I’m saying that I’m not completely clear on a lot of what you meant going by what you wrote It’s a waste of my time to proceed from confusion just to find out what I thought you said was not in fact what you meant. If you’d care to edit the above for clarity I’ll be happy to continue. Else I’m afraid that won’t be possible.
I want to be sure I understand what you mean because the way you said a lot of what you did makes me think you’re using a very convoluted, unsupportable thought process to arrive at your conclusions. I don’t want to say more until I understand better what you’re getting at.
You said you’re “looking at the US from outside” so I’m going to check your profile to see if you’re telling people where “outside” is. If you’re going to involve yourself in American politics that’s fine and I’m happy to see you pay for a BillWhittle.com membership but … Turnabout is fair play and I’d like to know where you are and what the politics of your own country are. I’m not saying you’re doing this but America has no need of broken-down retreaded foreign idea reruns that have brought disaster to other nations — Which citizens of those nations now think we need to implement because like communism “no one has gotten it right yet”.
https://www.onelook.com/?loc=lemma&w=conservative
considering we have at least 20 popular dictionaries and most run 3-5-or more definitions, most of them way to dense to work with.
Claiming THE dictionary definition only adds to confusion. Care to pick one specific that matches your liking?
And the math example was in the references, for better progress I quoted it in the other post.
And yeah, my English sucks, it’s not my native tongue. Sometimes it is hard to understand, other times it may even mean completely different things than I think. Sorry for that, but that will not change overnight. If there is interest in conversation it usually sorts itself out over rounds. But to clear up I first have to know the point where we lost the sync.
The outside is middle-EU, so ’92 stuff got here through many distorting filters of the media, not even internet at the time. So my picture my impression may be very different from those living it in the inside. But I checked a few facts, and the bottom line still works out.
And as stated before comparing an independent, partyless candidate for the president only is a poor comparision to actual party that pomises actual legislation for a change — and possibly something in the executive.
I think that’s throwing out the baby with the bath water. There’s no reason to start from scratch when the better result could be obtained rapidly and cheaply by fixing what’s broken. Which is clearly what the Tea Party was all about and we know historically that worked to accomplish change in the Republican Party.
I’m not a Republican, by-the-way. I haven’t called myself a Republican for decades. I have no particular loyalty nor fondness for the Republican Party. If I thought what you and others are suggesting regarding a new party would work I’d be all for it. I’m certain it won’t.
I voted in the 1992 election and remember it well. Where the statistics you’re citing for 1992 fall down is there was NO“Ross Perot Party” for the voting public to vote for in the Congressional Elections. There was no third party choice in a party led by Ross Perot. Those votes were cast for the Republican Party. IN fact it could easily be argued that because of enthusiasm for Ross Perot more people turned out and voted the Republicans up in the down ballot. The Ross Perot scenario only applied to the office of the President. Which means that we can extrapolate the same result as happened with the office of President all down the entire ballot. The reasoning that Perot didn’t hurt the down ballot is flawed thereby.
I’m getting more and more confused with your examples. Yeah, the Tea party story shows how that idea folds out when applied in real life.
Unless your statement is that it actually fixed GOP and the current state is fine. In that case your position becomes clear, but puts us in a violent disagreement…
And the numbers again: cl: 44,909,889 b: 39,104,550 p: 19,743,821
congress D: 48,654,189 R:43,812,063
The net is from the 20M pool both parties got the same +4M and the other 12M went nowhere.
(yeah, I’m aware of the simplification, the electoral college, etc, for the general reasonong the popular numbers should be good enough, and it’s actual cast vote data, superior to any sampled poll.)
The numbers supporting the split arguments would look like D:45 R: 58. How near we are?
“Unless your statement is that it actually fixed GOP and the current state is fine. In that case your position becomes clear, but puts us in a violent disagreement.”
I never said any such thing. Kindly avoid putting words in my mouth. That’s not an honest way to discuss anything. You get one more chance because you’ve done that before. Then we’re done talking to each other because that’s a thing called a “Straw Man Argument”. If you don’t know what that is, look it up. I won’t tolerate that kind of nonsense. It’s not only crafty and underhanded, it’s insulting.
I merely used the Tea Party as an example of a mechanism historically proven to be a successful agent of change for improvement. I have never taken the position that all the improvement that was needed had been accomplished.
I said I’m not even a Republican and have not called myself such for decades. Clearly that would not be the case if I thought the Republican Party was completely “fixed” so you have no reason to assume such a ridiculous thing.
I do not believe it is possible for “the current state to be fine” under any circumstances. In politics the best you can hope for is that close enough will be good enough. There is no Utopia, there is no path to Utopia, there is no Utopia to be had by creating a new party. Utopian ideas are guile and nothing more.
As for dictionary definitions, here in America we generally consider Merriam-Webster to be canonical. The Brits see the Oxford Dictionary in the same way for their part.
In Merriam Webster, “Conservatism” is defined thus — “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)”
The Oxford Dictionary’s definition of conservatism is so close to that any difference is inconsequential.
Quibbling about dictionaries is petty and the mark of a sophist. You can stop doing that too and thank you very much. You appear to be a subscriber to the Post-Modern idea that everyone can have or choose any definition that suits them, that all opinions are equally valid and that if you place merit in a thing then it automatically has merit. I am not a Post-Modernist and do not subscribe to Post-Modernism in any fashion. Post-Modernism is a false worldview and thereby destructive.
I have no idea what those abbreviations in your figures mean. I get the “D” and “R” but the rest is opaque to me. I have no clue and do not care to guess what “cl, “b” and “p”mean. If you can’t bother to make yourself clear I can’t be bothered to discuss things with you.
I think that the problem we’re having is more than EaaSL. (That’s pronounced “easel” like the thing you put a painting on as you create your masterpiece. It means English as a Second Language. At least when I use cryptic abbreviations I do you the courtesy of being clear what I mean by them before I use them further.)
I think that because you have tried Straw Man Arguments on me, because you have quibbled over canonical definitions and because you tried to re-frame things I’ve said to make them into things you’d like me to say. Stop that.
Where in “middle -EU” do you live? You know that I’m an American and that I live in America. I’ve said as much. I can understand someone not wanting to put his real name out here on the internet and I can even understand why someone from certain countries might be circumspect about how they say things. I had a friend who lived in Harare and we had to be very careful what we talked about. If you’re in the EU I doubt you have that particular problem.
It’s unfair for you to stick your nose in the politics of my country while you conceal the very country you live in. That puts me at a disadvantage I’m not willing to accept. If I knew where you’re at it would help me understand you because odds are very good I’ve been there or very near there. I’ve been over 90% of the globe longitudinally. Have you ever been to America?
I’m glad you are a paying member of BillWhittle.com but if you’re not going to be forthcoming about where you are,we’re done talking. I don’t talk to spooks, specters, ghosts, goblins or foreign agents provocateur and you’re starting to sound a lot like the latter. I can see no reason for you to hide what country you live in.
Because …
Even with all the words we’ve exchanged I still have not seen you make one single, solid, sound mathematically logical argument for a break-away third party.
On the other hand we have two historical examples in living memory of the results of doing that. George McGovern did it to the Democrats (splitting the party on ideological lines if not actually starting his own party and losing to Nixon in a landslide) and Ross Perot did it to the Republicans by actually starting what amounted to his own party of one. The result in the 1992 election was Clinton winning by taking 370 electoral votes to George H.W. Bush’s 168. Clearly it spells disaster for the party that it happens to and no specious statistics carefully manipulated out of context are going to change that fact.
A third party that splits the American Conservative Vote is the dumbest political idea in a long time and even President Trump wants nothing to do with the it.
Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. A third party dooms America. Fix the damn Republican Party so I can call myself a Republican again.
21 replies on “Patriot Party? After Party? Trump says NO”
Bongino says some things that make no sense, harping on how third parties always split the votes, but forgetting when the mere existence of the third party causes the party it is replacing to disappear.
That aside, much as it may suck, we really do have a two party system. And it doesn’t matter what the two parties are, just that the division of labor and power breaks down over a majority party and an opposition party. A third party will not succeed until such time as it completely supplants one of the established parties. Until then, it’s Ross Perot or John Anderson.
I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t like it when people tell me what I can and can’t do.
If it’s time for a new party then perhaps we should do it. I know I’m never voting Republican again unless we throw out every single one of them and start over, but the party has been tarnished (IMO) for years & actions since the election have been “icing on a shitty tasting cake”.
Unrecoverable? I don’t know.
If they were my employees (which they are), I’d replace every single one of them with independents or 3rd parties. Both houses. I’d do that at the state level too, especially in the far left hell holes with Napoleonic governors, mayors and city councils.
I might make an exception IF they had a Constitutional voting record AND did the right thing over the last 4 or so years.
Sorry for the rant.
Nice rant. And indeed it’s ridiculous idea that the 2nd most popular block is not supposed to create a party just because the 3rd most popular block will be too selfish down the road to cling on a fraction of voters.
They certainly can do that, but in normal circumstances at most one time. And in any case, election coalition and nominations start way ahead and can be handled once we got there. Till then should do what is the most reasonable.
If you guys don’t think a DJT party, along with a robust overhaul of the whole system like Bill W is brainstorming, along with a robust conservative media and pop culture, can win – WTF? Are you throwing in the towel already?
I think it’s going to be a matter of focusing efforts in key areas, since resources are going to be extremely limited. If Bill is so sure that he can even win over Democrat areas, those would be the ideal targets. Namely the districts that were responsible for this mess in the first place. The secondary targets would be Republican districts that stabbed Trump in the back. It’s also going to require getting people into the right positions on a local level that will implement the election rules properly. I keep mentioning Robert Barnes because he’s actually working to put out information on how to do that.
Good points. I would drill deeper on this “grass roots” idea, and campaign against the idiots who voted for Biden and enabled this shit storm. We all have to stop worrying about “relationships” and “feelings” and social circles and doxxing and all of it.
The true ROOT of grass roots is your friends and neighbors. I have turned against all of them, and will never forgive them for what they have done. This is UNACCEPTABLE and could literally get us killed!
I have disowned my goddaughter, who we practically raised and love very much. That one is a long story. I still have friends and family who I love and who voted for Biden, and I am trying to save those relationships for my wife’s sake. I have made it clear to all of them that we can stay close if NO POLITICS is allowed between us. If/when they slip up, I remind them. If/when they just can’;t stop their BLM / Harris Biden / Covid / Climate Change bullshit, they are dead to me. Forever.
This is a SERIOUS problem and we need to take it seriously AF
Yep, Bangino can’t think more than a day ahead. But the point is out there, Bill eventually have to address that part. He did in part in fragments. There iare times when you “advandce to the rear”. We know generals who can’t stand losing a single battle tend to lose the war bigtime.
Also he’s really inconsistent too. “Just get a quality candidate like DT.” The what? Did he sleep over the last year? We just tried that. And saw what happens: the GOP arranges the coup. (Never mind the part he also missed that the same GOP will prevent it happening again too.)
I wouldn’t be opposed to an internal party movement like the Tea Party was, but so long as the GOP establishment is in control of the primary process and the purse strings, I don’t think they’ll allow for another usurper like Trump to appear. New challengers face an uphill battle with fewer resources, support, and name recognition. Perhaps the approach needs to be dependent upon the district. If the GOP allows for a fair primary, great. If not, run independent. If this election and the threat of a third party doesn’t put the fear of God back into the Republicans, they don’t deserve to win.
The after party is a great idea. More as a parody perhaps, but I like it. The worst that could happen is it would be taken as a cheap knock off of the All night party from Marvel Comic’s Howard the Duck back in the 70’s a bit of satire that hasn’t aged well, or maybe that’s just me.
Look how many seats Farage’s party won in the EP. Coming from nothing — collecting all the protest votes.
The almost won seats even in the general despite declaring they don’t want and only engaged to split the labor.
In ’16 Trump won because he looked like not politician. Against the already massive hate.
It’s not Parrot time. Now a true centrist independent could easily win against gop+dnc if it was a snap election helt tomorrow without a campaign. So as Bill says it would be just an engineering problem to arrange an actual win, not a political one. As opposed to clinging to the status quo. Especially out of fear or habit.
Haha. That’s what I thought when I Bill was floating the idea.
That’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Ross Perot split the conservative vote. Had he not done that then there was no way a nationally unknown governor from Arkansas would have won the Presidency. It all went downhill from there. Oh I know, we were heading downhill for decades, spare me all the “gotcha!” bullshit if that’s what you were about to say.
We were sliding downhill, Bill Clinton’s sudden vault to ultimate power greased the slope. That would not have happened if dimwits who can’t count hadn’t encouraged Ross Perot to run then voted for him. He wasn’t going to be President, no significant number of Democrats voted for him, he was just going to make certain that Democrat Bill Clinton won.
That wasn’t Ross Perot’s intention but it was the inevitable result of his action. If you couldn’t see this back then you weren’t looking hard enough.
So learn a lesson from history, for many of you and including me, it’s a lesson from our personal, recollectable memory. No more stupid stuff like this, we have to be smart about things now or we’re screwed. We don’t need a new party, we need to take what belongs to us back again and make it ours. Maybe if we can do that I’ll start calling myself a “Republican” again, a label I have shunned for several decades now. It would be nice to see the Republican Party stand up for what it claims to represent before I die.
But what’s the lesson here? That you can’t ever get rid of Mitch and company because that would temporarily help the dems? And you must settle for the “lesser” evil that looks more like equal in the name of not allowing the other color? And never play the LONG game due to known short term setbacks?
Yeah, splitting a party means the coalition on the other side will win, till the split completes with the new fraction getting ahead. That takes its course. But shouldn’t you decide if you’re for the principles or just for the raw power as the leftists?
I never said any of that. I said splitting the CONSERVATIVE VOTE will result in defeat on a long term basis. It’s not about “principles instead of raw power” it’s about math. Full stop.
Ignoring the reality of math is not a conservative trait, wishing the world you want to believe exists is a Leftist trait.
America has had a two party system for so long not because of ennui, or habit, or indifference. We’ve had a two party system because of necessity. Prior to the founding of the Republican Party there were multiple parties*. This is the evolution of our system and indicative of the differences between the two most basic ideologies.
I don’t like Turtle-Head Mitch any more than you do. I didn’t vote for him, his constituency did. If you don’t want people like Mitch in power then get involved in getting people to replace people like him WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO CAN WIN.
Splitting the conservative vote will not accomplish that. There is no reason to think nor any evidence indicating success of this idea that “the split will complete with the other faction getting ahead”. When might that happen, in time to save the Republic? Not even close, if it ever does.
In fact, just the opposite at this point in our history. The Democrats are already trying to consolidate their grip on government to preclude ANY OTHER PARTY from ever gaining power again. This would most especially include a nascent conservative party. Splitting the conservative vote is a sure fire way to aid them in their goals. They would love to see the Republican Party fragment at this time more than ever. Why would anyone think giving them what they want is a good idea?
People said exactly the same things you’re saying about Ross Perot. We know how this story ends.
The best solution I can see that has any historical support for being effective is a party-within-a-party scenario like we had with the Tea Party. There was no formalized “Tea Party”, the people who called themselves that voted almost solely Republican and in doing so they changed the course of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has serious problems and it needs to be steered back on course. It can be steered and the Tea Party proved it. If that’s what you really want, that’s what gets you there.
As you can see by the headline above, Trump understands that splitting the vote would be catastrophic and condemns the idea outright. He’s a smart guy, smart enough to read the handwriting on the wall.
This who concept of splitting off into another party is a “Crazy Eddie”** idea. It sounds good to some people but it’s an act of base desperation. This is the kind of “trying something new” that Leftists are for. I’m not a Leftist, I’m a Conservative and the best way forward is to keep what works and improve what does not. Scrapping the whole thing is far, far too likely to result in disaster.
*(And there still are ore than just the two parties. If you want to see what good that does look at the results of the last election. Fewer right-of-center parties and most of the members thereof may have changed the outcome if combined into a Republican vote. In fact, many Libertarians have switched over to voting for a Republican because while the Republicans may not check every box in their ideology, the Democrats don’t check a single one. That could only help, not hurt if you think Trump getting a second term is a good thing and I do.)
**(See the Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle novel “The Mote in Gods Eye” for an understanding of the Crazy Eddie principle.)
Hm, “math” seems like inserting “science” last year in all kinds of justifications. Most of them directly contradicting any actual science. And for this case you can paint a formula on a current ad-hoc poll made on the thin air, but beyond that all conclusions are moot. Banging it louder will not change a thing.
It’s obvious that the setup pushes toward a 2-party system, but says nothing about what 2 parties. What is the percentage of potential voters who are all-in for any of the 2 parties? And agree with everything they do? As opposed to voting them as a smal or big compromise, or even just to keep the other party away? A third? Half? Two thirds? I;d expect a huge number even if we just look at actual voters instead of potential ones. With that assuming figures like 46% sure democrat vote not even looking what is also on offer is IMHO plain stupid. But at the least looks for a solid explanation. To even get on the table.
Also, even the term “conservative vote” is enough to call foul. WTH is “conservative” these days? When all the other political terms shifted all around and many mean the former opposite? (including “liberal” and even “democrat”). Post election we had a nice room full of people, Dave Rubin — he never identified as conservative, then we had Bill and the whole DW crew. Those supposedly all are, but I observed massive difference. And “democrat vote” camp also includes both bernie-bros and biden thugs and blm terrorists and ex-republican TDS guys. And a lot more.
As I see a vast majority of cast votes are protest and contra votes. And if so, the exactly the holding GOP as is creates the big number in the other camp.
Dems/swamp working on fixing their power is what they do. Regardless what else is happening. And if the split is so good for them why you also think they would go against it? Can we invoke LOGIC too besides the math?
I’m looking at US from the outside, from here P never looked anything but a clown and without any hope to win. And I do recall my thoughts from 1992 marking USA engaged on the slope breaking through with the stupidity. As Bush IMW was a good choice (unlike his debil son later), and taking the sour pill with driving against his readmylips slogan should have been a strong PRO point. While Clinton looked exactly as BS as he turned out. But it was no ways surprising. And blaming that on parrot is again only good to not learn the basics of “democracy”. And the effect of propaganda/brainwashing. That did not start this year, but goes on for at least 3-4 decades, and some older guys project it back to older times outside my view.
And while at P, did he have 24% on total voters? And more that of GOP by a fair margin? My recollection is not really.
Mote is a great book, but invoking it is nothing but name-calling to replace actual arguments for your point. That could use actual support from either the past or accepted models.
In other replies I also pointed out that we just tried the suggested method of running the outsider within the established GOP. Exactly following what Bangino suggests. Spent 4 years of Trump doing twitter-warrioring because his supposed party was all against him. And finally did him in.
Some say the definition of crazy is repeating the same and expecting different results. And you appear to bang for that in this case.
You seem to like the word “bang” an awful lot.
“Hm, “math” seems like inserting “science” last year in all kinds of justifications …”
Um, no. Sorry. Math is just math. One plus one always equals two. If I hold up four fingers it doesn’t really matter if Big Brother says there are five fingers held up. During a trial Abraham Lincoln reportedly asked a witness “How many legs does a cow have?”. The witness replied “Four’. Abe then asked “If we count the tail as a leg how many legs does a cow have?” The witness replied “Five”. Abe then stated that “A cow has four legs no matter what we call its tail.” This is a perfect demonstration of the absolute value of math.
You equating actual mathematics with dubious politicized “science” does not change a thing. That’s a form of sophistry. Math IS logic, not reasoning, not sophistry, not opinion, logic.
“I;d expect a huge number even if we just look at actual voters instead of potential ones. With that assuming figures like 46% sure democrat vote not even looking what is also on offer is IMHO plain stupid.(SIC)”
Provide some facts and figures and we’ll both do the math together. I’m not aware that there are any useful facts or figures which makes this simply your opinion. Which is null for the purposes of this discussion. Perhaps this is why you think math and “science” seem similar?
Or are you talking about that ridiculous, single ad hoc survey that means nearly nothing mathematically or statistically? (Note, statistics are not simple math, they are the massaging and manipulation of math and often fall under the same suspicion as the “science” you previously mentioned)
It’s pretty simple math to deduce that if more people leave the Republican Party than Democrats for the “new” party, the side of the populace that votes for conservative prinicipals will lose. I have seen zero evidence to expect that not to be the case and again in the one instance in living memory where we saw that happen the results are obvious.
Likewise, “Conservative” means conservative. I’m using the dictionary definition and do not acknowledge your or anyone else’s redefinition of the word. If you’re going to redefine common words to suit our own narrative then this whole communications thing is futile and that is something the Left does with disturbing regularity. Post-modern Neo-Marsist Leftism uses this tactic to its advantage in order to avoid real communication.
“Some say the definition of crazy is repeating the same and expecting different results.”
Yes, that is a very good description of the Ross Perot catastrophic third major party experiment that put Bill Clinton into office. Thanks for bringing that up.
Start a third party and once the damage is done by splitting the vote, it’s done for good and all. There’s as of now no reason to believe that sufficient numbers of either party are going to jump ship to allow any hope for success. Things are already bad enough and throwing gasoline on the fire is in fact not calling names, it is a perfect example of the Crazy Eddie principle.
I’m sorry, I would really like to continue this discussion with you but I can’t decipher much of what you said. Most of what you wrote between the citations I posted falls into that category. You’ll notice I strive for clarity and as correct as I’m able to be on grammar and syntax. I avoid abbreviations without first spelling them out so that there’s no confusion.
I’m not criticizing your writing and I’m not claiming mine is perfect. I’m saying that I’m not completely clear on a lot of what you meant going by what you wrote It’s a waste of my time to proceed from confusion just to find out what I thought you said was not in fact what you meant. If you’d care to edit the above for clarity I’ll be happy to continue. Else I’m afraid that won’t be possible.
I want to be sure I understand what you mean because the way you said a lot of what you did makes me think you’re using a very convoluted, unsupportable thought process to arrive at your conclusions. I don’t want to say more until I understand better what you’re getting at.
You said you’re “looking at the US from outside” so I’m going to check your profile to see if you’re telling people where “outside” is. If you’re going to involve yourself in American politics that’s fine and I’m happy to see you pay for a BillWhittle.com membership but … Turnabout is fair play and I’d like to know where you are and what the politics of your own country are. I’m not saying you’re doing this but America has no need of broken-down retreaded foreign idea reruns that have brought disaster to other nations — Which citizens of those nations now think we need to implement because like communism “no one has gotten it right yet”.
https://www.onelook.com/?loc=lemma&w=conservative
considering we have at least 20 popular dictionaries and most run 3-5-or more definitions, most of them way to dense to work with.
Claiming THE dictionary definition only adds to confusion. Care to pick one specific that matches your liking?
And the math example was in the references, for better progress I quoted it in the other post.
And yeah, my English sucks, it’s not my native tongue. Sometimes it is hard to understand, other times it may even mean completely different things than I think. Sorry for that, but that will not change overnight. If there is interest in conversation it usually sorts itself out over rounds. But to clear up I first have to know the point where we lost the sync.
The outside is middle-EU, so ’92 stuff got here through many distorting filters of the media, not even internet at the time. So my picture my impression may be very different from those living it in the inside. But I checked a few facts, and the bottom line still works out.
Back to 1992: is this the correct data on the house election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections ?
If so it shows a pretty nice picture on the “conservative vote” and its supposed split. Look how that compares to the presidential vote.
And as stated before comparing an independent, partyless candidate for the president only is a poor comparision to actual party that pomises actual legislation for a change — and possibly something in the executive.
I think that’s throwing out the baby with the bath water. There’s no reason to start from scratch when the better result could be obtained rapidly and cheaply by fixing what’s broken. Which is clearly what the Tea Party was all about and we know historically that worked to accomplish change in the Republican Party.
I’m not a Republican, by-the-way. I haven’t called myself a Republican for decades. I have no particular loyalty nor fondness for the Republican Party. If I thought what you and others are suggesting regarding a new party would work I’d be all for it. I’m certain it won’t.
I voted in the 1992 election and remember it well. Where the statistics you’re citing for 1992 fall down is there was NO “Ross Perot Party” for the voting public to vote for in the Congressional Elections. There was no third party choice in a party led by Ross Perot. Those votes were cast for the Republican Party. IN fact it could easily be argued that because of enthusiasm for Ross Perot more people turned out and voted the Republicans up in the down ballot. The Ross Perot scenario only applied to the office of the President. Which means that we can extrapolate the same result as happened with the office of President all down the entire ballot. The reasoning that Perot didn’t hurt the down ballot is flawed thereby.
I’m getting more and more confused with your examples. Yeah, the Tea party story shows how that idea folds out when applied in real life.
Unless your statement is that it actually fixed GOP and the current state is fine. In that case your position becomes clear, but puts us in a violent disagreement…
And the numbers again:
cl: 44,909,889 b: 39,104,550 p: 19,743,821
congress D: 48,654,189 R:43,812,063
The net is from the 20M pool both parties got the same +4M and the other 12M went nowhere.
(yeah, I’m aware of the simplification, the electoral college, etc, for the general reasonong the popular numbers should be good enough, and it’s actual cast vote data, superior to any sampled poll.)
The numbers supporting the split arguments would look like D:45 R: 58. How near we are?
“Unless your statement is that it actually fixed GOP and the current state is fine. In that case your position becomes clear, but puts us in a violent disagreement.”
I never said any such thing. Kindly avoid putting words in my mouth. That’s not an honest way to discuss anything. You get one more chance because you’ve done that before. Then we’re done talking to each other because that’s a thing called a “Straw Man Argument”. If you don’t know what that is, look it up. I won’t tolerate that kind of nonsense. It’s not only crafty and underhanded, it’s insulting.
I merely used the Tea Party as an example of a mechanism historically proven to be a successful agent of change for improvement. I have never taken the position that all the improvement that was needed had been accomplished.
I said I’m not even a Republican and have not called myself such for decades. Clearly that would not be the case if I thought the Republican Party was completely “fixed” so you have no reason to assume such a ridiculous thing.
I do not believe it is possible for “the current state to be fine” under any circumstances. In politics the best you can hope for is that close enough will be good enough. There is no Utopia, there is no path to Utopia, there is no Utopia to be had by creating a new party. Utopian ideas are guile and nothing more.
As for dictionary definitions, here in America we generally consider Merriam-Webster to be canonical. The Brits see the Oxford Dictionary in the same way for their part.
In Merriam Webster, “Conservatism” is defined thus — “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)”
The Oxford Dictionary’s definition of conservatism is so close to that any difference is inconsequential.
Quibbling about dictionaries is petty and the mark of a sophist. You can stop doing that too and thank you very much. You appear to be a subscriber to the Post-Modern idea that everyone can have or choose any definition that suits them, that all opinions are equally valid and that if you place merit in a thing then it automatically has merit. I am not a Post-Modernist and do not subscribe to Post-Modernism in any fashion. Post-Modernism is a false worldview and thereby destructive.
I have no idea what those abbreviations in your figures mean. I get the “D” and “R” but the rest is opaque to me. I have no clue and do not care to guess what “cl, “b” and “p”mean. If you can’t bother to make yourself clear I can’t be bothered to discuss things with you.
I think that the problem we’re having is more than EaaSL. (That’s pronounced “easel” like the thing you put a painting on as you create your masterpiece. It means English as a Second Language. At least when I use cryptic abbreviations I do you the courtesy of being clear what I mean by them before I use them further.)
I think that because you have tried Straw Man Arguments on me, because you have quibbled over canonical definitions and because you tried to re-frame things I’ve said to make them into things you’d like me to say. Stop that.
Where in “middle -EU” do you live? You know that I’m an American and that I live in America. I’ve said as much. I can understand someone not wanting to put his real name out here on the internet and I can even understand why someone from certain countries might be circumspect about how they say things. I had a friend who lived in Harare and we had to be very careful what we talked about. If you’re in the EU I doubt you have that particular problem.
It’s unfair for you to stick your nose in the politics of my country while you conceal the very country you live in. That puts me at a disadvantage I’m not willing to accept. If I knew where you’re at it would help me understand you because odds are very good I’ve been there or very near there. I’ve been over 90% of the globe longitudinally. Have you ever been to America?
I’m glad you are a paying member of BillWhittle.com but if you’re not going to be forthcoming about where you are,we’re done talking. I don’t talk to spooks, specters, ghosts, goblins or foreign agents provocateur and you’re starting to sound a lot like the latter. I can see no reason for you to hide what country you live in.
Because …
Even with all the words we’ve exchanged I still have not seen you make one single, solid, sound mathematically logical argument for a break-away third party.
On the other hand we have two historical examples in living memory of the results of doing that. George McGovern did it to the Democrats (splitting the party on ideological lines if not actually starting his own party and losing to Nixon in a landslide) and Ross Perot did it to the Republicans by actually starting what amounted to his own party of one. The result in the 1992 election was Clinton winning by taking 370 electoral votes to George H.W. Bush’s 168. Clearly it spells disaster for the party that it happens to and no specious statistics carefully manipulated out of context are going to change that fact.
A third party that splits the American Conservative Vote is the dumbest political idea in a long time and even President Trump wants nothing to do with the it.
Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. A third party dooms America. Fix the damn Republican Party so I can call myself a Republican again.
Bang on that for a while, whatever that means.