why HRC/BO won one for the american people.

the closely contested primary is still going on....  but no matter who wins the democratic nomination, HRC and BO won a victory for the american people.  what this contest has exposed is a gap in the democratic ideology, which ironically arose from the differences in the candidates' supporters rather than in policy differences between the two. the result - bringing the US one step closer to the inception of a 3-party system.  

let me begin by stating why i think this is a good thing and a victory for the american people.  back in 2004 i was in california discussing the upcoming election with some family who were really psyched to get bushy out of office.  however what they expressed was a lack of enthusiasm for john kerry - 'what we need' - they said - 'is another party.'  at the time, i thought this was crazy talk seeing as how nader, a third party candidate pretty well helped gore lose in 2000, but then it occurred to me - i, as a canadian have a choice of 3 parties - shouldn't they?  

in canada, we have a similar parliamentary system to the UK - and have several parties (as does the US) but the majority of seats in the legislature are held by 3 parties:

conservatives (formerly the progressive conservative) right to centrist
liberals - centrist to liberal
new democrat party (ndp) extreme left

in practice, the position of prime minister goes to the leader of the political party that has the most seats in the house of commons. on several occasions in canadian history no party has had a majority in the house and thus one party, usually the largest, forms a minority government. as of now, the conservative government has a minority government and really needs bipartisan support to pass bills.  the canadian governmental system is just as flawed as any (its certainly not as exciting as the US) but is certainly encourages support from across the spectrum.

so... i believe that this primary brought the US closer to the inception of another party being developed.  even though both candidates have very similar positions, through the nomination process and the concerns of voters have pushed HRC and BO to the center and left respectively.  having choice in a 3-party system would immensely benefit the american people and i believe help to push through legislation through forced bipartisanship.  thoughts?



Display:


Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (none / 0)

Eh...not so much. Considering Obama and Clinton are something like 99% the same on all issues, it would be a bit strange to see that as a division warranting a new party.

Obama definitely isn't "extreme left," not even close.


by animated on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:23:21 PM EST

This didn't get us closer to a third party (none / 0)

Differences in ideology within the party do not mean an additional political party is necessary, and the result of this primary will be much larger (thanks to amazing GOTV efforts by both Clinton and Obama) Democratic Party.


by Slim Tyranny on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:23:33 PM EST

Re: This didn't get us closer to a third party (none / 0)

Which, I'm sure, disappoints the GOP.  The right wingers would LOVE three parties, in which the third party is the result of a split in the Democratic Party.

Sadly for them (and thankfully for America), that won't happen.


by Slim Tyranny on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:24:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This didn't get us closer to a third party (none / 0)

i see what you mean - but if a centrist or leftist party was created - wouldnt liberal republicans join?


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:46:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This didn't get us closer to a third party (none / 0)

No, because the Republicans who are most "fractured" from the mainstream GOP are not "liberal" Republicans but fundamentalist Republicans, and they would never join a centrist/leftist party.


by Slim Tyranny on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This didn't get us closer to a third party (2.00 / 1)

If anything, the splintering is on the other side.  

Bob Barr threatens to run, and I still think Ron Paul might do something crazy on the presidential scene.  And McCain still might piss off some fundamentalists (Dobson?) enough to get them into the act as well.


by N in Seattle on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This didn't get us closer to a third party (2.00 / 1)

True, and in the end, all that splintering talk on the other side will almost certainly be just that: talk.  The fundamentalists will get in line, and the GOP will close ranks (because, same as for the Dems, are system is geared towards two parties, and the electoral results are too tightly drawn for two parties, and any splintering would mean success for the other side).  As pissed off as Dobson et al are, NO WAY they give the White House to us liberal heathens in the Democratic Party.


by Slim Tyranny on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:39:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (none / 0)

Five months from now this nomination race won't matter.  It isn't going to change the Democratic Party at all.   Hillary will get in line and campaign for Obama and the Hillary dead enders will be pitied and/or ignored.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:26:10 PM EST

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (2.00 / 1)

i think you might have just proved why this is likely to happen ;)


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:27:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (none / 0)

I think you have just proved why it won't.  

If you are going to refute my point then please try a little harder.  Why is anyone going to remember this nomination process?  Aside from its length there is nothing that makes it special.  There are no policy issues that are driving a wedge between the candidates or their supporters.  Why would enough people be motivated to create a new party based on this race?    


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (2.00 / 1)

you said - "Hillary will get in line and campaign for Obama and the Hillary dead enders will be pitied and/or ignored."

do you not understand why that proves my point?
 


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:40:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (none / 0)

No, I don't.  The dead enders are a very small percentage of Democrats.  The vast majority of Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee.   The dead enders just don't have a big enough population to affect the party like you suggest.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:51:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (none / 0)

with due respect - i think you are incorrect - a large number of BO supporters will not vote for HRC and a HUGE number of HRC supporters will not support BO.  that being said - IMO your language reflect this fissure between the 2 groups.

According to the exit polls, half of Clinton's supporters in Indiana would not vote for Obama in a general election match up with John McCain. A third of Clinton voters said they would pick McCain over Obama, while 17 percent said they would not vote at all. Just 48 percent of Clinton supporters said they would back Obama in November.

Obama gets even less support from Clinton backers in North Carolina. There, only 45 percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for Obama over McCain. Thirty-eight percent said they would vote for McCain while 12 percent said they would not vote.

Obama voters appear to be more willing to support Clinton in November. In Indiana, 59 percent of Obama backers said they'd vote for Clinton, and 70 percent of Obama backers in North Carolina said they'd support the New York Democrat.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/05/06/exit-polls-half-of-clintons-supp orters-wont-back-obama/


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:59:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (none / 0)

People have their blood up right now about the primaries.  I once vowed not to vote for Clinton if she won the nomination, but I changed my mind.  The vast majority of Democrats who vow not to vote for the other candidate in the GE will do the same thing.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (none / 0)

Without a series of constitutional amendments to change our system, this will not happen.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:27:17 PM EST

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (2.00 / 1)

You make a good point. I know Democrats who have become "independents." I hear some republicans have become Democrats. There's definitely change going on.

I've been a registered Democrat all my life but would consider a candidate outside the party if I really thought that he/she could run the country well.


by soyousay on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:28:55 PM EST

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (none / 0)

correction: a registered Democrat throughout my adult life... :D


by soyousay on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:33:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (none / 0)

The two-party system is a persistent feature of political systems characterized by winner-take-all election. Because such systems don't allow for coalition governments in the way parliamentary systems do, small third parties simply act as spoilers, costing whatever ideological side they fall the election, a la Nader in 2000. When third parties have been succesful (i.e., the Republicans in the mid-19th century), it's been by replacing one of the existing parties in the two-party system.


by seand on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:08:13 PM EST

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (none / 0)

Parliamentary systems are fundimentally different; our winner-take-all system would never allow it to work.

I agree that it's too bad, but I don't see a path to changing it.


John McCain
by Mandoliniment on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:16:16 PM EST

Re: why HRC/BO won one for the american people. (none / 0)

I disagree.

A multi-party system is possible under majoritarianism, but it generally leads to domination by two parties, and the two parties vary by region.  

I'm not saying it can't happen, but if the left split into two major parties, it would lead to decades of GOP rule of Congress before a real balance is restored.  


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:22:36 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.