In the US, if one wants big changes, should one run as third party or run as D or R?

[lpetrich]

Here in the US, one wants big political, economic, and social changes, and one wants to run for office to try to implement them, should one run in some third party or should one run as either a Democrat or a Republican?

 

[prideandfall]

well if you run as a D or R you'll be in an existing power system that has no interest in change, and so the structures around you will actively fight against you to prevent you significantly changing anything - both within your own party, and then especially from the opposition party.

if you run as something else, you simply won't win because the system doesn't allow for anything outside the entrenched powers to exist alongside them.

so... neither?

 

[Politesse]

Run for what? The Houses of Congress have very little power, by their own choice and apathetic self-interest. The Executive Branch is not an agent of change. If you want power in the United States, you need to start a talk show, not a political campaign. Or if that is not a possibility, become a teacher, a pastor, or a parent.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Here in the US, one wants big political, economic, and social changes, and one wants to run for office to try to implement them, should one run in some third party or should one run as either a Democrat or a Republican?

Don't run for offices. Get rich and buy them.

 

[SimpleDon]

Here in the US, one wants big political, economic, and social changes, and one wants to run for office to try to implement them, should one run in some third party or should one run as either a Democrat or a Republican?

Magical brownies for me. You are tilting at windmills. It doesn't as much come down to a question of how you run or sound your positions, it is the strength of the opposition that you face, both politically and culturally.

Politically, you have little to no chance. 100% of the Republicans and 50% of the Democrats are fully in the pockets and totally beholden to the corporate, Wall Street, already rich, etc, the neoliberal interests, for domestic policies and the same interests, the neocons, for foreign policies.

Culturally, you are facing convincing a population that has increasingly given over to resist facts and reality itself. This is seen on both the right and the left, but it is the right that solely depends on this disconnect for support. Leaving those few of us in the middle no choice but to support the left while swallowing our objections to their disconnects.

Keith&Co has it right

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here in the US, one wants big political, economic, and social changes, and one wants to run for office to try to implement them, should one run in some third party or should one run as either a Democrat or a Republican?

The flaw is the word I magnified. There are no "big" changes. Look at ACA. It took fucking the Democrat party in 2010 to pass a free market designed insurance exchange program that was about as far from UHC as could be if you just took out the subsidies.

If you want big change, you need to wait for a disaster first because America is reactive no proactive. A country the size of the US is incapable turning on a dime without a massive fire under one's butt. The Space Race, WWII production, stuffed crust pizza.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Aren't Roe v Wade (1973) and gay marriage for all 50 states (2015) counterevidentiary to that? Who saw either one coming, even 2 or 3 years before they came about? There must be other, examples of sea change I'm not thinking of. Brown v. Board of Education was certainly a game-changer in '54 -- completely shocked the South, and wasn't an obvious development in the mid-50s, considering the glacial pace of civil rights progress prior to '61.

 

[SimpleDon]

Here in the US, one wants big political, economic, and social changes, and one wants to run for office to try to implement them, should one run in some third party or should one run as either a Democrat or a Republican?

The flaw is the word I magnified. There are no "big" changes. Look at ACA. It took fucking the Democrat party in 2010 to pass a free market designed insurance exchange program that was about as far from UHC as could be if you just took out the subsidies.

If you want big change, you need to wait for a disaster first because America is reactive no proactive. A country the size of the US is incapable turning on a dime without a massive fire under one's butt. The Space Race, WWII production, stuffed crust pizza.

And the Democrats were punished in the election in 2010 for passing the overly kind to Wall Street ACA as an example of the Democrats' socialism. Wall Street had their cake and ate it too, in the form of their Bush II tax cuts being made permanent as a way of the Obama administration trying to get back in Wall Street's favor for burdening them with an added 35 billion dollars a year in federal largess with the ACA.

 

[prideandfall]

Aren't Roe v Wade (1973) and gay marriage for all 50 states (2015) counterevidentiary to that?

no, because those are both examples of two things: political activism and judiciary decision making - IE the force of will of a group of people sculpting public opinion, and then a small group of individuals getting to unilaterally make a choice about it.
that is very distinctly different from political change instituted by governmental structures.

Who saw either one coming, even 2 or 3 years before they came about? There must be other, examples of sea change I'm not thinking of. Brown v. Board of Education was certainly a game-changer in '54 -- completely shocked the South, and wasn't an obvious development in the mid-50s, considering the glacial pace of civil rights progress prior to '61.

see above.
not a single of these examples were legislative.

 

[SimpleDon]

Aren't Roe v Wade (1973) and gay marriage for all 50 states (2015) counter-evidentiary to that? Who saw either one coming, even 2 or 3 years before they came about? There must be other, examples of sea change I'm not thinking of. Brown v. Board of Education was certainly a game-changer in '54 -- completely shocked the South, and wasn't an obvious development in the mid-50s, considering the glacial pace of civil rights progress prior to '61.

The most pro-corporate branch of the US government is the conservative majority of the Supreme Court of the US. Thomas and Alito have signaled that they believe that they have grounds to reverse the gay marriage ruling because it offends a minority's religion in the US. And of course, the conservative appointments' main aim has always been to reverse Rove v. Wade.

Thanks to all of the progressives who voted for Jill Stein or didn't vote for Hillary because they suffered their normal defeat in the primaries in 2016.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Aren't Roe v Wade (1973) and gay marriage for all 50 states (2015) counterevidentiary to that?

I can't really see either of those as big changes, though.

Like Prohibition. A small group pushed change, but didn't change anyone's feelings. Just where they got their booze.

Way too many people, especially those with legislative power, see both gay rights and abortion as loopholes they keep trying to close. And it is within reach in both cases, much easier than the Amendment to end Prohibition.

 

[lpetrich]

(Oops, wrong thread)

 

[lpetrich]

(Oops, wrong thread)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We still have no idea what to expect. Quin. poll puts Biden up by 11 pts, which seems a bit crazy really, so very possibly an outlier, but even if it was off by 6 or 8 pts, that gives Biden Florida. The GOP may likely lose seats in the House still! They are fucked if those national polls are accurate.

 

[lpetrich]

Oops. I posted my previous two posts in the wrong place. I've moved their content over to my intended thread: US Senate Challengers raise Big Money

 

[RVonse]

Aren't Roe v Wade (1973) and gay marriage for all 50 states (2015) counterevidentiary to that?

no, because those are both examples of two things: political activism and judiciary decision making - IE the force of will of a group of people sculpting public opinion, and then a small group of individuals getting to unilaterally make a choice about it.
that is very distinctly different from political change instituted by governmental structures.

Who saw either one coming, even 2 or 3 years before they came about? There must be other, examples of sea change I'm not thinking of. Brown v. Board of Education was certainly a game-changer in '54 -- completely shocked the South, and wasn't an obvious development in the mid-50s, considering the glacial pace of civil rights progress prior to '61.

see above.
not a single of these examples were legislative.

What about MAD? Mothers against drunk drivers? Those were sweeping law changes.

Come to think of it, women are the answer to this OP. They represent the only block of constituents who can make sweeping change in political policy. They were able to kill alcohol during prohibition, they were able to secure the right to vote, they were (and still are) able to take or give life at will (Roe vs Wade), and they are currently enslaving men with child support who are not biological fathers of their children in family court. That represents a HUGE amount of political pussy power over the last 100 years. What other group of individuals in the US has this kind of political power?

Magical brownies my ass! If you want massive political change in the US all you really need to do is to make sure the women are interested in it and it is guaranteed to happen.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Change only happens within the two big parties. For example, the Tea Party movement. The Reagan revolution. Progressives like AOC working within the Democrats is the only way to accomplish change there. we might see the beginning of that if women voters are responsible for Trump losing and flipping the Senate.

 

[lpetrich]

Back to my original subject, running outside the two major parties can cause problems even if one is elected. One may have trouble getting into committees that one wants, for instance. Not only does the US Congress have lots of committees, but also state legislatures, city councils, and comparable bodies in many other nations. Much or most of one's time will likely be spent in the committees that one is in.

That may be why the two Independents in the US Senate caucus with the Democratic Party. They then act like honorary Democrats. But then again, the Democratic Party benefits for having two more politicians who are willing to vote for what it supports. It's coalition politics, a common feature of nations with more than two parties.


As to running inside the two major parties, it is more possible than what some people seem to think. The days are long over of party bosses picking candidates in smoke-filled rooms, though they may decide whose campaigns they want to fund. In most places, all one needs to enter a primary is to get enough signatures on a ballot petition. Furthermore, the voters in many areas of the US have a strong preference for one party or the other, so if one runs as a member of that party and wins that party's primary, one will also easily win the general election.

That's what makes Brand New Congress especially interesting. It was founded by Bernie Sanders campaigners early in 2016 as BS's Presidential run was winding down. They saw how much trouble Congress was making for President Obama, and they saw in it that a good President was not enough. So they decided to support the election of people to Congress who supported BS's platform. They then founded Brand New Congress, after what they wanted to achieve. It was to have a unified campaign with unified messaging, like a Presidential campaign with 400 heads.

But BNC's founders decided not to create a new party. Instead they decided to run their candidates inside the two major parties, with some candidates as Independents as appropriate. They knew that many people are yellow-dog Democrats and yellow-dog Republicans, and they decided to use that fact to their advantage, rather than doing an uphill fight against people's associations of themselves with the two parties.

This caused some controversy, and in early 2017, a faction of them split off and founded the Justice Democrats, to work in that party.

BNC wanted a candidate for every open seat in Congress: every House seat and 1/3 of the Senate seats, 468 or 469 seats each election year. But BNC was far from successful. It recruited only 30 candidates for the 2018 elections. They were 28 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 1 Independent. Of the Democrats and Republicans, only 9 Democrats won in the primaries, and of these and the Independent, only one candidate won in the general election: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

BNC is doing it again this year, with 46 candidates. Of these, 4 withdrew before their primaries, and 10 won their primaries, including both incumbents, AOC and Rashida Tlaib. Of these, 4 are likely wins in the general election, including the 2 incumbents, 1 is roughly tied, and the other 5 have uphill battles.

JD ran a grand total of 79 candidates in 2018, including 5 governors and 1 lieutenant governor. Of the 73 Congressional candidates, 3 withdrew and 24 won their primaries. Of these, 7 won, including the 3 incumbents. The 4 winners are "The Squad": AOC, RT, Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar.

JD is doing it again this year, but with only 17 candidates. One of them is Bernie Sanders, for President. The other 16 are for Congress. Of these, 12 won their primaries, and of these, 10 are likely wins in the general election, including all 7 incumbents, all the JD-supported winners from 2018. Of the rest, 1 is roughly tied, and 1 is iffy.

 

[skepticalbip]

In the US, if one wants big changes, should one run as third party or run as D or R?

Neither. In the U.S., if one wants big changes, they should start a popular movement among the population to convince and attract enough people to the idea so that elected officials seeking their votes to stay in office will express the popular movement's desires in legislation. The idea of winning office to pass legislation the majority of the public does not support is the tactics of tyrants.

Big changes in the U.S. were made by popular support and demand. Example: The Abolition movement was a popular movement legislators yielded to when it got popular enough. The popular prohibitionist movement resulted in outlawing alcohol then public demand resulted in the ban being repealed.

 

[Politesse]

The Abolition movement was a popular movement legislators yielded to when it got popular enough

I'm.... utterly baffled by this sentence. What account of the 19th century did you read? Literally no part of this sentence is true in any way whatsoever, and indeed it suggests a historical trajectory very nearly opposite to what actually happened. Which, as most Americans know by the time they are seven, was one of the bloodiest civil wars in history up to that point. and ongoing regional tension that moves US politics to this very day.