502
submitted 1 year ago by mwguy@infosec.pub to c/politics@lemmy.world

Story Highlights

  • Third time support has exceeded 60%, along with 2017 and 2021
  • Republicans primarily behind the increase, with 58% now in favor
  • Political independents remain group most likely to favor third party
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 75 points 1 year ago

Now ask those people what the third party's platform should be.

[-] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Not right, not left, but a secret third position

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago

What if we just took all the leftist policies that Republican voters say they love in polls, but just replaced their names with new names that Fox News hasn't had a chance to program their viewers on? Instead of Universal Healthcare, we'll call it the American Bodily Integrity Defense Initiative or patriot care or some shit. No, no, it's not high speed rail, it's the Uncle Sam Express. No, no, it's not universal college, it's the "Beating China By Investing in Education Strategic Defense Initiative". Etc.

[-] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

That might help black folks, so it won't work.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Maybe name it something racist? The Jim Crow Comprehensive Medical Reform Package.

[-] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The humor is definitely appreciated 😂

The political realities unfortunately are that a lot of our systems are not designed as lassiez-faire capitalist ideological manifestations but socialist for a white anglo-saxon colonizer nation (one might say, national-socialist) which often implies delegating the discrimination through proxies like corporate employment or residence in neighborhoods of a certain character.

[-] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Realistically there are 3 major groupings already:

  • Progressives
  • Corporate centrists
  • Unrepentant Nazis
[-] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The problem is the corporate centrists would and often do ally with the Unrepentant Nazis when the owners bribe them both and give them their marching orders on economic policy.

The supposed "voice of sanity" corporate centrists would literally rather have Nazi Germany than universal healthcare or a UBI. It's a better outcome for corporate profitability.

Neoliberals dislike Republicans, but both they and Republicans loathe leftists/progressives. Probably because neoliberals and Republicans have had a quiet agreement since Reagan to bicker on social issues but do what they're bribed to do on economic policy, while progressives understand our current, rigged economic structure to be the root cause of most of our many crises.

Neolibs and Repubs just want to play fight about social wedges while they drink from that unlimited gravy train plugged directly into their PACs. They both consider it their higher duty to undermine any economic extremists trying to legislate a more equitable society. That's the opposite of what the owners that pay any willing federal Democrat or Republican to play ball want.

A quote I think about a lot is one by Susan Sontag, and I think it maps pretty well to what you've laid out (just obviously not in that same order!). "10 percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and 10 percent is merciful, no matter what, and the remaining 80 percent can be moved in either direction.”

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You said "Democrats" twice.

Edit: man, I can't figure out who this pissed off- people who don't know progressives and corporate centrists are in the Democratic party, or Republicans.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure you got downvotes for explaining something obvious...

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's what I get for thinking someone set up a joke and trying to deliver the punchline 😅

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Something that is not "too extreme" - something that strikes a compromise with fascists that want to kill fellow citizens for merely existing (gays, trans, POC, etc.) or disagreeing with them and people that support the Constitution and civil rights and institutional norms. Because that second group is just so extreme.

[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I like the idea of Schrödinger's party. It's either hard left or hard right but, like a mystery prize on a shitty gameshow, you won't find out until after the votes are placed.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Does this country even have any hard left politicians?

[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

There's "that man". Can't think of any others.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

cornel west is running for office now

[-] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

Do people think "third party" literally means one and only one additional party? Or am I getting wooshed

In case anyone does think that... It does not

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How about a data driven platform determined solely by what gets at least 65% majority support in two or more national polls?

Given political preferences tend to fall along a normal distribution curve, rather than drawing a line in the middle and catering to two parties necessarily based by the split toward less popular ends, it would make more sense to focus on two std deviations from the norm and ignore the extremes of each side, leaving it up to national discourse to move the median in one direction or the other and have representatives literally just represent whatever the majority holds.

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Now there are five parties!

this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
502 points (92.7% liked)

politics

19126 readers
3753 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS