Who would lead the Republicans against Obama?
If the Republicans are to rebuild their party, who could lead the party to fight Obama?
Bobby Jindal?
Mitt Romney?
Mike Huckabee?
Maybe not Palin...
I find it ironic that Palin gets more attention and credibility among the pollsters than Jindal... However, Palin is a staunch 2nd amendment rights defender, even as Jindal is a stalwart pro-life warrior.
To build any third party large enough to seriously threaten the established two parties in both Congress and the Office of the President would require the majority of states revising their ballot access laws, which, in a majority of cases, were signed into law as such in order to prevent the rise of third parties. New England is the region most ready to support third parties (Vermont and Maine most notably, with New York State having two state MPs from third parties)
That would (finally!) force the established parties to make their policies better defined should that gambit succeed. With two parties, policy making is watered down to a point where it doesn't matter to the voting public anymore.
There are two or three viable contenders for 2012, as far as I see it:
The Green Party (with Nader as its Presidential nominee)
The Libertarian Party
The Reform Party (with Ventura as its Presidential nominee)
Jesse Ventura is credited as being the last third-party governor (Minnesota) from recent history. He was officially victorious as an Independent but he was technically a Reformist.
I know that the public is usually more willing to go vote in multi-party nations than in two-party nations.
---------------------------------
As far as Jindal is concerned, pollsters (even the ultra-conservative Fox News) do not give him more than 9% in Republican primary polls.
On the other hand, Palin is given victory in two polls pertaining to Republican primaries and Republican nomination for a couple of polls pertaining to the general election. Never Jindal was considered by pollsters outside of Louisiana.
However, if you're speaking of Louisiana... either Palin or Jindal would win the state; we do not know about Huckabee or Romney. Jindal could, at best (if there is no radical change among Republicans) be the running mate of either Romney, Huckabee or Palin.
Third Party. Preferably social democrats to counter the corporatist democrats. Considering their current tactics, there are only four people to lead the Republican Party, J.P. Morgan, Ion Antonescu, Benito Mussolini, and George Lincoln Rockwell. Too bad for the Republicans they're all dead. Maybe Sylvestre Matuschka but he disappeared after escaping from prison and was never found...
Originally posted by Darth JelloMan, that post of yours was a train wreck from the start of it. 😖hifty:
Third Party. Preferably social democrats to counter the corporatist democrats. Considering their current tactics, there are only four people to lead the Republican Party, J.P. Morgan, Ion Antonescu, Benito Mussolini, and George Lincoln Rockwell. Too bad for the Republicans they're all dead. Maybe Sylvestre Matuschka but he disappeared after escaping from prison and was never found...
😐
I'm gonna say Romney or Jindal. Romney because of his obvious expertise in the economy which is going to be a big issue for some time. He also doesn't reek of extremism and comes off as a smart guy, and not one of those 'back home' type republicans that people like because they can relate to, like Palin or Bush.
Jindal is more or less the Repubs. version of Obama. Young, charismatic, great speaker, strong voice. Smart. I'd love to see a Jindal vs Obama debate in 2012, it would be fascinating.
Originally posted by FE Expert
To build any third party large enough to seriously threaten the established two parties in both Congress and the Office of the President would require the majority of states revising their ballot access laws, which, in a majority of cases, were signed into law as such in order to prevent the rise of third parties. New England is the region most ready to support third parties (Vermont and Maine most notably, with New York State having two state MPs from third parties)That would (finally!) force the established parties to make their policies better defined should that gambit succeed. With two parties, policy making is watered down to a point where it doesn't matter to the voting public anymore.
There are two or three viable contenders for 2012, as far as I see it:
The Green Party (with Nader as its Presidential nominee)
The Libertarian Party
The Reform Party (with Ventura as its Presidential nominee)Jesse Ventura is credited as being the last third-party governor (Minnesota) from recent history. He was officially victorious as an Independent but he was technically a Reformist.
I know that the public is usually more willing to go vote in multi-party nations than in two-party nations.
---------------------------------
As far as Jindal is concerned, pollsters (even the ultra-conservative Fox News) do not give him more than 9% in Republican primary polls.On the other hand, Palin is given victory in two polls pertaining to Republican primaries and Republican nomination for a couple of polls pertaining to the general election. Never Jindal was considered by pollsters outside of Louisiana.
However, if you're speaking of Louisiana... either Palin or Jindal would win the state; we do not know about Huckabee or Romney. Jindal could, at best (if there is no radical change among Republicans) be the running mate of either Romney, Huckabee or Palin.
This type of restriction of number of parties does not seem too democratic. While having too many is just dangerous, having more than two would seem fair.
Perhaps an answer may be if the more right wing Democrats and more left wing Republicans branching off to make a whole new party. Remocartic Depublicans.
But in all seriousness, that may actually provide a lot better results in terms of policies. (with a normal party name, of course)
Originally posted by lil bitchinessI'm founding the National Federalist Party. Who's with me? Anybody? Anyone whatsoever?
This type of restriction of number of parties does not seem too democratic. While having too many is just dangerous, having more than two would seem fair.Perhaps an answer may be if the more right wing Democrats and more left wing Republicans branching off to make a whole new party. Remocartic Depublicans.
But in all seriousness, that may actually provide a lot better results in terms of policies. (with a normal party name, of course)
The only way for a third party to gain ground is to set aside their ideals a bit. The ones that exist aren't jaded enough, they need soften their stances on things and pander a bit more to the middle. A Libertarian-esque party that takes a stand a little closer to the Dems and Reps could probably drum up support. Social Democrats probably won't make it until Europe turns into a Utopia.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The only way for a third party to gain ground is to set aside their ideals a bit. The ones that exist aren't jaded enough, they need soften their stances on things and pander a bit more to the middle. A Libertarian-esque party that takes a stand a little closer to the Dems and Reps could probably drum up support. Social Democrats probably won't make it until Europe turns into a Utopia.
Yeah, and that will never happen. In fact forming of EUSSR has been the biggest crock of shit so far.
It has turned into some kind of a dictatorship with a hope to make United States of Europe or something...
Federalist Party as in the Federalist Society? The people that want to turn America into Mexico by loosening check and balances on the presidency and making the other two branches subservient to the executive? That's moronic.
I honestly am starting to think that it would be best to heed George Washington's advice and just ban all political parties.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I honestly am starting to think that it would be best to heed George Washington's advice and just ban all political parties.
Maybe an idea....actually.
In fact, ban all corporate sponsorship for political parties, ban politicians from owning huge stakes at massive corporations, may also be a start.
From what I know about the modern federalists, they're mainly against the US constitution applying to states and for the concept of the imperial presidency. The historic Federalist Party was for a strong national government with executive supremacy and democracy being only a pageant due to mistrust of the masses.
Originally posted by Darth JelloThat's not what I mean, but the Federalist Society is a bunch of quacks, so I agree with you there. As for what you said, however, unless I'm reading it wrong, then nah, that's only the radical portions of Federalists. Neo-Federalists or Reagan-Federalists want to enhance the separation of powers due to the Presidency becoming too powerful and also return (mostly economic) power to the states. They have zero interest in making the other two branches subservient, though the Federalist Society does hate the Liberal courts. Ironically, or rather paradoxically, Neo-Federalists are almost the opposite of what Hamilton wanted his Federalists to be.
From what I know about the modern federalists, they're mainly against the US constitution applying to states and for the concept of the imperial presidency. The historic Federalist Party was for a strong national government with executive supremacy and democracy being only a pageant due to mistrust of the masses.
Back to why I said "that's inaccurate," what I meant by National Federalist was actually Nationalism and Hamiltonian-Federalism, two things that can't necessarily go together. It was a play on the fact that what America needs is a "middle ground" party, so to speak.
Originally posted by BackFire
I'm gonna say Romney or Jindal. Romney because of his obvious expertise in the economy which is going to be a big issue for some time. He also doesn't reek of extremism and comes off as a smart guy, and not one of those 'back home' type republicans that people like because they can relate to, like Palin or Bush.Jindal is more or less the Repubs. version of Obama. Young, charismatic, great speaker, strong voice. Smart. I'd love to see a Jindal vs Obama debate in 2012, it would be fascinating.
There are two outcomes that I believe more likely than Jindal being the Republican nominee:
1. Jindal becomes the running mate of the winner. In this case it would be a Jindal vs. Biden debate.
2. Should the Republican camp win, Jindal would accept a Cabinet position.