<p>I am expecting that there will be 3 viable parties seeking the presidency in 2008. One will be the traditional Democrat party. Another, which will capture some previously Democrat voters, will be very pro-business, middle-of-the-road to libertarian on moral issues, and for somewhat smaller government. The third will be socially conservative, tough on illegal immigration, and for a much smaller government. Of the last 2, the one whose candidate wins the Republican primary will retain the name. </p>
<p>If this does happen, I think it will be good for the country since it should lead to spirited debate about what is best for our future. What do you all think?</p>
<p>I think the dismantling of our “two party system” would be a good thing. Wherein party loyalty and party ascendancy would cease to be the drivers of so many of our elected officials thoughts, votes and actions.</p>
<p>But I don’t think it will happen :(.</p>
<p>And I wouldn’t be too thrilled if there were three parties defined as you outline above. Something like a McCain-Lieberman ticket might serve to chink away at our two parties. Still not my dream ticket, but I’d like to see it happen.</p>
<p>Don’t think that will happen either. But we can dream.</p>
<p>Personally, I’m too much of a “1 from Column A, 2 from Column B” (and probably 2 from “Column C”) on the issues and individuals to fit in a party system. So that’s why I’d like to see it self-destruct.</p>
<p>OT, but why do people persist in using the incorrect form of the words “Democrat” and “Democratic”? I’d really like to know. Is it really that difficult to tell when to use one or the other ? Hint: The Democratic Party, a Democratic victory, that smart man is a Democrat. See? It’s not that hard. ;)</p>
<p>I genuinely don’t understand it.</p>
<p>BTW, Back on topic - that whole third (and fourth) party thing didn’t turn out that well in Texas. Governor Goodhair won re-election with @ 40% of the vote. Third and fourth parties will generally be spoilers with Lieberman , Ventura, and Bernie being the rare exceptions.</p>
<p>Logosprincipal, as far as I can tell, the only people who adhere to that usage are Republicans. Democrats call it the Democratic Party, I think that’s because “the Democratic party” sounds good (everyone is pro-democracy, right?) but “the Democrat party” sounds clunky and partisan. As a Democrat, I call it the Democratic Party. I noted that GWB refered to it as “the Democrat party”. Sounded bad.</p>
<p>As a policy I try to call people whatever they choose to call themselves. But it’s an effective practice to hang a less favorable label on people. And I thin that’s where “the Democrat party” came from.</p>
<p>I was just explaining my reasoning for my usage, but if you prefer the other, that’s fine with me. Do you use the term ‘pro-life’ to describe those who oppose abortion, kluge?</p>
<p>Fine with me. The last time we had a strong third party candidacy it was Ross Perot – he split the Republican vote and put Clinton in the white house.</p>
<p>Actually, I think the two-party system is working OK. Each party must kow-tow to its hard-core base while attempting to appeal to the third of the voters in the middle who determine the outcome of national elections. The party that successfully appeals to moderate/centrist voters wins. The party that defines itself too strongly as a radical fringe party loses.</p>
<p>If there is a third-party effort in 2008, it will be because the Republican Party failed to sufficiently kow-tow to its evangelical right-wing base. Of course, for McCain to kow-tow any harder, he’d have to start campaigning in a KKK hood.</p>
<p>LP, it’s “Democratic Party.” I am a Democrat, I support the Democratic party. Look at the official name of the party. You and your Republican usage are wrong.</p>
<p>Having worked on paid staff for John Anderson, I’d say a third party of note isn’t happening. Every third party of note in the past fifty years has been driven by a personality–George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot. I’ve heard some frantic talk of supposed Unity Party around McCain-Lieberman but McCain is making a run in the GOP and Lieberman would serve handily as another Perot.</p>
<p>Yes, Logosprincipal, I do use the term “Pro-life” when referring to people who would like to ban abortion. I use the term pro-choice to refer to people who would leave that decision to the pregnant woman. I have called people whose ancestors (or at least some of them) hale from Africa Negroes, Afro-Americans, Blacks, and African-Americans, as the trend of the time seemed to indicate. I stopped calling people of asian ancestry “orientals” and started calling them “Asian” when that seemed to be preferred (although I do know some people who call all Asians “Chinamen” regardless of where ther ancestors came from.) I use the terms “latino” or “Chicano” rather than “Hispanic” or “Mexican” most of the time. I try my best to determine if “Miss” ,“Mrs.”, or “Ms.” would make the other person most comfortable. None of these things are a problem, and I consider it to be simple respect and courtesy. I’m sure I have offended someone, sometime, but I try not to if possible.</p>
<p>No. I don’t believe either of them has sufficient personal wealth to fund a third-party candidacy.</p>
<p>IMO, McCain is dead. I just do not see that the “we should increase troop levels in Iraq” dog is likely to hunt. He’ll get beat over the head with that like a baseball bat. The American people have had enough. The only viable position is some flavor of “cut 'n run” tied up with a pretty ribbon.</p>
<p>The only way Guilliani will ever see the White House is to switch parties. He can’t get nominated as a Rebuplican. Pro-choice need not apply.</p>
<p>“I just do not see that the “we should increase troop levels in Iraq” dog is likely to hunt.”</p>
<p>Oh, by 2008, the Administration will have spent the $20 mil the Republicans allocated for the Victory celebration. Cut’n’run has already begun. </p>
<p>I would love to see Rudy and Newt’s sexual proclivities all over my newspaper (again).</p>
<p>My goodness, the last thing on earth I want to know about is Newt Gingrich’s sexual proclivities. To be honest, I’d be happy if I never had to learn anything else about Newt Gingrich. He rivals our boy Bill Bennett for the most pompous self-santimonious blowhard award.</p>
Hint: The Democratic Party, a Democratic victory, that smart man is a Democrat. See? It’s not that hard. ;)</p>