Justifications for the third party

There's some thinking out there that says upset people vote out the party they think is in power. That's the sort of thinking that leads me to believe that there will be a third party, as the people who are in the Democratic Party who have the perception that the way to win elections is to go leftward. It's this thinking that fueled my idea of a repositioning of sensibilities.

Yesterday I posted my story linking to my theory there will be a major third party by 2008. This morning, MarcV came back with a repudiation of what I was thinking, mainly taking umbrage with the numbers, and with this:

I read your other post and respectfully disagree with where you think a third party will find support. The Dems are a splintered party, between moderates and the fringes, yet it's the fringe groups (tree-huggers, anti-war, pro-abortion[death]) that bring in the money, so they'll continue to control the party and take the Dems further off the political victory track.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I hoped to show that there would be a third party, financed well, but as inept as their fringe always is in elections. Yes, they will get the money, but since the superior financing is in the Republican Party right now, and would slide to the center in my thinking, then the two most rightward parties will continue to run elections. There are places, such as San Francisco or Minnesota, where those far-left people will win, thus keeping up the hope that they have a national presence.

Just to be clear, MarcV isn't wrong about the current financiers of the Democratic Party taking it off the winning track. I think there are groups inside the Republican Party (Log Cabin, conservative blacks, liberal Christians) that would gladly provide the impetus for the Democratic Party to shift right. This would come after the Kos Kid-types got sick of the biased, right-wing policies of the Democratic Party.

Yes, there's people who think the Democratic Party is too far to the right.

Link from Ace.

Posted by Macabee at February 24, 2006 10:40 AM | TrackBack

I can see where those on the far-right for the Republicans would tend to go for a 3rd party after being disappointed by President Bush. I don't see where a 3rd party will get the funding unless they are led by a charismatic figure (Rick Warren?) or have an issue that they can champion over the Dems and Repubs which gets people excited.

It's like the old joke that Rush Limbaugh likes to tell: the thickness of the book "Great Moderates" consists of a front and back cover with nothing in the middle. A 3rd party can't be sustained by moderates, though their support would help.

There are plenty of liberal Christians who would love to come back to the Democratic fold if they could only reconcile the sanctity of life issue. They grew up Democrat, hate Republicans but cannot stomach the current stance of "All abortions, all the time". The Democratic vision of a big government helping people (i.e. welfare, national health care, "free" day care) appeals to their big hearts. I don't like how it threatens my thin wallet, though, especially considering that Pres. Bush is in a race to spend money as fast as the Democrats.

If you hear of someone organizing a party of "Constitutionals" (Originalists? Whigs?), getting back to the role of federal government as specified in the Constitution, let me know. I'd spend a few bucks in contributions for that.

Posted by: MarcV at February 24, 2006 11:36 AM

well, you are making the case for pretty much the opposite of what I see happening with the Code Pink Cindy Sheehan types. in my envisioned scenario, I'm thinking that after the moonbat party concentrates, the Republicans will get back to the hard-line conservative values, at the expense of those 9/11 Democrats they picked up. I'm seeing this happening because of the abortion issue, and because of gay-marriage.

while that message plays well in Oklahoma or Mississippi, it's a harder sell in Ohio or even South Carolina. like I say, the more (truly) centrist people would flock to the seemingly willing-to-change Democratic Party. that's the basis for my shifting. it wouldn't be a real shift in the member's view, just the membership.

now, with the centrist types moving to the left, the Republicans would be the sole home of conservatism, both fiscally and socially and defensely.

Posted by: MacStansbury at February 24, 2006 12:26 PM