Yes, it does seem like that. If one could hide the R and the D, just put forth how the last two presidents have governed, one would see very little difference. At least in the big things as you described. Yet if one listens to the rhetoric, they are polar opposites.
Right: what they say; how they sell themselves is quite different, but when one gets in office, it becomes a whole different thing. This is what makes me so suspicious. I would lay money that if a third party won the presidency, the same thing would happen: it's a bit weird.
That and the fact Republicans and Democrats write the election laws as a mutual protection act making it as hard as possible for any third party to become viable.
Right: what they say; how they sell themselves is quite different, but when one gets in office, it becomes a whole different thing. This is what makes me so suspicious. I would lay money that if a third party won the presidency, the same thing would happen: it's a bit weird.
True instead there being new political parties, factions try to take over the two established political parties. Socialists and Libertarians have been trying hard to become the NEW Democrats and Republicans. And to a certain degree they have succeeded. Not entirely but enough to bend both political parties well beyond what they would have been without factional influence.
I haven't thought of it in that way, but I think what you say is truer than not. I think religion has always played a role in politics, but not like the advent of the religious right in the 1970's which coalesced around one political party. So in a way we have the nanny state party vs. the religious one. Very strange the way things have gone, but then again maybe not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)Ballot access laws:
Nationally, ballot access laws are the major challenge to third party candidacies. While the Democratic and Republican parties usually easily obtain ballot access in all fifty states in every election, third parties often fail to meet criteria for ballot access, such as registration fees. Or, in many states, they do not meet petition requirements in which a certain number of voters must sign a petition for a third party or independent candidate to gain ballot access.[4] In recent presidential elections, Ross Perot appeared on all 50 state ballots as an independent in 1992 and the candidate of the Reform Party in 1996. (Perot, a multimillionaire, was able to provide significant funds for his campaigns.) Patrick Buchanan appeared on all 50 state ballots in the 2000 election,[5] largely on the basis of Perot's performance as the Reform Party's candidate four years prior. The Libertarian Party has appeared on the ballot in at least 46 states in every election since 1980, except for 1984 when David Bergland gained access in only 36 states. In 1980, 1992, 1996 the party made the ballot in all 50 states and D.C. The Green Party gained access to 44 state ballots in 2000 but only 27 in 2004. The Constitution Party appeared on 42 state ballots in 2004.[6] Ralph Nader, running as an independent in 2004, appeared on 34 state ballots. In 2008, Nader appeared on 45 ballots and D.C. For more information see ballot access laws.
The religious right isnt a true religious political party, they are just exploiting Christianity. Its like kissing babies, they do it because they believe thats what their supporters want to see.
Neither are much of a concern if their agendas fail to gain wide public support. Given enough rope they always end up hanging themselves as they always have down.
The answer is that no third party has ever taken the time to develop the grassroots for a national run. Perot tried to start it off in modern times, but no one really carried that ball after he dropped out. It takes a couple generations and persistence to even capture a couple states. You have to grow region by region from the local positions to the statehouse to national office. Just jumping to a national office isn't going to build your party brand. The third parties are too focused on the national.
So, being an American, why do you not refer to Democrats as The Democratic Party?
How can someone call that a democracy?
When I think of democracy, I think of the Canadian political system, where there are many parties and anyone can start his own party given that the person has enough money.
I am surprised that most American politicians seem to ignore this issue.
gerrymandering, mostly.
So, being an American, why do you not refer to Democrats as The Democratic Party?
Ah everyone's favorite boogeyman for why they lose, it's only because of gerrymandering
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?