Is creating a party for the middle 80% a good idea, as Elon suggested?

[JoeyJoystick]

It is stupid to think 80% of Americans are in the middle. Just more clown shit

Hi noonereal,

There is nothing stupid about that I think. As a matter of fact, we do it all the time. We do it by income, body weight, length, education, religion, education etc..


Joey

 

[noonereal]

Hi noonereal,

There is nothing stupid about that I think. As a matter of fact, we do it all the time. We do it by income, body weight, length, education, religion, education etc..


Joey

We are not talking about any of those things and we don't get 80% agreement on anything you wrote.

Trump commands 40% of the electorate. 40% that have NO interest in middle ground.

Then you have about 20% of the left that are uncompromising lunatics.
So at best, at best, you could get 40% of the country to show an interest in a centrist.
But in application, youd never get the 40% never mind the 80% suggested.

 

[Perotista]

Question as is. Elon Musk has suggested to create a new party that accommodates the middle 80% of the population.

What do you think about this? On the surface it sounds like a no-brainer for a nation that is politically divided as much as it is. But things are probably a little more complicated than that.

Joey

If you look at the latest party affiliation, identification it’s not 80%. Gallup has it 28% republican, 28% democratic, 43% independents.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Our two-party system is entrenched, there’s no changing it. Besides, if there’s on thing republicans and democrats agree on, it’s no viable third party will ever rise. Republicans and democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. Then too, all the billionaire financial backers for both major parties have too much money invested in both parties. They’re not about to invest in a third party when they get exactly what they want from both major parties. Forget it.

 

[Chomsky]

My enemy's enemy is my friend. So I hope Musk has some success.

Thanks for some agreement.

For whatever reason, a great many in this thread seem not to understand the concept of "spoiler"!

 

[JoeyJoystick]

We are not talking about any of those things and we don't get 80% agreement on anything you wrote.

Trump commands 40% of the electorate. 40% that have NO interest in middle ground.

Then you have about 20% of the left that are uncompromising lunatics.
So at best, at best, you could get 40% of the country to show an interest in a centrist.
But in application, youd never get the 40% never mind the 80% suggested.

Hi noonereal,

You're completely missing the point. First of all, Elon Musk suggested a party for the middle 80%. I am merely asking for opinion.

Now you are talking 80%, 40%, and 20%, but that is all irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Based on what YOU posted, I basically tried to remind you that you can 'measure' anything and take the middle 80%.

I do not need explaining why Elon Musk is not getting the middle 80% to vote for him. I think we should focus and what he really says. Creating a political party for those who can not identify with what is in place already. It is all you have to go by, a concept. You do not know if he wants to start the party. You do not know where the party stands politically. And any party without a presence of at least a few seats in both chambers would be utterly useless, really. Even if you were to be president, you still need a few people behind you...

Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

If you look at the latest party affiliation, identification it’s not 80%. Gallup has it 28% republican, 28% democratic, 43% independents.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Our two-party system is entrenched, there’s no changing it. Besides, if there’s on thing republicans and democrats agree on, it’s no viable third party will ever rise. Republicans and democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. Then too, all the billionaire financial backers for both major parties have too much money invested in both parties. They’re not about to invest in a third party when they get exactly what they want from both major parties. Forget it.

Hi Perotista,

I think there is much truth in there, but do not underestimate the power of the people. The same people that supported Trump can also just drop him like a pudding. If you start a 3rd party, and you loose as expected, but you do win 5 seats in the chambers, than you can probably cause a lot of trouble for the ruling party. The concept would make, whoever is governing, more careful. If they use the newly gained power in a positive way and people see that, than after 4 years their number of seats will likely increase, giving them more power even if not elected.

Now I can understand the Republican and the Democrats would not like that, but what is it that they can do against that?


Joey

 

[GIJane]

Hi Chomsky,

Having a parliament would solve some of the issues, depending on implementation. But there are more issues. Looking at other countries will quickly show that as well.

Time has shown, over and over again, that their are issues. Here some of them

- Democracy allows for people to be elected. But it is ridiculous that everybody can be elected if they want to. It is unacceptable that a person who does not have education at a sufficiently high level, a certificate of good behaviour from the department of justice, and a high-level of security clearance (when requested) can still be electable for office. All he needs is voted. This is NOT acceptable however way you look at it. And look at the result. If any of these 3 had been applied, Trump would never have been president. Nor would Chavez, Putin, Hitler, or Xi.
- Most democracies date back several hundred years. They were 'designed' during much simpler times. And intended for much simpler people. Yes, there have been updates to the constitution, but it is clear that politics is not keeping up with the pace at which our technology develops. This has resulted in Social Media. Some people, proud of the free speech rights, think it is completely ok that politicians ( or anyone else for that matter) have the right to say things that are utterly wrong. There is obviously nothing right about lying and gaining votes under false pretences. Imagine you're an alien in LEO flying in their little alien spacecraft and observing and studying human behaviour. They must immediately understand why we are not more developed than we actually are , but are shocked at the open display of stupidity by people who are in charge.

Maybe we should not vote for People but for Policy instead....


Joey

You make valid points, BUT:
1. What do you consider " sufficiently high level" of education? Harvard? Yale? Cal Poly? Eureka College? BA, MA, PhD?
2. DOJ has to certify ALL candidates. Do you really think the DOJ can be objective enough to do this? Would the DOJ under Biden have certified Trump? Would they under Obama? Would the DOJ under Trump have certified Biden? You're putting a lot of stock in people who are hardly unbiased
3. Same thing for security clearances. Who decides? Certainly not the opposing party in power.

So:
In a "Democratic Republic", the people decide. Without the [people there may have not been a Lincoln who led us out of a civil war. There might not have been a Roosevelt who took on the Axis powers. There might not have been a Truman who made the decision to end WWII in the Pacific. There might not have been a Kennedy who faced down USSR in Cuba. There might not have been a Reagan to say "Mr. Gorbachev? Tear down this wall!". The list goes on and on.

 

[noonereal]

Creating a political party for those who can not identify with what is in place already. It is all you have to go by, a concept.

IMHO, few have any sincere interest.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Musk is a white supremacist and a fascist. Any party he leads will be a far right extremism nazi like party.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

You make valid points, BUT:
1. What do you consider " sufficiently high level" of education? Harvard? Yale? Cal Poly? Eureka College? BA, MA, PhD?
2. DOJ has to certify ALL candidates. Do you really think the DOJ can be objective enough to do this? Would the DOJ under Biden have certified Trump? Would they under Obama? Would the DOJ under Trump have certified Biden? You're putting a lot of stock in people who are hardly unbiased
3. Same thing for security clearances. Who decides? Certainly not the opposing party in power.

So:
In a "Democratic Republic", the people decide. Without the [people there may have not been a Lincoln who led us out of a civil war. There might not have been a Roosevelt who took on the Axis powers. There might not have been a Truman who made the decision to end WWII in the Pacific. There might not have been a Kennedy who faced down USSR in Cuba. There might not have been a Reagan to say "Mr. Gorbachev? Tear down this wall!". The list goes on and on.

Hi Jane,

Agreed. Hence they were meant as bullet points. Implementation is a different story altogether. But it is not 'undoable' I think.

Yes, the people. The people who elected Hitler into power nearly 100 years ago. Or the Greek people who year after year voted for bankruptcy until they finally got it and all had to pay the price. Or the Brits voting for Brexit not so long ago. It goes both ways of course Jane.

Joey

 

[rickc]

That middle 80% is strongly divided.

Those working class trump voters and everyone else. Certainly not a solid voting block.

 

[Perotista]

Hi Perotista,

I think there is much truth in there, but do not underestimate the power of the people. The same people that supported Trump can also just drop him like a pudding. If you start a 3rd party, and you loose as expected, but you do win 5 seats in the chambers, than you can probably cause a lot of trouble for the ruling party. The concept would make, whoever is governing, more careful. If they use the newly gained power in a positive way and people see that, than after 4 years their number of seats will likely increase, giving them more power even if not elected.

Now I can understand the Republican and the Democrats would not like that, but what is it that they can do against that?


Joey

We tried with the Reform Party. We were opposed by both major parties. They did everything possible to keep us off the ballots which usually resulted in a ton of lawsuits by us. Winning almost all of them. But they cost us millions upon millions of dollars that would have been spent in campaigns and on organization. We did have some minor successes. One Governor elected, Minnesota and over 300 state legislators. In the end what did us in was Pat Buchanan hijacking the reform party. Most of us originals departed.

In theory a third-party sound good, especially when you consider 43% of the electorate are now independents. But they have different priorities and different issues are important to them. For the most part they don’t fall somewhere in-between the two major parties ideological wise. You’ll find some that are pro-2nd amendment and pro-choice at the same time. Pro-climate change and all for rounding up illegal immigrants, secure borders are just a couple of examples. They support the republicans on some issues, oppose them on others with the same for the democrats, supporting them on some issues, opposing them on others.

Then there’s the constant battle from both major parties of them spending millions of dollars telling the voters a vote for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote because they can’t win. Like it or not, money is a very important part of the equation. Being allowed in the debates is another. Both major parties denied our candidates participation in the senate, congressional, mayor etc. debates. Ever ask yourself why the League of Woman’s Voters are no longer sponsoring the presidential debates? The Bipartisan debate commission now rules over the presidential debates. The League let Ross Perot participate in the 1992 debates that’s why. Now it’s guaranteed no third party will ever be let into the presidential debates again.

 

[Nickyjo]

I've been calling for a "Centrist" party for over a decade.

But as to Musk's 80%? As long as he can take 5% from the GOP, that's good enough!

The Democratic Party has been a centrist party for quite a while now, since the 1960s. Compare its policies to liberal parties in similar country. I remember a Conservative MP telling me he would be considered leftist in the US, an exaggeration, but not a big one.

 

[GIJane]

Hi Jane,

Agreed. Hence they were meant as bullet points. Implementation is a different story altogether. But it is not 'undoable' I think.

Yes, the people. The people who elected Hitler into power nearly 100 years ago. Or the Greek people who year after year voted for bankruptcy until they finally got it and all had to pay the price. Or the Brits voting for Brexit not so long ago. It goes both ways of course Jane.

Joey

Adolf caught part of a perfect storm. He is an outlier. After the Great War, Germany was stripped of power and wealth. Coming in the 30s with a promise to make Germany a player again struck gold. Add to that the Nazi party putsch so, in fact, the people had little to do with it.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Adolf caught part of a perfect storm. He is an outlier. After the Great War, Germany was stripped of power and wealth. Coming in the 30s with a promise to make Germany a player again struck gold. Add to that the Nazi party putsch so, in fact, the people had little to do with it.

Hi Jane,

So true, but don't tell me he's just an outlier. Don't you see the analogy with Trump's behaviour?


Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

We tried with the Reform Party. We were opposed by both major parties. They did everything possible to keep us off the ballots which usually resulted in a ton of lawsuits by us. Winning almost all of them. But they cost us millions upon millions of dollars that would have been spent in campaigns and on organization. We did have some minor successes. One Governor elected, Minnesota and over 300 state legislators. In the end what did us in was Pat Buchanan hijacking the reform party. Most of us originals departed.

In theory a third-party sound good, especially when you consider 43% of the electorate are now independents. But they have different priorities and different issues are important to them. For the most part they don’t fall somewhere in-between the two major parties ideological wise. You’ll find some that are pro-2nd amendment and pro-choice at the same time. Pro-climate change and all for rounding up illegal immigrants, secure borders are just a couple of examples. They support the republicans on some issues, oppose them on others with the same for the democrats, supporting them on some issues, opposing them on others.

Then there’s the constant battle from both major parties of them spending millions of dollars telling the voters a vote for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote because they can’t win. Like it or not, money is a very important part of the equation. Being allowed in the debates is another. Both major parties denied our candidates participation in the senate, congressional, mayor etc. debates. Ever ask yourself why the League of Woman’s Voters are no longer sponsoring the presidential debates? The Bipartisan debate commission now rules over the presidential debates. The League let Ross Perot participate in the 1992 debates that’s why. Now it’s guaranteed no third party will ever be let into the presidential debates again.

Hi Perotista,

Yes, but look around you. It's not the first time that elections produce 'Shock Results'. Trumps first term was exactly that. When the people are really fed-up, you can not stop them. That's how Trump got elected in the first place. Well, that and the low level of education that made people think it was a good idea to vote him in office. I agree it's difficult to break the status quo, and the way it is right now, I can not see it happen either.

But look at it differently. The Democrats still have not produced a single viable candidate and have struggled doing so ever since Obama. If let's say in the next 3 years the US economy keeps struggling and a large number of people face financial difficulties, than the people are more inclined to look for alternatives. And such a scenario is not that far fetched I think. Any alternative does not have to outright win the election. If they secure several seats in the chambers, they can make a difference on policy and negotiate changes or stall/stop unwanted changes. When done well, this will reflect in the next election. By the 3rd election, they could be an established party.


Joey

 

[Felis Leo]

Question as is. Elon Musk has suggested to create a new party that accommodates the middle 80% of the population.

What do you think about this? On the surface it sounds like a no-brainer for a nation that is politically divided as much as it is. But things are probably a little more complicated than that.

Joey

If it is a progressive, economically populist party like the FDR-era Democratic Part that delivers real benefits to the working class and puts a firm hand on the back of the neck of corporations and the ultra-wealthy to make sure they cannot engage in government capture? Hell yes.

Anything else will just be a method for the ultra wealthy to keep perpetual control over society and just maintaining social stability but with little material benefit for most people beyond that. Like the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Question as is. Elon Musk has suggested to create a new party that accommodates the middle 80% of the population.

What do you think about this? On the surface it sounds like a no-brainer for a nation that is politically divided as much as it is. But things are probably a little more complicated than that.

Joey

Hi all,

First of thank you all for your feedback. I have now made my vote. Sure you not all agree, but I voted: 'Yes. It is a great idea, and I think it could work and become the dominant party.'

With the emphasis on 'could'. Yes, it would be difficult. But I think it is a possibility. The 80% story is a lot of bullocks of course, but aiming at 80% at least gives you the chance to win more votes then when you aim at only 50% of the votes. And the likelihood of success rapidly increases when their is serious discord among the people. I think a lot of elements needed to make the chance of this happening increase are now in place. The deterioration and pain in society is likely to get worse. People do not like that. And people do strange things when they are not happy.

Let me look at it from a different angle again. Assassination attempts on Trump have been significantly higher than on the other of the previous 6 presidents. Now considering that Obama was Black and that there is a significant number of people in the US that absolutely hate black people, I think it is at least worth noting how surprising it is that more assassination attempts have been made on Trump than on Obama. That shows in part that people really do not like him a lot. And he's only 6 months in on his 2nd term. I think many people completely underestimate the danger they are facing. I also think that is in part because you are 'inside' and I am an 'outside' observer and see things from a different perspective of course.

So my thoughts. The chance of a new party coming and making a chance is increasing with every day of further deterioration under Trump because it sows discord among the people. I think the situation is soo dire that something will have to happen. This could be that Trump backs off and starts acting like he cares about the country, but this seems to be the mostly unlikely options. The most likely option, as it stands, is of course the democrats winning in the next election. But that will not solve any problems and will keep the status quo in place. A new party would be a welcome solution in my opinion, because the only other option left is of course option 4. And that is revolution. And nobody is waiting for that kinda shit. And since I think something needs to change, the only non-violent solution will be a 3rd party. A 3rd party will force the democrats and the republicans to work together, but it will also make it easier for them to work together. A 3rd party with influence would be kind of a moderator (sorry for the choice of words, I can not think of a better word...)

Ah well, since none of us has a Crystal ball, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I am worried. I neither like Trump nor Musk. Both should be prohibited from being politicians. But that's besides the point. Something needs to change I think. However way that will happen, I just hope it will be peaceful. And I think a 3rd party, with influence, could be a good solution for you guys. Yes, difficult. Very difficult. But not impossible. And don't tell me it is not possible. You guys went to the ****ing moon, but you want me to believe that you can not run your own country? Bullshit!


Joey

 

[Along Came Jones]

No need to reinvent the wheel. If Musk is sincere, then I'm fairly certain the No Labels movement could make good use of his resources, not to mention a really generous cash donation.

When the talking stops, the fighting starts. It is a tragic lesson of history that too many Americans, and too many of our leaders, forget. Frustrated Americans are increasingly raging at the other side or receding from politics altogether. No Labels needs millions of citizens to join us in offering another way. We bring together builders and fixers across America and in Congress, where we support House and Senate members with the courage to think independently and find commonsense solutions.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

No need to reinvent the wheel. If Musk is sincere, then I'm fairly certain the No Labels movement could make good use of his resources, not to mention a really generous cash donation.

When the talking stops, the fighting starts. It is a tragic lesson of history that too many Americans, and too many of our leaders, forget. Frustrated Americans are increasingly raging at the other side or receding from politics altogether. No Labels needs millions of citizens to join us in offering another way. We bring together builders and fixers across America and in Congress, where we support House and Senate members with the courage to think independently and find commonsense solutions.

Hi Jones,

Like you said; If he is sincere... That's where peoples worries come in. His track record is not exactly speaking in his favour.

Joey

 

[Perotista]

Hi Perotista,

Yes, but look around you. It's not the first time that elections produce 'Shock Results'. Trumps first term was exactly that. When the people are really fed-up, you can not stop them. That's how Trump got elected in the first place. Well, that and the low level of education that made people think it was a good idea to vote him in office. I agree it's difficult to break the status quo, and the way it is right now, I can not see it happen either.

But look at it differently. The Democrats still have not produced a single viable candidate and have struggled doing so ever since Obama. If let's say in the next 3 years the US economy keeps struggling and a large number of people face financial difficulties, than the people are more inclined to look for alternatives. And such a scenario is not that far fetched I think. Any alternative does not have to outright win the election. If they secure several seats in the chambers, they can make a difference on policy and negotiate changes or stall/stop unwanted changes. When done well, this will reflect in the next election. By the 3rd election, they could be an established party.


Joey

2016 was the ideal year for a third party, independents candidate to run who had some financial resources and name recognition like Perot did in 1992. Both Trump 36% favorable/60% unfavorable and Clinton 38% favorable/56% unfavorable set the records for the lowest favorable and highest unfavorable of any presidential candidate going back to 1956 when this stat was first kept track of. The list:

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.

Favorable/unfavorable

1956 Eisenhower 84/12%

1964 LBJ 81/13%

1976 Carter 81/16%

1960 JFK 80/14%

1960 Nixon 79/16%

1968 Nixon 79/22%

1976 Ford 79/20%

1972 Nixon 76/21%

1968 Humphrey 72/28%

1984 Reagan 70/30%

1980 Carter 60/32%

1984 Mondale 66/34%

1980 Reagan 64/31%

1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%

2008 Obama 62/35%

2012 Obama 62/37%

1956 Stevenson 61/31%

2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%

2008 McCain 60/35%

1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%

2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%

2004 Kerry 57/40%

1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%

1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%

2000 Gore 55/43%

2012 Romney 55/43%

1972 McGovern 55/41%

1996 Dole 54/45%

1988 Dukakis 53/42%

2020 Biden 49/45%

2024 Harris 46/50%

1964 Goldwater 43/47%

2024 Trump 44/54%

2020 Trump 43/56%

2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%

2016 Donald Trump 36/60%


20 years ago, Trump would have been laughed out of the room had he sought the GOP presidential nomination. But as you stated about people being upset, angry, Trump was not necessarily the ideal candidate in 2016, far from it, but one that could coalesce most of the upset and angry voters back then. Hillary, the queen of the democratic party came across as too aloof, elitist, know it all. Trump as obnoxious, rude and uncouth.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...mericans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

Third party candidates didn’t do too bad in 2016 considering their lack of money, name recognition, no media attention etc. They polled 6% nationwide which included 12% of independents. You’re not going to do so good being outspent by 1.85 billion for both Clinton 1.191 billion and Trump 646.8 million to 13 million for Johnson, 3.7 million for Jill Stein and 1.6 million to McMullin.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

You get to 2024 it’s even more lopsided, almost 2 billion raised and spent by Harris, 1.45 Billion by Trump vs. 2.7 million for Jill Stein, 1.3 million for Cornel West 467 thousand for Chase Oliver.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race

We have the best government money can buy.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

2016 was the ideal year for a third party, independents candidate to run who had some financial resources and name recognition like Perot did in 1992. Both Trump 36% favorable/60% unfavorable and Clinton 38% favorable/56% unfavorable set the records for the lowest favorable and highest unfavorable of any presidential candidate going back to 1956 when this stat was first kept track of.

We have the best government money can buy.

Hi Perotista,

Why dop you not look outside your borders and see for yourself what other countries have done. 2016 may indeed have been a year where an alternative presidential candidate had a better chance than in other years.

And this is where you go wrong. Creating a new party is one thing. Thinking your gonna win the presidential elections the first time would be plainly stupid and naïve. Here looking at Europe you would get a good impression how this works and can be done successfully. There is plenty of countries that had small parties splintered from the main party out of discontent. And here you see 33 clear scenarios over and over again.

1 - It fizzles out before it has even started.
2 - They do pretty good in the first election, but than it fizzles out and they remain a small splinter party for their remaining days.
3 - They actually make it. They're not big. But they are new and innovative. After several elections you can see the party growing and slowly they ensure a presence in the parliament and senate (or whatever it is called in all other countries, but you're getting my drift I hope)

BUT!!

What you see way more often in Europe is that a local party has been started in let's say London. Now this is probably nothing new, but they do not focus on London, they focus on the things that matter in life in the grander scheme called the United Kingdom. Now if they are proven successful in London, they start expanding to a few other cities and constituencies.

This is a concept that has been proven to work in most other countries. Yes, it means you not start a party today and expect a president in 3.5 years. But if you have 4 senators in 8 years from now, than that would be a tremendous success and seriously disrupt the current balance of power.

But now that last comment of yours.... Please tell me I should not take this literally and that you are being sarcastic. Sorry, English is not my first language, and even in my own language I do not always recognize sarcasm.


Joey

 

[SavannahMann]

The head scratching point is this. The richest man in the world who is now telling folks in his Space X town that they will not have property rights is going to do what is right for the rest of us.

 

[Perotista]

Hi Perotista,

Why dop you not look outside your borders and see for yourself what other countries have done. 2016 may indeed have been a year where an alternative presidential candidate had a better chance than in other years.

And this is where you go wrong. Creating a new party is one thing. Thinking your gonna win the presidential elections the first time would be plainly stupid and naïve. Here looking at Europe you would get a good impression how this works and can be done successfully. There is plenty of countries that had small parties splintered from the main party out of discontent. And here you see 33 clear scenarios over and over again.

1 - It fizzles out before it has even started.
2 - They do pretty good in the first election, but than it fizzles out and they remain a small splinter party for their remaining days.
3 - They actually make it. They're not big. But they are new and innovative. After several elections you can see the party growing and slowly they ensure a presence in the parliament and senate (or whatever it is called in all other countries, but you're getting my drift I hope)

BUT!!

What you see way more often in Europe is that a local party has been started in let's say London. Now this is probably nothing new, but they do not focus on London, they focus on the things that matter in life in the grander scheme called the United Kingdom. Now if they are proven successful in London, they start expanding to a few other cities and constituencies.

This is a concept that has been proven to work in most other countries. Yes, it means you not start a party today and expect a president in 3.5 years. But if you have 4 senators in 8 years from now, than that would be a tremendous success and seriously disrupt the current balance of power.

But now that last comment of yours.... Please tell me I should not take this literally and that you are being sarcastic. Sorry, English is not my first language, and even in my own language I do not always recognize sarcasm.


Joey

Starting off at the grass roots level is something I preached when the Reform Party was being formed. Running candidates for the state legislature, county commission, mayor and city council is a heck of a lot cheaper than jumping right into the presidential election is exactly what Ross Perot did back in 1992. That’s probably why we failed, the Reform Party was top down driven instead of bottom going up. Europe isn’t a good example as most if not all countries have multi-party electoral system vs. our 2 party system.

And no. I wasn’t being sarcastic about having the best government money can buy. With a month to go in the 2024 election cycles, 15.9 billion dollars were already spent on that election.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...spending-projected-to-exceed-previous-record/

Of the almost 2 billion dollars spent on just the presidential election, close to a billion dollars of that came from individual mega money donors. Individual rich donors who gave the candidates, their campaigns 10-100 million dollars. Now those super rich donors are all very smart businessmen. They wouldn’t give, I prefer the word invest instead of give or donate in our elections if they didn’t get much more back from their investment that what that investment cost them. In other words, they wouldn’t invest if their returns weren’t greater than their investment.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race

 

[JoeyJoystick]

And no. I wasn’t being sarcastic about having the best government money can buy. With a month to go in the 2024 election cycles, 15.9 billion dollars were already spent on that election.

Hi Perotista,

Maybe it the most expensive government money can buy. But sorry, that is not even a criterium for 'best' government...

Joey