The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Beyond Red and Blue
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From GoToQuiz.com, the percentages of respondents in the US who express a partisan affiliation other than Republican or Democrat:

The differences are modest (notice the y-axis begins at 20%)–but I did the digging so may as well share what I found–with the only sharp dividing line along sex. Women tend to be more conformist than men for rather obvious biological reasons. The idea that Zoomers resemble the Silents more than the generations separating the two cohorts aside, the relatively low third party–liberally defined here to include independents as well–orientation of those under 18 might just be due to a lack of familiarity with options outside the Uniparty.

Parenthetically, the survey doesn’t ask about registration or electoral intention. Even after taking that into account, though, it’s clear that a lot of people who self-identify as Green or Libertarian vote for one of the big two if they vote at all.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Generational gap, Politics, Polling 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Also known as “the number of people pretending to be above it all and waaaaay smarter than all those party partisan dopes”. We need to cross reference it with the number of these “third party adherents” would describe themselves by that hoary ol’ chestnut “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” to be sure, but I know which way I’d bet.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Lol ya but don't forget the Unzista "all parties are controlled by the Jews. I'm too woke to vote!"

    To be fair I agree with that, but you have to be able to laugh at yourself.
    , @Mark G.
    Among third parties, the Libertarian party has always advertised itself as "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" but the meaning of social liberalism has shifted over the years. For a country to become wealthy it has to combine small government and people who practice traditional values and self-restraint. Victorian era Britain and America had government spending under ten percent of GDP while Victorian era moral values were generally conservative. Once a country becomes wealthy, though, the increased wealth leads to self-indulgence and decadence and then that undermines the traditional values that helped to create the wealth to begin with. As a country becomes more decadent, social liberalism shifts in meaning from tolerating to celebrating deviant lifestyles. More people support a libertarian party so they can get easy access to things like drugs and prostitutes and then the party responds by emphasizing those types of issues. There would be room for a third party that supports a small fiscally conservative government but whose leaders show an awareness that cultural conservatism helps to provide a foundation for continued prosperity and don't hold up as role models social libertines.
    , @John Gruskos
    I'm fiscally liberal and socially conservative, and I plan to vote for the Constitution Party, the largest party which meets the bare minimum requirements for any non-treasonous party: immigration restriction and a non-interventionist foreign policy.
    , @SFG
    It's the classic upper-middle-class combo--you don't want to pay taxes but you want to be up with the latest trends too.

    The reverse, fiscally liberal and socially conservative, has many more voters (look at the Voter Study Group). Trump won yuge by just pretending to be on the side of this quadrant (remember defending Medicare and Social Security?).

    Matthew Walther and Ross Douthat are kind of here--there's a heavy Catholic flavor to it.
  2. (notice the y-axis begins at 20%)

    DAMMIT! I hate that.

    Even after taking that into account, though, it’s clear that a lot of people who self-identify as Green or Libertarian vote for one of the big two if they vote at all.

    I’m glad you put that in, as I was about to mention the same thing. Most people would not remember that a guy named John Anderson got almost 7% of the popular vote in 1980, among my man Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. Then there was the big one – Ross Perot, to me a precursor to candidate Donald Trump (except the guy was a man of his word, not a total wuss wipe-out like this guy.) He got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and that was after dropping out of the race due to Deep-State threats, and then getting back in.

    The Greens and Libertarians don’t seem to put their votes where their mouths are. I’ve voted for “L”s almost all the time starting with the time I saw George H.W. Bush say about 10 seconds of a campaign speech in Spanish on TV back in 1988.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I recall my mother's frustration and disappointment when the results from Texas came in on election night 1992--"he couldn't even win his home state of Texas". I had no frame of reference or context for it, but looking back it is interesting to think that it wasn't that long ago that a third party really could be something other than a sideshow clown.
  3. @Oleaginous Outrager
    Also known as "the number of people pretending to be above it all and waaaaay smarter than all those party partisan dopes". We need to cross reference it with the number of these "third party adherents" would describe themselves by that hoary ol' chestnut "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" to be sure, but I know which way I'd bet.

    Lol ya but don’t forget the Unzista “all parties are controlled by the Jews. I’m too woke to vote!”

    To be fair I agree with that, but you have to be able to laugh at yourself.

  4. hen there was the big one – Ross Perot, to me a precursor to candidate Donald Trump (except the guy was a man of his word, not a total wuss wipe-out like this guy.) He got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and that was after dropping out of the race due to Deep-State threats, and then getting back in.

    Perot is no dummy, and I suspect that he did the math about Reagan’s assassination attempt in the early 80’s. The GHW Bush was deeply involved in the creation and maintenance of the Deep State that we’ve had since the WW2 era. Reagan was a comparative interloper, and a theoretical libertarian (in practice, well, his policies were mixed), regarded as a threat to the moderate on most issues* Northeastern based GOP establishment that symbolically was over-taken in 1980. The Bushites tried vainly to reverse this via installing Bush in Reagan’s White House, and when they felt like the Reaganites were still dissing them, tried to kill Reagan….Only to fail and actually make Reagan more sympathetic. Bush finally got “his” turn in 1989-1992, and of course he showed his true colors by starting a war (while the more libertarian flavored Reagan regime had to shoot down CIA/Bushite propaganda designed to further neo-conservative war mongering). Yet the collapse of the Soviets suddenly made the paranoid and ambitious war-mongering of the Bushites seem passe, and Americans rejected Bush in 1992. Flash to the 2000’s, and the Dems should’ve made the case that Bush represented a return to blustering and bloody foreign policy, but completely failed to do so. Naturally, when Bush 2 made it to the White House, we again started a larger scale conflict. But unlike the 80’s, we had no resaonably sane and courageous people left in the White House, and as such there was a total failure to voice skepticism about war**.

    *Except foreign policy, the “moderate” Northeastern Republicans of the 1950’s-1980’s were basically neo-con hawks, to the point of almost single issue status (e.g., guys like Bill Kristol are mostly indistinguishable from the Leftists of his era/generation, except on foreign policy based on doing what’s in the interest of Israel and the Deep State). In the 90’s and subsequent decades, many of these “conservatives” have packed their bags and gone to the Democrats (a trend that’s exploded in the Trump era, what with populist social conservative isolationists rejecting neo-conservatism). Note also that cutting taxes on rich people was important to wealthy “moderate” Republicans, so naturally they gravitated to the GOP in the 70’s and 80’s. After Clinton failed to repeal these tax cuts, many “conservatives” (yuppie scum) drifted to the Dems.

    **Bush 1 and Bush 2 are, hands down, the biggest war-mongers in chief since the 70’s. Nobody in their regimes seriously and successfully opposed neo-con excesses, whereas Reagan/Bill Clinton/Obama/Trump have had terms noted for relative doves trying to push back against hawks.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Feryl, I had a reply in mind to your couple of comments back on that other A.E. thread - this one - but it's been a while. I gotta admit that I agree with you more than usual here. I think you are on the right track in thinking (as I do) that the assassination attempt on Ronnie was a warning from the Deep State.

    I was not aware enough to note if President Reagan changed his ways after that. I'll tell you what, that was a pretty near thing too. Trauma care 40 years back was not what it is today, when that 6th of 6 .22 shots ricocheted into one of Reagan's lungs and missed his heart by 1". He was in the hospital for a few days, and his getting through it was not any sure thing. I want to write a blog post about it soon.

    I agree, Feryl, that the Bushes were the biggest warmongers - to me it was more in their nature than it was for Bill Clinton, who just wanted to distract the country from his shenanigans and had no real basic principles besides where's the next poontang (hey, it was better for our country that way). Reagan was a principled Libertarian (OK, for the most part) and the establishment GOP didn't like that with Barry Goldwater 20-odd years earlier, and they sure didn't like it again with Ronnie in '76 and '80. Maybe they had gotten to him by '84.

    I would like to disabuse you, if I may, of your opinion on Mr. Reagan's domestic policy, but I've got to go, and will have to write more later on.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    " **Bush 1 and Bush 2 are, hands down, the biggest war-mongers in chief since the 70's."

    This is certainly true. George H.W. Bush, presiding over the collapse of the Soviet Union during his one term in the Executive, pivoted to Islamic terrorism and narco-terrorism. And it was the networks of CIA asset Somocistas he helped put together in the 1980s that generated the crack epidemic in the late 80s and early 90s. His emotionally-crippled son, W., opened the Executive door to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and their neoconservative allies. The disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were unleashed after the still mysterious incident known as 9/11. A future Shakespeare, or "Shakespeares" to use W. parlance, will be able to depict the Bush dynasty as the monstrous and wicked elites they are. Perhaps future Shakespeare will include the Bush dynasty's relationship with another wicked but less prominent American political family, the Clintons.
    , @Rex Little

    the collapse of the Soviets suddenly made the paranoid and ambitious war-mongering of the Bushites seem passe, and Americans rejected Bush in 1992.
     
    Americans rejected Bush in 1992 because the economy was in a tailspin. Before that, in the aftermath of Gulf War I, he was enormously popular, and looked like he'd be unbeatable in '92. IMO, that's why the major Democrat names like Mario Cuomo and Ted Kennedy stepped back and let Bill Clinton (then little-known outside his home state) take the nomination (OK, Kennedy might have had other reasons).
  5. Also, the “moderate” flavor of the Bush family has given us globalist style filth on immigration policy, with Bush 1 and Bush 2 jacking up the quantity and diversity of immigration.

    The Bush ideology really is corporate friendly social and financial policy, combined with nation wrecking war mongering and immigrant importing. No serious push back on cultural, economic, or foreign policy ideas created by morons and traitors.

  6. @Achmed E. Newman

    (notice the y-axis begins at 20%)
     
    DAMMIT! I hate that.

    Even after taking that into account, though, it’s clear that a lot of people who self-identify as Green or Libertarian vote for one of the big two if they vote at all.
     
    I'm glad you put that in, as I was about to mention the same thing. Most people would not remember that a guy named John Anderson got almost 7% of the popular vote in 1980, among my man Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. Then there was the big one - Ross Perot, to me a precursor to candidate Donald Trump (except the guy was a man of his word, not a total wuss wipe-out like this guy.) He got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and that was after dropping out of the race due to Deep-State threats, and then getting back in.

    The Greens and Libertarians don't seem to put their votes where their mouths are. I've voted for "L"s almost all the time starting with the time I saw George H.W. Bush say about 10 seconds of a campaign speech in Spanish on TV back in 1988.

    I recall my mother’s frustration and disappointment when the results from Texas came in on election night 1992–“he couldn’t even win his home state of Texas”. I had no frame of reference or context for it, but looking back it is interesting to think that it wasn’t that long ago that a third party really could be something other than a sideshow clown.

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    Could any "third party" exist if the only office a member held was the Presidency? The US Congress has little in common with most European parliaments, and its structure is such that any third party would have to capture an almost unfeasible large number of seats (at least a third) to have any impact on governance.
    , @Oblivionrecurs
    I have registration graphs for several states i.e Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio for examples

    Four things are immensely apparent. First and foremost that third party registration doesn't exist, at most y'all have a state like North Carolina, Massachusetts, or Colorado full of independents

    An uptake in Republican registration at a young gen z age in a few states, but its dwarfed by the massive tidal wave of Democrat millennials. Unless they marry or identity with whites, we're going to lose a lot

    And younger voters registered are disproportionately black and they turn out to vote.
  7. I have been saying for a very long time that before we can have a third party we need a second one. Now at long last we have two parties. The Democrats and The Deplorables. Identity politics ain’t all bad.

    • Replies: @SFG
    They will both sell you out to Big Business.
  8. @Feryl

    hen there was the big one – Ross Perot, to me a precursor to candidate Donald Trump (except the guy was a man of his word, not a total wuss wipe-out like this guy.) He got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and that was after dropping out of the race due to Deep-State threats, and then getting back in.
     
    Perot is no dummy, and I suspect that he did the math about Reagan's assassination attempt in the early 80's. The GHW Bush was deeply involved in the creation and maintenance of the Deep State that we've had since the WW2 era. Reagan was a comparative interloper, and a theoretical libertarian (in practice, well, his policies were mixed), regarded as a threat to the moderate on most issues* Northeastern based GOP establishment that symbolically was over-taken in 1980. The Bushites tried vainly to reverse this via installing Bush in Reagan's White House, and when they felt like the Reaganites were still dissing them, tried to kill Reagan....Only to fail and actually make Reagan more sympathetic. Bush finally got "his" turn in 1989-1992, and of course he showed his true colors by starting a war (while the more libertarian flavored Reagan regime had to shoot down CIA/Bushite propaganda designed to further neo-conservative war mongering). Yet the collapse of the Soviets suddenly made the paranoid and ambitious war-mongering of the Bushites seem passe, and Americans rejected Bush in 1992. Flash to the 2000's, and the Dems should've made the case that Bush represented a return to blustering and bloody foreign policy, but completely failed to do so. Naturally, when Bush 2 made it to the White House, we again started a larger scale conflict. But unlike the 80's, we had no resaonably sane and courageous people left in the White House, and as such there was a total failure to voice skepticism about war**.

    *Except foreign policy, the "moderate" Northeastern Republicans of the 1950's-1980's were basically neo-con hawks, to the point of almost single issue status (e.g., guys like Bill Kristol are mostly indistinguishable from the Leftists of his era/generation, except on foreign policy based on doing what's in the interest of Israel and the Deep State). In the 90's and subsequent decades, many of these "conservatives" have packed their bags and gone to the Democrats (a trend that's exploded in the Trump era, what with populist social conservative isolationists rejecting neo-conservatism). Note also that cutting taxes on rich people was important to wealthy "moderate" Republicans, so naturally they gravitated to the GOP in the 70's and 80's. After Clinton failed to repeal these tax cuts, many "conservatives" (yuppie scum) drifted to the Dems.

    **Bush 1 and Bush 2 are, hands down, the biggest war-mongers in chief since the 70's. Nobody in their regimes seriously and successfully opposed neo-con excesses, whereas Reagan/Bill Clinton/Obama/Trump have had terms noted for relative doves trying to push back against hawks.

    Feryl, I had a reply in mind to your couple of comments back on that other A.E. thread – this one – but it’s been a while. I gotta admit that I agree with you more than usual here. I think you are on the right track in thinking (as I do) that the assassination attempt on Ronnie was a warning from the Deep State.

    I was not aware enough to note if President Reagan changed his ways after that. I’ll tell you what, that was a pretty near thing too. Trauma care 40 years back was not what it is today, when that 6th of 6 .22 shots ricocheted into one of Reagan’s lungs and missed his heart by 1″. He was in the hospital for a few days, and his getting through it was not any sure thing. I want to write a blog post about it soon.

    I agree, Feryl, that the Bushes were the biggest warmongers – to me it was more in their nature than it was for Bill Clinton, who just wanted to distract the country from his shenanigans and had no real basic principles besides where’s the next poontang (hey, it was better for our country that way). Reagan was a principled Libertarian (OK, for the most part) and the establishment GOP didn’t like that with Barry Goldwater 20-odd years earlier, and they sure didn’t like it again with Ronnie in ’76 and ’80. Maybe they had gotten to him by ’84.

    I would like to disabuse you, if I may, of your opinion on Mr. Reagan’s domestic policy, but I’ve got to go, and will have to write more later on.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    " ... the assassination attempt on Ronnie was a warning from the Deep State."

    The 1981 attempt to take out Reagan just a few months after the 1980 election was a failure, not a warning. Former DCI George H.W. Bush was the Deep State candidate in 1980, but the energy in the Republican Party was behind Reagan. That's why Bush was placed on the ticket as V.P., despite Reagan's misgivings, by party elites. Bush, an awkward politician at best, was to be inserted into the Executive Branch riding Reagan's coattails. In the year preceding the election, Bush and his people would assume complete control of the Executive through the false-flag assassination of the Gipper. But John Hinckley botched his Oswald role and has been heavily-sedated ever since. And then there is the strange connection between the Hinckley family and the Bush dynasty.
    , @Feryl
    But Goldwater jumped the gun on dismantling the New Deal. Republicans before the late 70's had to follow to some degree New Deal norms about expanding and using the government for the public interest, even if stepped on the toes of some businesses and rich people.

    The moderate Northeastern GOP establishment, even in 1980, wasn't quite ready to totally eliminate the New Deal (even if more and more normal Americans were beginning to support a transition away from the New Deal), that's why GHW Bush back then questioned "voo-doo" economics (supply side neo-liberalism). The Rockefeller Republicans were pragmatists on economic and cultural issues, because if that's what it took to preserve Pax Americana, so be it. And the Rockefeller GOP was right; unfettered neo-liberalism destroyed the middle class, and extreme cultural conservatives and their Left counterparts have heavily divided America since the late 80's. Decadent social and economic policies, and bickering over such, have made it much more difficult to sustain Pax Americana. Globalists promoting homosexuality and abortion have turned off many conservatives from the idea that America is virtuous and entitled to boss other countries around. Many US conservatives now actually are in alignment with Middle Eastern/African/Asian cultures that deride America as fat, lazy, and perverted.
  9. @Feryl

    hen there was the big one – Ross Perot, to me a precursor to candidate Donald Trump (except the guy was a man of his word, not a total wuss wipe-out like this guy.) He got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and that was after dropping out of the race due to Deep-State threats, and then getting back in.
     
    Perot is no dummy, and I suspect that he did the math about Reagan's assassination attempt in the early 80's. The GHW Bush was deeply involved in the creation and maintenance of the Deep State that we've had since the WW2 era. Reagan was a comparative interloper, and a theoretical libertarian (in practice, well, his policies were mixed), regarded as a threat to the moderate on most issues* Northeastern based GOP establishment that symbolically was over-taken in 1980. The Bushites tried vainly to reverse this via installing Bush in Reagan's White House, and when they felt like the Reaganites were still dissing them, tried to kill Reagan....Only to fail and actually make Reagan more sympathetic. Bush finally got "his" turn in 1989-1992, and of course he showed his true colors by starting a war (while the more libertarian flavored Reagan regime had to shoot down CIA/Bushite propaganda designed to further neo-conservative war mongering). Yet the collapse of the Soviets suddenly made the paranoid and ambitious war-mongering of the Bushites seem passe, and Americans rejected Bush in 1992. Flash to the 2000's, and the Dems should've made the case that Bush represented a return to blustering and bloody foreign policy, but completely failed to do so. Naturally, when Bush 2 made it to the White House, we again started a larger scale conflict. But unlike the 80's, we had no resaonably sane and courageous people left in the White House, and as such there was a total failure to voice skepticism about war**.

    *Except foreign policy, the "moderate" Northeastern Republicans of the 1950's-1980's were basically neo-con hawks, to the point of almost single issue status (e.g., guys like Bill Kristol are mostly indistinguishable from the Leftists of his era/generation, except on foreign policy based on doing what's in the interest of Israel and the Deep State). In the 90's and subsequent decades, many of these "conservatives" have packed their bags and gone to the Democrats (a trend that's exploded in the Trump era, what with populist social conservative isolationists rejecting neo-conservatism). Note also that cutting taxes on rich people was important to wealthy "moderate" Republicans, so naturally they gravitated to the GOP in the 70's and 80's. After Clinton failed to repeal these tax cuts, many "conservatives" (yuppie scum) drifted to the Dems.

    **Bush 1 and Bush 2 are, hands down, the biggest war-mongers in chief since the 70's. Nobody in their regimes seriously and successfully opposed neo-con excesses, whereas Reagan/Bill Clinton/Obama/Trump have had terms noted for relative doves trying to push back against hawks.

    **Bush 1 and Bush 2 are, hands down, the biggest war-mongers in chief since the 70’s.”

    This is certainly true. George H.W. Bush, presiding over the collapse of the Soviet Union during his one term in the Executive, pivoted to Islamic terrorism and narco-terrorism. And it was the networks of CIA asset Somocistas he helped put together in the 1980s that generated the crack epidemic in the late 80s and early 90s. His emotionally-crippled son, W., opened the Executive door to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and their neoconservative allies. The disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were unleashed after the still mysterious incident known as 9/11. A future Shakespeare, or “Shakespeares” to use W. parlance, will be able to depict the Bush dynasty as the monstrous and wicked elites they are. Perhaps future Shakespeare will include the Bush dynasty’s relationship with another wicked but less prominent American political family, the Clintons.

  10. @Oleaginous Outrager
    Also known as "the number of people pretending to be above it all and waaaaay smarter than all those party partisan dopes". We need to cross reference it with the number of these "third party adherents" would describe themselves by that hoary ol' chestnut "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" to be sure, but I know which way I'd bet.

    Among third parties, the Libertarian party has always advertised itself as “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” but the meaning of social liberalism has shifted over the years. For a country to become wealthy it has to combine small government and people who practice traditional values and self-restraint. Victorian era Britain and America had government spending under ten percent of GDP while Victorian era moral values were generally conservative. Once a country becomes wealthy, though, the increased wealth leads to self-indulgence and decadence and then that undermines the traditional values that helped to create the wealth to begin with. As a country becomes more decadent, social liberalism shifts in meaning from tolerating to celebrating deviant lifestyles. More people support a libertarian party so they can get easy access to things like drugs and prostitutes and then the party responds by emphasizing those types of issues. There would be room for a third party that supports a small fiscally conservative government but whose leaders show an awareness that cultural conservatism helps to provide a foundation for continued prosperity and don’t hold up as role models social libertines.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Among third parties, the Libertarian party has always advertised itself as “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” but the meaning of social liberalism has shifted over the years.
     
    The good news is that most demographics report being much more pro "big government" than they used to be. In the neo-liberal unraveling that peaked in the 90's, people didn't feel as if there were that many major problems that required great institutional programs to solve. These days, stuff like the border crisis, the student loan crisis, excessive booms and busts from unregulated markets, and the like have all made people much more amenable to sweeping efforts to reform the system. And these days, "reform" means more government, not less, whereas in the 80's and 90's the fashion was to play up the idea of the government being as small as possible.

    Unfortunately, because many of our elites are selfish and clueless, not enough of them are listening to what we want. Whereas in the 1930's-1990's, most Americans generally felt that they were getting the society they wanted. I remember Ann Coulter, shortly into the Trump era, pointing out that even at GOP rallies/functions, the litany about tax cuts and de-regulation elicits yawns, while genuinely populist reforms (like shutting the border) get big cheers.
  11. @Achmed E. Newman
    Feryl, I had a reply in mind to your couple of comments back on that other A.E. thread - this one - but it's been a while. I gotta admit that I agree with you more than usual here. I think you are on the right track in thinking (as I do) that the assassination attempt on Ronnie was a warning from the Deep State.

    I was not aware enough to note if President Reagan changed his ways after that. I'll tell you what, that was a pretty near thing too. Trauma care 40 years back was not what it is today, when that 6th of 6 .22 shots ricocheted into one of Reagan's lungs and missed his heart by 1". He was in the hospital for a few days, and his getting through it was not any sure thing. I want to write a blog post about it soon.

    I agree, Feryl, that the Bushes were the biggest warmongers - to me it was more in their nature than it was for Bill Clinton, who just wanted to distract the country from his shenanigans and had no real basic principles besides where's the next poontang (hey, it was better for our country that way). Reagan was a principled Libertarian (OK, for the most part) and the establishment GOP didn't like that with Barry Goldwater 20-odd years earlier, and they sure didn't like it again with Ronnie in '76 and '80. Maybe they had gotten to him by '84.

    I would like to disabuse you, if I may, of your opinion on Mr. Reagan's domestic policy, but I've got to go, and will have to write more later on.

    ” … the assassination attempt on Ronnie was a warning from the Deep State.”

    The 1981 attempt to take out Reagan just a few months after the 1980 election was a failure, not a warning. Former DCI George H.W. Bush was the Deep State candidate in 1980, but the energy in the Republican Party was behind Reagan. That’s why Bush was placed on the ticket as V.P., despite Reagan’s misgivings, by party elites. Bush, an awkward politician at best, was to be inserted into the Executive Branch riding Reagan’s coattails. In the year preceding the election, Bush and his people would assume complete control of the Executive through the false-flag assassination of the Gipper. But John Hinckley botched his Oswald role and has been heavily-sedated ever since. And then there is the strange connection between the Hinckley family and the Bush dynasty.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    GHW Bush was supposed to restore the reputation of American military/intelligence, after it took a major beating in the 70's (to the point that legislation was passed to greatly enhance transparency of these sectors). But as you point out, the clandestine funkiness of GHW Bush stood out too much (just like with Hilary, also); these are sociopaths/cynical career climbers who give off bad vibes that they never can fully hide) and people chose the earnestness of Reagan instead.

    Hilary was also going to be a establishment favored Deep State president, but unlike GHW Bush, she never got "her" turn. The Deep State spent lots of time trying to bend the Reagan White House toward belligerence and paranoia, and just the same is happening within the Trump White House.

    Bill Clinton's era was hardly free of mischief, but in comparison to the other post-1980 regimes, he actually didn't get too much pressure, presumably because we shifted dramatically toward financial globalism in the 90's, what with the Soviets collapsing, and this really sent the MIC reeling.
    , @Corvinus
    Cool story, bro.
  12. @Oleaginous Outrager
    Also known as "the number of people pretending to be above it all and waaaaay smarter than all those party partisan dopes". We need to cross reference it with the number of these "third party adherents" would describe themselves by that hoary ol' chestnut "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" to be sure, but I know which way I'd bet.

    I’m fiscally liberal and socially conservative, and I plan to vote for the Constitution Party, the largest party which meets the bare minimum requirements for any non-treasonous party: immigration restriction and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

  13. @Audacious Epigone
    I recall my mother's frustration and disappointment when the results from Texas came in on election night 1992--"he couldn't even win his home state of Texas". I had no frame of reference or context for it, but looking back it is interesting to think that it wasn't that long ago that a third party really could be something other than a sideshow clown.

    Could any “third party” exist if the only office a member held was the Presidency? The US Congress has little in common with most European parliaments, and its structure is such that any third party would have to capture an almost unfeasible large number of seats (at least a third) to have any impact on governance.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Could any “third party” exist if the only office a member held was the Presidency?
     
    Given only the Oval Office, a party could both exercise executive powers in line with its agenda and block almost all measures that could not command a 2/3 majority in both houses and use that to promote its agenda and block its opposition.  If the gripe was that one of the two halves of the uniparty was too amendable to unwelcome initiatives and was able to command majorities but not supermajorities, holding only the executive would be sufficient for at least some measures.  Better yet, in the next mid-term the exective's coat-tails would have at least some reach.

    Edit:  that may not say exactly what I wanted to say but I'm too wiped out right now to try to fix it.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, there's a lot a president can do with an executive order pen and a veto pen.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Could any “third party” exist if the only office a member held was the Presidency?
     
    Jesse Ventura pulled it off as Governor of Minnesota. He even switched parties along the way.

    It helped that his legislature was split, and he sat atop a three-party government. He could play one side against the other. As could the other two.
  14. @Oleaginous Outrager
    Could any "third party" exist if the only office a member held was the Presidency? The US Congress has little in common with most European parliaments, and its structure is such that any third party would have to capture an almost unfeasible large number of seats (at least a third) to have any impact on governance.

    Could any “third party” exist if the only office a member held was the Presidency?

    Given only the Oval Office, a party could both exercise executive powers in line with its agenda and block almost all measures that could not command a 2/3 majority in both houses and use that to promote its agenda and block its opposition.  If the gripe was that one of the two halves of the uniparty was too amendable to unwelcome initiatives and was able to command majorities but not supermajorities, holding only the executive would be sufficient for at least some measures.  Better yet, in the next mid-term the exective’s coat-tails would have at least some reach.

    Edit:  that may not say exactly what I wanted to say but I’m too wiped out right now to try to fix it.

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager

    a party could both exercise executive powers in line with its agenda
     
    Exercise how? Through a bureaucracy and especially a judiciary that would have zero investment in said party? How would a President with no party support in Congress get any appointee confirmed?

    Better yet, in the next mid-term the exective’s coat-tails would have at least some reach.
     
    Based on what? That hasn't happened for most red/blue presidents in recent midterms, why would a third party be any better off?
  15. I just completed this for White Men.

    Disclaimer: Democrats, Republicans, and Independents only. People might identify with libertarianism, but they don’t register or vote with them.

    I’m measuring by Gotoquiz political compass grid. One grid = One spot. Example one grid upwards is +1 Authoritarianism , dowm two grids is +2 libertarian

    White Men

    Republican (Under 18)

    1_North Dakota (under 18) – 69.7%
    2_Georgia (Under 18) – 62.5%
    3_Alabama (Under 18) – 60.5%
    3_South Carolina (Under 18) – 60.5%
    5_Oklahoma (under 18) – 59.9%
    6_Texas (Under 18) – 58.8%
    7_Louisiana (Under 18) – 58.3%
    8_Missouri (Under 18) – 56.6%
    9_Florida (Under 18) – 55.5%
    10_Kentucky (Under 18) – 55.4%
    11_Utah (Under 18) – 55.3%
    12_Minnesota (Under 18) – 54.6%
    12_Arizona (Under 18) – 54.6%
    14_Wisconsin (Under 18) – 54.4%
    15_Ohio (Under 18) – 54%
    16_Indiana (Under 18) – 53.8%
    16_Illinois (Under 18) – 53.8%
    18_Pennsylvania (under 18) – 53.6%
    19_Michigan (Under 18) – 53.3%
    20_Arkansas (Under 18) – 53%
    21_Kansas (Under 18) – 52.9%
    22_Montana (Under 18) – 52.3%
    23_Idaho (Under 18) – 52.1%
    24_Virginia (Under 18) – 51.7%
    25_New Jersey (Under 18) – 51.6%
    25_Iowa (Under 18) – 51.6%
    26_Mississippi (Under 18) – 51.5%
    27_Wyoming (Under 18) – 51.4%
    28_Nevada (Under 18) – 50.4%
    29_Nebraska (Under 18) – 50.1%
    30_South Dakota (Under 18) – 50%
    31_North Carolina (Under 18) – 49.4%
    32_West Virginia (Under 18) – 48.8%
    33_Maryland (Under 18) – 48.4%
    34_New York (Under 18) – 48.3%
    35_Colorado (Under 18) – 48.1%
    36_California (Under 18) – 47.7%
    37_Maine (Under 18) – 47.6%
    38_Connecticut (Under 18) – 47.4%
    39_Oregon (Under 18) – 46.5%
    40_New Mexico (Under 18) – 46.1%
    41_New Hampshire (Under 18) – 45.7%
    42_Washington (Under 18) – 44.7%
    43_Massachusetts (Under 18) – 39.7%
    44_Vermont (Under 18) – 36.5%
    45_Rhode island (under 18) – 35.6%
    46_D.C (Under 18) – 23.4%

    1_Mississippi (18-29) – 44.7%
    2_Texas (18-29) – 44%
    3_Alabama (18-29) – 43%
    4_Georgia (18-29) – 42.4%
    5_South Carolina (18-29) – 41.6%
    6_Wyoming (18-29) – 41.4%
    7_Indiana (18-29) – 40.8%
    7_Oklahoma (18-29) – 40.8%
    9_Florida (18-29) – 40.3%
    10_Massachusetts (Under 18) – 39.7%
    11_Louisiana (18-29) – 39.1%
    12_Pennsylvania (18-29) – 38.1%
    13_Kentucky (18-29) – 38%
    13_South Dakota (18-29) – 38%
    15_Kansas (18-29) – 37.8%
    16_Minnesota (18-29) – 37.5%
    17_West Virginia (18-29) – 37.4%
    18_Utah (18-29) – 37.2%
    19_Nebraska (18-29) – 36.8%
    19_New Mexico (18-29) – 36.8%
    19_Virginia (18-29) – 36.8%
    22_Ohio (18-29) – 36.6%
    23_Tennessee (18-29) – 36.4%
    24_Nevada (18-29) – 35.9%
    25_Rhode island (under 18) – 35.6%
    26_Arizona (18-29) – 35.5%
    27_North Carolina (18-29) – 35.1%
    28_Missouri (18-29) – 34.5%
    29_New Jersey (18-29)l – 34.3%
    30_Iowa (18-29) – 34.1%
    31_Michigan (18-29) – 34%
    31_Arkansas (18-29) – 34%
    31_Colorado (18-29) – 34%
    34_Maryland (18-29) – 33.7%
    35_California (18-29) – 33.6%
    36_Connecticut (18-29) – 33.5%
    37_Wisconsin (18-29) – 33.2%
    38_New York (18-29) – 32.3%
    39_Maine (18-29) – 30.3%
    40_Washington (18-29) – 26.5%
    41_New Hampshire (18-29) – 25.2%
    42_Rhode island (18-29) – 23.4%
    43_Vermont (18-29) – 22.3%
    44_D.C (18-29) – 21.6%
    45_Massachusetts (18-29) – 21.1%

    Most Independent

    New Hampshire (18-29) – 50.5%
    Massachusetts (18-29) – 47.3%
    Rhode island (18-29) – 46.8%
    Vermont (18-28) – 42.6%
    Idaho (18-29) – 40.6%
    Louisiana (18-29) – 38.5%
    Maine (18-29) – 38.3%
    North Carolina (18-29) – 37.8/
    Colorado (18-29) – 37%
    Tennessee (18-29) – 36.7%
    Washington (18-29) – 36.7%
    Arizona (18-29) – 36.3%
    Arkansas (18-29) – 36%
    South Carolina (18-29) – 35.7%
    Wyoming (18-29) – 35.6%
    Rhode island (under 18) – 35.1%
    Alabama (18-29) – 35%
    Nebraska (18-29) – 34.6%
    Oregon (18-29) – 34.4%
    New Jersey (18-29) – 34.3%
    Virginia (18-29) – 34.2%
    Iowa (18-29) – 34.1%
    Michigan (18-29) – 34%
    Illinois (18-29) – 33.9%
    Connecticut (18-29) – 33.8%
    Ohio (18-29) – 33.3%
    Missouri (18-29) – 33.1%
    Georgia (18-29) – 32.6%
    Kansas (18-29) – 32.1%
    Massachusetts (Under 18) – 32.1%
    Texas (18-29) – 32%
    South Dakota (18-29) – 31.8%
    Vermont (Under 18) – 31.7%
    New Mexico (18-29) – 31.6%
    West Virginia (18-29) – 31.6%
    Nevada (18-29) – 30.7%
    California (18-29) – 30.6%
    Florida (18-29) – 30.6%
    Maryland (18-29) – 30.5%
    Mississippi (Under 18) – 29.8%
    New Hampshire (Under 18) – 29.7%
    Wisconsin (18-29) – 29.6%
    New York (18-29) – 29.5%
    Indiana (18-29) – 29.4%
    Oklahoma – (18-29) – 29.3%
    Wyoming – (Under 18) – 28.5%
    West Virginia (Under 18) – 28%
    North Carolina (Under 18) – 27.7%
    Utah (Under 18) – 27.4%
    Nevada (Under 18) – 27%
    South Dakota (Under 18) – 27%
    Pennsylvania (18-29) – 26.3%
    Kentucky (18-29) – 25.5%
    Maine (Under 18) – 25.2%
    Missouri (Under 18) – 25.1%
    New Mexico (Under 18) – 25.1%
    D.C (18-29) – 25%
    Minnesota (18-28) – 24.8%
    Arkansas (Under 18) – 24.5%
    Iowa (Under 18) – 24.5%
    Nebraska (Under 18) – 23.6%
    Arizona (Under 18) – 23.5%
    Kansas (Under 18) – 23.2%
    Tennessee (Under 18) – 23.2%
    Louisiana (Under 18) – 23.1%
    Colorado (Under 18) – 23%
    Florida (Under 18) – 23%
    Idaho (Under 18) – 22.6%
    California (Under 18) – 22.6%
    Washington (Under 18) – 22.3%
    Connecticut (Under 18) – 22.2%
    Maryland (Under 18) – 22.1%
    New Jersey (Under 18) – 22%
    Oregon (Under 18) – 22%
    Virginia (Under 18) – 21.8%
    Texas (Under 18) – 21.4%
    Indiana (Under 18) – 21%
    Ohio (under 18) – 21%
    New York (Under 18) – 20.5%
    South Carolina (Under 18) – 20.5%
    Montana (Under 18) – 20.3%
    Oklahoma (Under 18) – 20.2%
    Alabama (Under 18) – 20%
    Michigan (Under 18) – 19.6%
    Pennsylvania (Under 18) – 19.6%
    Illinois (Under 18) – 18.7%
    Georgia (Under 18) – 18.5%
    Kentucky (Under 18) – 18.4%
    Wisconsin (Under 18) – 16.4%
    D.C (Under 18) – 15.6%
    Minnesota (Under 18) – 12.8%

    Most Democrat

    D.C (Under 18) – 60.9%
    D.C (18-29) – 53.3%
    Utah (18-29) – 39.1%
    Oregon (18-29) – 39%
    New York (18-29) – 38%
    Minnesota (18-29) – 37.5%
    Washington (18-29) – 36.7%
    Kentucky (18-29) – 36.3%
    California (18-29) – 35.7%
    Maryland (18-29) – 35.6%
    Pennsylvania (18-29) – 35.5%
    Vermont (18-29) – 34.9%
    Illinois (18-29) – 33.9%
    Wisconsin (18-29) – 33.5%
    Nevada (18-29) – 33.2%
    Washington (Under 18) – 32.9%
    Connecticut (18-29) – 32.6%
    Minnesota (Under 18) – 32.4%
    Missouri (18-29) – 32.1%
    Michigan (18-29) – 31.8%
    Vermont (Under 18) – 31.7%
    Iowa (18-29) – 31.6%
    Massachusetts (18-29) – 31.5%
    Oregon (Under 18) – 31.4%
    New Mexico (18-29) – 31.4%
    New Jersey (18-29) – 31.25%
    Maine (18-29) – 31.2%
    West Virginia (18-29) – 30.8%
    New York (Under 18) – 30.5%
    Connecticut (Under 18) – 30.4%
    South Dakota (18-29) – 30.1%
    Arkansas (18-29) – 30%
    Ohio (18-29) – 30%
    Kansas (18-29) – 29.9%
    Oklahoma (18-29) – 29.8%
    Rhode island (18-29) – 29.7%
    Indiana (18-29) – 29.7%
    California (Under 18) – 29.5%
    Maryland (Under 18) – 29.4%
    Wisconsin (Under 18) – 29.2%
    Rhode island (Under 18) – 29.1%
    Florida (18-29) – 29%
    Virginia (18-29) – 28.9%
    Colorado (Under 18) – 28.7%
    New Mexico (Under 18) – 28.7%
    Nebraska (18-29) – 28.5%
    Massachusetts (Under 18) – 28.1%
    North Carolina (18-29) – 28%
    Colorado (18-29) – 28%
    Arizona (18-29) – 28%
    Montana (Under 18) – 27.3%
    Illinois (Under 18) – 27.3%
    Maine (Under 18) – 27.1%
    Michigan (Under 18) – 26.9%
    Pennsylvania (Under 18) – 26.7%
    Virginia (Under 18) – 26.4%
    New Jersey (Under 18) – 26.3%
    Nebraska (Under 18) – 26.2%
    Kentucky (Under 18) – 26.1%
    Georgia (18-29) – 25%
    Indiana (Under 18) – 25%
    Arkansas (Under 18) – 22.5%
    Idaho (Under 18) – 25.2%
    Ohio (Under 18) – 24.9%
    Tennessee (Under 18) – 24.9%
    New Hampshire (Under 18) – 24.5%
    New Hampshire (18-29) – 24.1%
    Texas (18-29) – 24%
    Iowa (Under 18) – 23.8%
    Kansas (Under 18) – 23.7%
    Utah (18-29) – 23.5%
    West Virginia (Under 18) – 23.1%
    South Dakota (Under 18) – 23%
    North Carolina (Under 18) – 22.9%
    Wyoming (18-29) – 22.9%
    Nevada (Under 18) – 22.5%
    South Carolina (18-29) – 22.5%
    Mississippi (18-29) – 22.4%
    Louisiana (18-29) – 22.3%
    Alabama (18-29) – 22%
    Arizona (Under 18) – 21.7%
    Florida (Under 18) – 21.5%
    Wyoming (Under 18) – 20%
    Oklahoma (Under 18) – 19.8%
    Texas (Under 18) – 19.7%
    Alabama (Under 18) – 19.5%
    South Carolina (Under 18) – 19.3%
    Georgia (Under 18) – 19%
    Mississippi (Under 18) – 18.5%
    Louisiana (Under 18) – 18.4%
    Missouri (Under 18) – 18%
    Utah (Under 18) – 17.2%

    Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism

    West Virginia Republican – +1 Authoritarianism
    Utah Republican – +1 Authoritarianism
    Mississippi Republican – +1 Authoritarianism
    Idaho Republican – +1 Authoritarianism
    Arkansas Republican – +1 Authoritarianism
    Nebraska Republican – +.9 Authoritarianism
    Georgia Republicans – +.7 Authoritarianism
    Montana Republican – +.7 Authoritarianism
    North Dakota Republican – +.6 Authoritarianism
    Oregon Republican – .5 Authoritarianism
    Alabama Republican – +.5 Authoritarianism
    Nevada Republican – +.4 Authoritarianism
    Texas Republican – +.4 Authoritarianism
    Tennessee Republican – +.3 Authoritarianism
    Wyoming Republican – +.3 Authoritarianism
    North Carolina Republican – +3 Authoritarianism
    South Carolina Republican – +.25 Authoritariani
    Oklahoma Republican – +.2 Authoritarianism
    Louisiana Republican – +.2 Authoritarianism
    Florida Republican – +.1 Authoritarianism
    Michigan Republican – +.1 Authoritarianism
    Indiana Republican – +.1 Authoritarianism
    Ohio Republican – +.1 Authoritarianism
    Virginia Republican – +.1 Authoritarianism
    New Mexico Republican – +.1 Authoritarianism
    Kentucky Republican – +.1 Authoritarianism
    Maine Republican – +.1 Authoritarianism
    Wisconsin Republican – +0.1Authoritarianism
    Missouri Republican – +0.1 Authoritarianism
    Washington Republican – +0.1 Authoritarianism
    Minnesota Republican – .0 Both
    Colorado Republican – .0 Both
    Iowa Republican – .0 Both
    Illinois Republican – .0 Both
    Pennsylvania Republican – .0 Both
    South Dakota Republican – .0 Both
    Kansas Republican +.1 Libertarian
    Maryland Republican +.1 Libertarian
    Connecticut Republican – +.1 Libertarian
    California Republican – +.1 Libertarian
    Massachusetts Republican +.1 Libertarian
    Arizona Republican – +.2 Libertarian
    New Hampshire Republican – +.2 Libertarian
    New Jersey Republican – +.25 Libertarian
    New York Republican – +.25 Libertarian
    Rhode Island Republican – +.5 Libertarian
    Vermont Republican – +1 Libertarian

    South Dakota independent – +0.7 Libertarian
    Minnesota Independent – +1.5 Libertarian
    Maine Independent – +1.5 Libertarian
    Utah Independent – +1.6 Libertarian
    Idaho Independent – +1.7 Libertarian
    Connecticut Independent – +1.7 Libertarian
    West Virginia Independent – +1.8 Libertarian
    Iowa Independent – +1.9 Libertarian
    North Carolina Independent – +2 Libertarian
    Kentucky Independent – +2 Libertarian
    Arkansas Independent – +2 Libertarian
    Ohio Independent – +2 Libertarian
    Georgia Independent – +2 Libertarian
    Wyoming Independent – +2 Libertarian
    Nebraska independent – +2.1 Libertarian
    North Dakota independent – +2.1 Libertarian
    Michigan Independent – +2.1 Libertarian
    Florida Independent – +2.1 Libertarian
    Wisconsin Independent – +2.1 Libertarian
    Colorado Independent – +2.1 Libertarian
    Missouri Independent – +2.2 Libertarian
    Virginia Independent – +2.2 Libertarian
    Alabama Independent – +2.25 Libertarian
    New Jersey Independent – +2.25 Libertarian
    New Hampshire Independent – +2.3 Libertarian
    Texas Independent – +2.3 Libertarian
    Louisiana Independent – +2.4 Libertarian
    Tennessee Independent – +2.4 Libertarian
    Pennsylvania Independent – +2.4 Libertarian
    Mississippi Independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    Indiana Independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    Nevada independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    Kansas Independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    South Carolina Independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    Oregon Independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    Massachusetts Independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    Arizona Independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    New York Independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    California Independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    Maryland independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    Illinois Independent – +2.5 Libertarian
    Oklahoma Independent – +2.6 Libertarian
    Rhode Island Independent – +3 Libertarian
    Washington independent – +3 Libertarian
    Montana Independent – +3.2 Libertarian
    New Mexico independent – +3.5 Libertarian
    Utah Independent – +4 Libertarian

    North Dakota Democrat – +1 Libertarian
    Nebraska Democrat – +1.5 Lovecraftian
    South Dakota – +1.5 Libertarian
    Iowa Democrat – +1.8 Libertarian
    Montana Democrat – +1.9 Libertarian
    Nevada Democrat – +1.9 Libertarian
    Colorado Democrat – +2 Libertarian
    Wisconsin Democrat – +2 Libertarian
    Arkansas Democrat – +2 Libertarian
    Minnesota Democrat – +2 Libertarian
    West Virginia Democrat – +2 Libertarian
    Maine Democrat – +2 Libertarian
    Ohio Democrat – +2 Libertarian
    Alabama Democrat – +2 Libertarian
    Michigan Democrat – +2.1 Libertarian
    Pennsylvania Democrat – +2.1 Libertarian
    California Democrat – +2.1 Libertarian
    Washington Democrat – +2.1 Libertarian
    New York Democrat – +2.1 Libertarian
    Utah Democrat – +2.1 Libertarian
    Rhode Island Democrat – +2.1 Libertarian
    Oregon Democrat – +2.1 Libertarian
    Idaho Democrat – +2.2 Libertarian
    Kentucky Democrat – +2.2 Libertarian
    Illinois Democrat – +2.2 Libertarian
    Virginia Democrat – +2.2 Libertarian
    New Hampshire Democrat – +2.2 Libertarian
    Indiana Democrat – +2.2 Libertarian
    Missouri Democrat – +2.2 Libertarian
    New Jersey Democrat – +2.25 Libertarian
    Kansas Democrat – +2.3 Libertarian
    Connecticut Democrat – +2.4 Libertarian
    Massachusetts Democrat – +2.4 Libertarian
    Arizona Democrat – +2.5 Libertarian
    Tennessee Democrat – +2.5 Libertarian
    Georgia Democrat – 2.5 Libertarian
    South Carolina Democrat – +2.5 Libertarian
    Florida Democrat – +2.5 Libertarian
    Oklahoma Democrat – +2.5 Libertarian
    Maryland Democrat – +2.5 Libertarian
    Mississippi Democrat – +2.5 Libertarian
    North Carolina Democrat – +2.5 Libertarian
    Texas Democrat – +2.9 Libertarian
    Utah Democrat – +3.0 Libertarian
    Wyoming Democrat – +3.0 Libertarian
    New Mexico Democrat – +3.7 Libertarian
    Louisiana Democrat – +3.5 libertarian

    Left v Right Economy

    Vermont Republican – +3.5 Right
    Maryland Republican – +3.1 Right
    Massachusetts Republican – +3 Right
    Maine Republican – +3 Right
    New Hampshire Republican – +3 Right
    Arkansas Republican – +3 Right
    Wyoming Republican – +3 Right
    New York Republican – +2.9 Right
    Rhode Island Republican – +2.9 Right
    New Mexico Republican – +2.9 Right
    Washington Republican – +2.8 Right
    Arizona Republican – +2.7 Right
    California Republican +2.7 Right
    Connecticut Republican – +2.7 Right
    New Jersey Republican – +2.6 Right
    Illinois Republican – +2.5 Right
    Pennsylvania Republican – +2.5 Right
    Iowa Republican – +2.5 Right
    Alabama Republican – + 2.5 Right
    Texas Republican – +2.5 Right
    Missouri Republican – +2.5 Right
    North Carolina Republican – +2.4 Right
    Virginia Republican – +2.4 Right
    Florida Republican – +2.1 Right
    Georgia Republican – +2.1 Right
    Nebraska Republican – +2.1 Right
    Tennessee Republican – +2.1 Right
    Michigan Republican – +2.1 Right
    South Carolina Republican – +2.1 Right
    Kentucky Republican – +2.1 Right
    Indiana Republican – +2.1 Right
    Louisiana Republican – +2.1 Right
    Minnesota Republican – +2 Right
    Kansas Republican +2 Right
    Wisconsin Republican – +2 Right
    Colorado Republican – +2 Right
    Oklahoma Republican – +2 Right
    Nevada Republican – +2 Right
    Ohio Republican – +2 Right
    Mississippi Republican – +1.8 Right
    Idaho Republican – +1.8 Right
    Utah Republican – +1.8 Right
    North Dakota Republican – +1.8 Right
    Oregon Republican – +1.7 Right
    West Virginia Republican – +1.7 Right
    Montana Republican – +1.5 Right
    South Dakota Republican – +1.5 Right

    Utah Independent – +0.25 Right
    New Hampshire Independent – +0.25 Right
    Montana Independent – +0.25 Right
    Texas Independent – +.5 Left
    Georgia Independent – +.5 left
    Arkansas Independent – +.5 Left
    Oklahoma Independent – +.5 Left
    California Independent – +.6 Left
    Nevada independent – .7 left
    Indiana Independent – +.8 Left
    Wyoming Independent – +.8 Left
    Louisiana Independent – +.9 Left
    Virginia Independent – +.9 Left
    Kansas Independent +.9 Left
    Wisconsin Independent – +.9 Left
    Ohio Independent – +1 Left
    Idaho Independent – +1 Left
    Alabama Independent – +1 Left
    Maryland Independent – +1 Left
    Arizona Independent – +1 Left
    North Carolina Independent – +1 Left
    New York Independent – +1 Left
    Florida Independent – +1.1 Left
    South Dakota Independent – +1.1 Left
    Pennsylvania Independent – +1.1 Left
    Illinois Independent – +1.1 Left
    Rhode island independent – +1.1 Left
    Massachusetts Independent – +1.1 Left
    Tennessee Independent – +1.1 Left
    Colorado Independent – +1.1 Left
    Connecticut Independent – +1.1 Left
    New Mexico Independent – +1.2 Left
    Missouri Independent – +1.2 Left
    South Carolina Independent – +1.2 left
    Iowa Independent – +1.2 Left
    New Jersey Independent – +1.2 Left
    Minnesota Independent – +1.25 Left
    Kentucky Independent – +1.5 Left
    Oregon Independent – +1.5 Left
    Washington independent – +1.5 Left
    Maine Independent – +1.5 Left
    Michigan Independent – +1.5 Left
    Mississippi Independent – +1.7 Left
    West Virginia Independent – +1.7 Left
    North Dakota Independent – +1.8 Left
    Nebraska independent – +1.9 left
    Vermont Independent – +2.1 Left

    North Dakota Democrat – +2.5 Left
    West Virginia Democrat – +2.7 Left
    Kentucky Democrat – +3 Left
    Oklahoma Democrat – +3.1 Left
    Idaho Democrat – 3.25 Left
    Connecticut Democrat – +3.5 Left
    Minnesota Democrat – +3.5 Left
    Nevada Democrat – +3.5 Left
    Michigan Democrat – +3.5 Left
    Illinois Democrat – +3.5 Left
    Utah Democrat – +3.5 Left
    Indiana Democrat – +3.6 Left
    Kansas Democrat – +3.6 Left
    Georgia Democrat – 3.7 Left
    New Jersey Democrat – +3.7 Left
    South Carolina Democrat – +3.7 Left
    Oregon Democrat – +3.7 Left
    Colorado Democrat – 3.8 Left
    Texas Democrat – +3.8 Left
    Florida Democrat – +3.8 Left
    Missouri Democrat – +3.8 Left
    California Democrat – +3.9 Left
    Arizona Democrat – +3.9 Left
    Tennessee Democrat – +3.9 Left
    Maine Democrat – +3.9 Left
    New York Democrat – +3.9 Left
    Virginia Democrat – +3.9 Left
    Rhode Island Democrat – +3.9 Left
    Ohio Democrat – +3.9 Left
    Pennsylvania Democrat – +3.9 Left
    Iowa Democrat – +4 Left
    Alabama Democrat – +4 Left
    Wyoming Democrat – +4 Left
    Arkansas Democrat – +4 Left
    Wisconsin Democrat – +4 Left
    Washington Democrat – +4 Left
    Massachusetts Democrat – +4 Left
    New Mexico Democrat – +4 Left
    Maryland Democrat – +4 Left
    New Hampshire Democrat – +4.1 Left
    Louisiana Democrat – +4.1 Left
    North Carolina Democrat – +4.1 Left
    South Dakota Democrat – +4.1 Left
    Mississippi Democrat – +4.2 Left
    Vermont Democrat – +4.5 Left
    Nebraska Democrat – +4.5 left
    Montana Democrat – +4.5 Left

    Non-Interventionist v. Pro Interventionist

    Wyoming Republican – +4.5 Pro
    Nebraska Republican – +3.9 Pro
    Maine Republican- +3.7 Pro
    Louisiana Republican – +3.5 Pro
    New Mexico Republican – +3.5 Pro
    Maryland Republican – +3.5 Pro
    Rhode island Republican – +3.5 Pro
    Florida Republican – +3.4 Pro
    Arkansas Republican – +3.25 Pro
    New York Republican – +3.25 Pro
    New Hampshire Republican – +3.2 Pro
    Missouri Republican – +3.2 Pro
    Massachusetts Republican – +3.1 Pro
    North Carolina Republican – +3.1 Pro
    Virginia Republican – +3.1 Pro
    West Virginia Republican – +3.1 Pro
    California Republican – +3.1 Pro
    Nevada Republican – +3.1 Pro
    New Jersey Republican – +3.1 Pro
    Colorado Republican – +3.1 Pro
    South Carolina Republican – +3.1 Pro
    Texas Republican – +3.1 Pro
    Oklahoma Republican – +3.1 Pro
    Montana Republican – +3.1 Pro
    Connecticut Republican – +3.1 Pro
    Illinois Republican – +3.1 Pro
    Indiana Republican – +3 Pro
    Georgia Republican – +3 Pro
    Washington Republican – +3 Pro
    Mississippi Republican – +3 Pro
    Tennessee Republican – +3 Pro
    Kentucky Republican +3 Pro
    Alabama Republican – +3 Pro
    Vermont Republican – +3 Pro
    Arizona Republican – +3 Pro
    Pennsylvania Republican – +3 Pro
    Kansas Republican – +2.9 Pro
    North Dakota Republican – +2.9 Pro
    Minnesota Republican +2.9 Pro
    Michigan Republican – +2.9 Pro
    Wisconsin Republican – +2.9 Pro
    Ohio Republican – +2.9 Pro
    Oregon Republican – +2.9 Pro
    Idaho Republican – +2.1 Pro
    Utah Republican – +2.1 Pro
    Iowa Republican – +2.1 Pro
    South Dakota Republican – +2.1 Pro

    South Dakota Independent – +0.5 Non
    New Hampshire Independent – +1 Non
    Connecticut independent – +1 Non
    Arizona Independent- +1 Non
    Iowa Independent – +1.1 Non
    Utah Independent – +1.1 Non
    Georgia Independent – +1.2 Non
    Massachusetts Independent – +1.4 Non
    Florida Independent – +1.5 Non
    Kentucky Independent – +1.5 Non
    Oregon Independent – +1.5 Non
    Maryland Independent – +1.5 Non
    Maine Independent – +1.5 Non
    Wyoming Independent – +1.5 Non
    North Carolina Independent – +1.5 Non
    Kansas Independent – +1.6 Non
    Minnesota Independent – +1.7 Non
    New York Independent – +1.7 Non
    Oklahoma Independent – +1.7 Non
    Colorado Independent – +1.7 Non
    Ohio Independent – +1.8 Non
    Missouri Independent – +1.8 Non
    Nebraska independent – +1.9 Non
    West Virginia Independent – +1.9 Non
    Idaho Independent – +1.9 Non
    Virginia Independent – +1.9 Non
    Texas Independent – +1.9 Non
    New Jersey Independent – +1.9 Non
    Nevada independent – +1.9 Non
    North Dakota – +1.9 Non
    Louisiana Independent – +1.9 Non
    Indiana Independent – +2 Non
    Alabama Independent – +2 Non
    South Carolina Independent – +2 Non
    California Independent – +2 Non
    Arkansas Independent – +2.1 Non
    Illinois Independent – +2.1 Non
    Michigan Independent – +2.1 Non
    Wisconsin Independent – +2.1 Non
    Mississippi Independent – +2.1 Non
    New Mexico Independent – +2.1 Non
    Tennessee Independent – +2.1 Non
    Pennsylvania Independent – +2.1 Non
    Montana Independent – +2.4 Non
    Rhode island independent – +2.5 Non
    Washington independent – +2.5 Non
    Vermont Independent – +2.9 Non

    North Dakota Democrat – +1.9 Non
    West Virginia Democrat – +2.1 Non
    South Dakota Democrat – +2.9 Non
    Oklahoma Democrat – +2.9 Non
    New Jersey Democrat – +2.9 Non
    Nevada Democrat – +3 Non
    Minnesota Democrat – +3 Non
    Connecticut Democrat – +3 Non
    Missouri Democrat – +3 Non
    Wisconsin Democrat – +3 Non
    Illinois Democrat – +3.1 Non
    Iowa Democrat – +3.1 Non
    New York Democrat – +3.1 Non
    Massachusetts Democrat – +3.1 Non
    Oregon Democrat – +3.2 Non
    Virginia Democrat – +3.2 Non
    Florida Democrat – +3.25 Non
    California Democrat – +3.25 Non
    Michigan Democrat – +3.25 Non
    Ohio Democrat – +3.4 Non
    Pennsylvania Democrat – +3.4 Non
    Tennessee Democrat – +3.4 Non
    Utah Democrat – +3.4 Non
    New Hampshire Democrat – +3.5 Non
    Georgia Democrat – +3.5 Non
    Alabama Democrat – +3.5 Non
    Kansas Democrat – +3.5 Non
    Nebraska Democrat – +3.5 Non
    Rhode island Democrat – +3.5 Non
    Maine Democrat – +3.5 Non
    Indiana Democrat – +3.5 Non
    Maryland Democrat – +3.5 Non
    Colorado Democrat – +3.5 Non
    Idaho Democrat – +3.5 Non
    South Carolina Democrat – +3.6 Non
    Wyoming Democrat – +3.7 Non
    Mississippi Democrat – +3.7 non
    Washington Democrat – +3.7 Non
    Arkansas Democrat – +3.9 Non
    Kentucky Democrat – +3.9 Non
    Arizona Democrat – +4 Non
    Texas Democrat – +4 Non
    North Carolina Democrat – +4 Non
    Louisiana Democrat – +4.1 Non
    Vermont Democrat – +4.1 Non
    Montana Democrat – +4.2 Non
    New Mexico Democrat – +4.5 Non

    Culturally liberal v Culturally Conservative

    Mississippi Republican – +1CC
    Utah Republican – +1CC
    Idaho Republican – .9 CC
    Nebraska Republican + – .9 CC
    Arkansas Republican – +.8 CC
    Montana Republican – +.8 CC
    North Dakota Republican – +.7 CC
    West Virginia Republican – +.6 CC
    Georgia Republican – +.5 CC
    Alabama Republican – +.5 CC
    Oregon Republican – +.5CC
    Texas Republican – +.4 CC
    Oklahoma Republican – +.4CC
    Tennessee Republican – +.4 CC
    Nevada Republican – +.4 CC
    South Carolina – +.3 CC
    Louisiana Republican – +.2 CC
    Florida Republican – +.2 CC
    Michigan Republican – +.2 CC
    Wyoming Republican – +.2 CC
    Virginia Republican – +.2 CC
    North Carolina Republican – +.2 CC
    New Mexico Republican – +.2 CC
    Maine Republican – +.1 CC
    Kentucky Republican – +.1 CC
    Indiana Republican – +.1 CC
    Missouri Republican- +.1CC
    Ohio Republican – +.1CC
    Colorado Republican – +.1 CC
    Minnesota Republican – +.1 CC
    Pennsylvania Republican – +.1 CC
    Wisconsin Republican – +.1 CC
    Washington Republican – +0.1 CC
    Iowa Republican – 0 Both
    Illinois Republican – 0 Both
    Kansas Republican – 0 Both
    South Dakota Republican – 0 Both
    Massachusetts Republican – +.1 CL
    Maryland Republican -+.1 CL
    Arizona Republican – +.1 CL
    California Republican – +.1 CL
    Connecticut Republican – +.1 CL
    New York Republican – +.2 CL
    New Hampshire Republican – +0.25 CL
    New Jersey Republican + 0.25 CL
    Rhode island Republican – +.5 CL
    Vermont Republican +1 CL

    South Dakota Independent – +0.7 CL
    Minnesota Independent – +1.5 CL
    Maine Independent – +1.5 CL
    Utah Independent – +1.6 CL
    Connecticut Independent – +1.7 CL
    Idaho Independent – +1.7 CL
    West Virginia Independent – +1.8 CL
    Iowa Independent – +1.9 CL
    Georgia Independent – +2 CL
    Florida Independent – +2 CL
    Michigan Independent – +2 CL
    Kentucky Independent – +2 CL
    Montana Independent – +2.1 CL
    Mississippi Independent – +2.1 CL
    Wyoming Independent – +2.1 CL
    Ohio Independent – +2.1CL
    Arkansas Independent – +2.1 CL
    Louisiana Independent – +2.1 CL
    Wisconsin Independent – +2.1 CL
    Virginia Independent – +2.1 CL
    North Dakota Independent – +2.1 CL
    Colorado Independent – +2.1+ CL
    North Carolina Independent – +2.1 CL
    Alabama Independent – +2.2 CL
    Kansas Independent – +2.3 CL
    Tennessee Independent – +2.3 CL
    New Jersey Independent – +2.3 CL
    Indiana Independent – +2.4 CL
    Pennsylvania Independent ‘ +2.4 CL
    New Hampshire Independent b- +2.4 CL
    Massachusetts Independent – +2.5 CL
    Arizona Independent – +2.5 CL
    California Independent – +2.5 CL
    New York Independent – +2.5 CL
    Texas Independent – +2.5 CL
    Maryland Independent – +2.5 CL
    Nevada independent – +2.5 CL
    South Carolina Independent – +2.5 CL
    Illinois Independent – +2.5 CL
    Oregon Independent – +2.5 CL
    Oklahoma Independent – +2.6 CL
    Rhode island independent – +2.9 CL
    Washington Independent – +3 CL
    Montana Independent – +3 CL
    New Mexico Independent – +3.5 CL
    Vermont Independent – +4.0 CL

    North Dakota Democrat – +0.9 CL
    Nebraska Democrat – +1.5 CL
    South Dakota Democrat – +1.7 CL
    Montana Democrat – +1.9 CL
    Nevada Democrat – +1.9 CL
    Wisconsin Democrat – +1.9 CL
    Minnesota Democrat – +2 CL
    Michigan Democrat – +2 CL
    West Virginia Democrat – +2 CL
    Utah Democrat – +2 CL
    Maine Democrat – +2.1 CL
    Idaho Democrat – +2.1 CL
    Arkansas Democrat – +2.1 CL
    New York Democrat – +2.1 CL
    Washington Democrat – +2.1 CL
    Alabama Democrat – +2.1 CL
    Colorado Democrat – +2.1 CL
    Mississippi Democrat – +2.1 CL
    New Hampshire Democrat – +2.1 CL
    Iowa Democrat – +2.1 CL
    Ohio Democrat – +2.1 CL
    Rhode island Democrat – +2.1CL
    Virginia Democrat – +2.2 CL
    Florida Democrat – +2.2 CL
    Pennsylvania Democrat – +2.2 CL
    Indiana Democrat – +2.3 CL
    Kentucky Democrat – 2.3 CL
    Kansas Democrat – +2.3 CL
    Oregon Democrat – +2.3 CL
    Tennessee Democrat – +2.3 CL
    Illinois Democrat – 2.4 CL
    Massachusetts Democrat – +2.4CL
    California Democrat – 2.4CL
    New Jersey Democrat – +2.4 CL
    Missouri Democrat – +2.5 CL
    Arizona Democrat – +2.5 CL
    Connecticut Democrat – +2.5CL
    Georgia Democrat – +2.5 CL
    Oklahoma Democrat – +2.5CL
    North Carolina Democrat – +2.5 CL
    South Carolina Democrat – +2.5 CL
    Maryland Democrat – +2.6 CL
    Texas Democrat – +2.8 CL
    New Mexico Democrat – +2.9 CL
    Vermont Democrat – +3.0 CL
    Wyoming Democrat – +3.0 CL
    Louisiana Democrat – +3.1 CL

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Have you entered that in a spreadsheet? Use Google docs if nothing else. It's free.
  16. Eventually I’ll find a way to combine scores and have a rough idea of the ideological and party breakdowns, if like for example we can win over independents or democrats. Not sure what methodology I’ll use

    I’ll be doing one for white women next….eventually.

  17. @Audacious Epigone
    I recall my mother's frustration and disappointment when the results from Texas came in on election night 1992--"he couldn't even win his home state of Texas". I had no frame of reference or context for it, but looking back it is interesting to think that it wasn't that long ago that a third party really could be something other than a sideshow clown.

    I have registration graphs for several states i.e Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio for examples

    Four things are immensely apparent. First and foremost that third party registration doesn’t exist, at most y’all have a state like North Carolina, Massachusetts, or Colorado full of independents

    An uptake in Republican registration at a young gen z age in a few states, but its dwarfed by the massive tidal wave of Democrat millennials. Unless they marry or identity with whites, we’re going to lose a lot

    And younger voters registered are disproportionately black and they turn out to vote.

  18. @Mr. Rational

    Could any “third party” exist if the only office a member held was the Presidency?
     
    Given only the Oval Office, a party could both exercise executive powers in line with its agenda and block almost all measures that could not command a 2/3 majority in both houses and use that to promote its agenda and block its opposition.  If the gripe was that one of the two halves of the uniparty was too amendable to unwelcome initiatives and was able to command majorities but not supermajorities, holding only the executive would be sufficient for at least some measures.  Better yet, in the next mid-term the exective's coat-tails would have at least some reach.

    Edit:  that may not say exactly what I wanted to say but I'm too wiped out right now to try to fix it.

    a party could both exercise executive powers in line with its agenda

    Exercise how? Through a bureaucracy and especially a judiciary that would have zero investment in said party? How would a President with no party support in Congress get any appointee confirmed?

    Better yet, in the next mid-term the exective’s coat-tails would have at least some reach.

    Based on what? That hasn’t happened for most red/blue presidents in recent midterms, why would a third party be any better off?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    When Jesse Ventura was gov. of Minnesota, he and his cabinet often said that the MSM, the Dems, and the GOP were ganging up on him in bad faith, instead of trying to do what was best for the masses.

    Also, the trend since the early 90's has been one of extreme partisanship and grid-lock. People talk about the "uniparty", but the reality is that people from both parties have been increasingly hostile toward each other for 30 years. And this is true for many of the party elites, also (look at Newt Gingrich, whose fortunes went up because both elites and commoners started to buy into extreme partisan hostility). Talk of "impeachment" has occurred within the mainstream of each party, since Clinton in the 90's. Whereas from FDR-GHW Bush, most Americans were content to just "ride out" a given president's term even if he belonged to the "wrong" party (Nixon and Watergate being an obvious exception).
  19. SFG says:
    @Oleaginous Outrager
    Also known as "the number of people pretending to be above it all and waaaaay smarter than all those party partisan dopes". We need to cross reference it with the number of these "third party adherents" would describe themselves by that hoary ol' chestnut "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" to be sure, but I know which way I'd bet.

    It’s the classic upper-middle-class combo–you don’t want to pay taxes but you want to be up with the latest trends too.

    The reverse, fiscally liberal and socially conservative, has many more voters (look at the Voter Study Group). Trump won yuge by just pretending to be on the side of this quadrant (remember defending Medicare and Social Security?).

    Matthew Walther and Ross Douthat are kind of here–there’s a heavy Catholic flavor to it.

  20. @WorkingClass
    I have been saying for a very long time that before we can have a third party we need a second one. Now at long last we have two parties. The Democrats and The Deplorables. Identity politics ain't all bad.

    They will both sell you out to Big Business.

  21. @Oleaginous Outrager

    a party could both exercise executive powers in line with its agenda
     
    Exercise how? Through a bureaucracy and especially a judiciary that would have zero investment in said party? How would a President with no party support in Congress get any appointee confirmed?

    Better yet, in the next mid-term the exective’s coat-tails would have at least some reach.
     
    Based on what? That hasn't happened for most red/blue presidents in recent midterms, why would a third party be any better off?

    When Jesse Ventura was gov. of Minnesota, he and his cabinet often said that the MSM, the Dems, and the GOP were ganging up on him in bad faith, instead of trying to do what was best for the masses.

    Also, the trend since the early 90’s has been one of extreme partisanship and grid-lock. People talk about the “uniparty”, but the reality is that people from both parties have been increasingly hostile toward each other for 30 years. And this is true for many of the party elites, also (look at Newt Gingrich, whose fortunes went up because both elites and commoners started to buy into extreme partisan hostility). Talk of “impeachment” has occurred within the mainstream of each party, since Clinton in the 90’s. Whereas from FDR-GHW Bush, most Americans were content to just “ride out” a given president’s term even if he belonged to the “wrong” party (Nixon and Watergate being an obvious exception).

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It's parenthetical, but when I use "uniparty", I'm specifically referring to the invade/invite/become indebted to the world trifecta for which there is little effective difference in outcome between the two major parties.
  22. @SunBakedSuburb
    " ... the assassination attempt on Ronnie was a warning from the Deep State."

    The 1981 attempt to take out Reagan just a few months after the 1980 election was a failure, not a warning. Former DCI George H.W. Bush was the Deep State candidate in 1980, but the energy in the Republican Party was behind Reagan. That's why Bush was placed on the ticket as V.P., despite Reagan's misgivings, by party elites. Bush, an awkward politician at best, was to be inserted into the Executive Branch riding Reagan's coattails. In the year preceding the election, Bush and his people would assume complete control of the Executive through the false-flag assassination of the Gipper. But John Hinckley botched his Oswald role and has been heavily-sedated ever since. And then there is the strange connection between the Hinckley family and the Bush dynasty.

    GHW Bush was supposed to restore the reputation of American military/intelligence, after it took a major beating in the 70’s (to the point that legislation was passed to greatly enhance transparency of these sectors). But as you point out, the clandestine funkiness of GHW Bush stood out too much (just like with Hilary, also); these are sociopaths/cynical career climbers who give off bad vibes that they never can fully hide) and people chose the earnestness of Reagan instead.

    Hilary was also going to be a establishment favored Deep State president, but unlike GHW Bush, she never got “her” turn. The Deep State spent lots of time trying to bend the Reagan White House toward belligerence and paranoia, and just the same is happening within the Trump White House.

    Bill Clinton’s era was hardly free of mischief, but in comparison to the other post-1980 regimes, he actually didn’t get too much pressure, presumably because we shifted dramatically toward financial globalism in the 90’s, what with the Soviets collapsing, and this really sent the MIC reeling.

  23. @Mark G.
    Among third parties, the Libertarian party has always advertised itself as "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" but the meaning of social liberalism has shifted over the years. For a country to become wealthy it has to combine small government and people who practice traditional values and self-restraint. Victorian era Britain and America had government spending under ten percent of GDP while Victorian era moral values were generally conservative. Once a country becomes wealthy, though, the increased wealth leads to self-indulgence and decadence and then that undermines the traditional values that helped to create the wealth to begin with. As a country becomes more decadent, social liberalism shifts in meaning from tolerating to celebrating deviant lifestyles. More people support a libertarian party so they can get easy access to things like drugs and prostitutes and then the party responds by emphasizing those types of issues. There would be room for a third party that supports a small fiscally conservative government but whose leaders show an awareness that cultural conservatism helps to provide a foundation for continued prosperity and don't hold up as role models social libertines.

    Among third parties, the Libertarian party has always advertised itself as “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” but the meaning of social liberalism has shifted over the years.

    The good news is that most demographics report being much more pro “big government” than they used to be. In the neo-liberal unraveling that peaked in the 90’s, people didn’t feel as if there were that many major problems that required great institutional programs to solve. These days, stuff like the border crisis, the student loan crisis, excessive booms and busts from unregulated markets, and the like have all made people much more amenable to sweeping efforts to reform the system. And these days, “reform” means more government, not less, whereas in the 80’s and 90’s the fashion was to play up the idea of the government being as small as possible.

    Unfortunately, because many of our elites are selfish and clueless, not enough of them are listening to what we want. Whereas in the 1930’s-1990’s, most Americans generally felt that they were getting the society they wanted. I remember Ann Coulter, shortly into the Trump era, pointing out that even at GOP rallies/functions, the litany about tax cuts and de-regulation elicits yawns, while genuinely populist reforms (like shutting the border) get big cheers.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The good news is that most demographics report being much more pro “big government” than they used to be.
     
    Give more power to the system that betrayed us. I see.
  24. @SunBakedSuburb
    " ... the assassination attempt on Ronnie was a warning from the Deep State."

    The 1981 attempt to take out Reagan just a few months after the 1980 election was a failure, not a warning. Former DCI George H.W. Bush was the Deep State candidate in 1980, but the energy in the Republican Party was behind Reagan. That's why Bush was placed on the ticket as V.P., despite Reagan's misgivings, by party elites. Bush, an awkward politician at best, was to be inserted into the Executive Branch riding Reagan's coattails. In the year preceding the election, Bush and his people would assume complete control of the Executive through the false-flag assassination of the Gipper. But John Hinckley botched his Oswald role and has been heavily-sedated ever since. And then there is the strange connection between the Hinckley family and the Bush dynasty.

    Cool story, bro.

  25. @Achmed E. Newman
    Feryl, I had a reply in mind to your couple of comments back on that other A.E. thread - this one - but it's been a while. I gotta admit that I agree with you more than usual here. I think you are on the right track in thinking (as I do) that the assassination attempt on Ronnie was a warning from the Deep State.

    I was not aware enough to note if President Reagan changed his ways after that. I'll tell you what, that was a pretty near thing too. Trauma care 40 years back was not what it is today, when that 6th of 6 .22 shots ricocheted into one of Reagan's lungs and missed his heart by 1". He was in the hospital for a few days, and his getting through it was not any sure thing. I want to write a blog post about it soon.

    I agree, Feryl, that the Bushes were the biggest warmongers - to me it was more in their nature than it was for Bill Clinton, who just wanted to distract the country from his shenanigans and had no real basic principles besides where's the next poontang (hey, it was better for our country that way). Reagan was a principled Libertarian (OK, for the most part) and the establishment GOP didn't like that with Barry Goldwater 20-odd years earlier, and they sure didn't like it again with Ronnie in '76 and '80. Maybe they had gotten to him by '84.

    I would like to disabuse you, if I may, of your opinion on Mr. Reagan's domestic policy, but I've got to go, and will have to write more later on.

    But Goldwater jumped the gun on dismantling the New Deal. Republicans before the late 70’s had to follow to some degree New Deal norms about expanding and using the government for the public interest, even if stepped on the toes of some businesses and rich people.

    The moderate Northeastern GOP establishment, even in 1980, wasn’t quite ready to totally eliminate the New Deal (even if more and more normal Americans were beginning to support a transition away from the New Deal), that’s why GHW Bush back then questioned “voo-doo” economics (supply side neo-liberalism). The Rockefeller Republicans were pragmatists on economic and cultural issues, because if that’s what it took to preserve Pax Americana, so be it. And the Rockefeller GOP was right; unfettered neo-liberalism destroyed the middle class, and extreme cultural conservatives and their Left counterparts have heavily divided America since the late 80’s. Decadent social and economic policies, and bickering over such, have made it much more difficult to sustain Pax Americana. Globalists promoting homosexuality and abortion have turned off many conservatives from the idea that America is virtuous and entitled to boss other countries around. Many US conservatives now actually are in alignment with Middle Eastern/African/Asian cultures that deride America as fat, lazy, and perverted.

  26. If I’m sounding contradictory, well, here’s clarification:

    GHW Bush was a scummy globalist, but before the neo-liberal era commenced in the late 80’s/early 90’s, he and his “moderate”* allies generally did a good job WRT social and economic policy that was designed to keep America strong (so that we could stay dominant over other countries). The neo-liberal era ushered in by incompetent** elites has promoted toxic levels of inequality and culture war, which weakens a country from within and eventually makes us vulnerable to foreign competition. Not that many people understood this in the 80’s and 90’s (when the fashion was to just get out of the way of elites), but since the early 2000’s Westerners are increasingly fed up with foolish and arrogant leaders.

    *Moderate in this case meaning genuinely pragmatic, whereas the current usage of “Centrist” typically means in slave to corporate globalism.

    **We may have had greedy/corrupt elites in the 1940’s-1970’s, but at least they were good at their jobs compared to the bozos of the last 30 years.

  27. Downs Paradox,

    No advocacy of violent overthrow here, please.

  28. @Oleaginous Outrager
    Could any "third party" exist if the only office a member held was the Presidency? The US Congress has little in common with most European parliaments, and its structure is such that any third party would have to capture an almost unfeasible large number of seats (at least a third) to have any impact on governance.

    Yes, there’s a lot a president can do with an executive order pen and a veto pen.

  29. @Oblivionrecurs
    I just completed this for White Men.

    Disclaimer: Democrats, Republicans, and Independents only. People might identify with libertarianism, but they don't register or vote with them.

    I'm measuring by Gotoquiz political compass grid. One grid = One spot. Example one grid upwards is +1 Authoritarianism , dowm two grids is +2 libertarian

    White Men

    Republican (Under 18)

    1_North Dakota (under 18) - 69.7%
    2_Georgia (Under 18) - 62.5%
    3_Alabama (Under 18) - 60.5%
    3_South Carolina (Under 18) - 60.5%
    5_Oklahoma (under 18) - 59.9%
    6_Texas (Under 18) - 58.8%
    7_Louisiana (Under 18) - 58.3%
    8_Missouri (Under 18) - 56.6%
    9_Florida (Under 18) - 55.5%
    10_Kentucky (Under 18) - 55.4%
    11_Utah (Under 18) - 55.3%
    12_Minnesota (Under 18) - 54.6%
    12_Arizona (Under 18) - 54.6%
    14_Wisconsin (Under 18) - 54.4%
    15_Ohio (Under 18) - 54%
    16_Indiana (Under 18) - 53.8%
    16_Illinois (Under 18) - 53.8%
    18_Pennsylvania (under 18) - 53.6%
    19_Michigan (Under 18) - 53.3%
    20_Arkansas (Under 18) - 53%
    21_Kansas (Under 18) - 52.9%
    22_Montana (Under 18) - 52.3%
    23_Idaho (Under 18) - 52.1%
    24_Virginia (Under 18) - 51.7%
    25_New Jersey (Under 18) - 51.6%
    25_Iowa (Under 18) - 51.6%
    26_Mississippi (Under 18) - 51.5%
    27_Wyoming (Under 18) - 51.4%
    28_Nevada (Under 18) - 50.4%
    29_Nebraska (Under 18) - 50.1%
    30_South Dakota (Under 18) - 50%
    31_North Carolina (Under 18) - 49.4%
    32_West Virginia (Under 18) - 48.8%
    33_Maryland (Under 18) - 48.4%
    34_New York (Under 18) - 48.3%
    35_Colorado (Under 18) - 48.1%
    36_California (Under 18) - 47.7%
    37_Maine (Under 18) - 47.6%
    38_Connecticut (Under 18) - 47.4%
    39_Oregon (Under 18) - 46.5%
    40_New Mexico (Under 18) - 46.1%
    41_New Hampshire (Under 18) - 45.7%
    42_Washington (Under 18) - 44.7%
    43_Massachusetts (Under 18) - 39.7%
    44_Vermont (Under 18) - 36.5%
    45_Rhode island (under 18) - 35.6%
    46_D.C (Under 18) - 23.4%



    1_Mississippi (18-29) - 44.7%
    2_Texas (18-29) - 44%
    3_Alabama (18-29) - 43%
    4_Georgia (18-29) - 42.4%
    5_South Carolina (18-29) - 41.6%
    6_Wyoming (18-29) - 41.4%
    7_Indiana (18-29) - 40.8%
    7_Oklahoma (18-29) - 40.8%
    9_Florida (18-29) - 40.3%
    10_Massachusetts (Under 18) - 39.7%
    11_Louisiana (18-29) - 39.1%
    12_Pennsylvania (18-29) - 38.1%
    13_Kentucky (18-29) - 38%
    13_South Dakota (18-29) - 38%
    15_Kansas (18-29) - 37.8%
    16_Minnesota (18-29) - 37.5%
    17_West Virginia (18-29) - 37.4%
    18_Utah (18-29) - 37.2%
    19_Nebraska (18-29) - 36.8%
    19_New Mexico (18-29) - 36.8%
    19_Virginia (18-29) - 36.8%
    22_Ohio (18-29) - 36.6%
    23_Tennessee (18-29) - 36.4%
    24_Nevada (18-29) - 35.9%
    25_Rhode island (under 18) - 35.6%
    26_Arizona (18-29) - 35.5%
    27_North Carolina (18-29) - 35.1%
    28_Missouri (18-29) - 34.5%
    29_New Jersey (18-29)l - 34.3%
    30_Iowa (18-29) - 34.1%
    31_Michigan (18-29) - 34%
    31_Arkansas (18-29) - 34%
    31_Colorado (18-29) - 34%
    34_Maryland (18-29) - 33.7%
    35_California (18-29) - 33.6%
    36_Connecticut (18-29) - 33.5%
    37_Wisconsin (18-29) - 33.2%
    38_New York (18-29) - 32.3%
    39_Maine (18-29) - 30.3%
    40_Washington (18-29) - 26.5%
    41_New Hampshire (18-29) - 25.2%
    42_Rhode island (18-29) - 23.4%
    43_Vermont (18-29) - 22.3%
    44_D.C (18-29) - 21.6%
    45_Massachusetts (18-29) - 21.1%

    Most Independent

    New Hampshire (18-29) - 50.5%
    Massachusetts (18-29) - 47.3%
    Rhode island (18-29) - 46.8%
    Vermont (18-28) - 42.6%
    Idaho (18-29) - 40.6%
    Louisiana (18-29) - 38.5%
    Maine (18-29) - 38.3%
    North Carolina (18-29) - 37.8/
    Colorado (18-29) - 37%
    Tennessee (18-29) - 36.7%
    Washington (18-29) - 36.7%
    Arizona (18-29) - 36.3%
    Arkansas (18-29) - 36%
    South Carolina (18-29) - 35.7%
    Wyoming (18-29) - 35.6%
    Rhode island (under 18) - 35.1%
    Alabama (18-29) - 35%
    Nebraska (18-29) - 34.6%
    Oregon (18-29) - 34.4%
    New Jersey (18-29) - 34.3%
    Virginia (18-29) - 34.2%
    Iowa (18-29) - 34.1%
    Michigan (18-29) - 34%
    Illinois (18-29) - 33.9%
    Connecticut (18-29) - 33.8%
    Ohio (18-29) - 33.3%
    Missouri (18-29) - 33.1%
    Georgia (18-29) - 32.6%
    Kansas (18-29) - 32.1%
    Massachusetts (Under 18) - 32.1%
    Texas (18-29) - 32%
    South Dakota (18-29) - 31.8%
    Vermont (Under 18) - 31.7%
    New Mexico (18-29) - 31.6%
    West Virginia (18-29) - 31.6%
    Nevada (18-29) - 30.7%
    California (18-29) - 30.6%
    Florida (18-29) - 30.6%
    Maryland (18-29) - 30.5%
    Mississippi (Under 18) - 29.8%
    New Hampshire (Under 18) - 29.7%
    Wisconsin (18-29) - 29.6%
    New York (18-29) - 29.5%
    Indiana (18-29) - 29.4%
    Oklahoma - (18-29) - 29.3%
    Wyoming - (Under 18) - 28.5%
    West Virginia (Under 18) - 28%
    North Carolina (Under 18) - 27.7%
    Utah (Under 18) - 27.4%
    Nevada (Under 18) - 27%
    South Dakota (Under 18) - 27%
    Pennsylvania (18-29) - 26.3%
    Kentucky (18-29) - 25.5%
    Maine (Under 18) - 25.2%
    Missouri (Under 18) - 25.1%
    New Mexico (Under 18) - 25.1%
    D.C (18-29) - 25%
    Minnesota (18-28) - 24.8%
    Arkansas (Under 18) - 24.5%
    Iowa (Under 18) - 24.5%
    Nebraska (Under 18) - 23.6%
    Arizona (Under 18) - 23.5%
    Kansas (Under 18) - 23.2%
    Tennessee (Under 18) - 23.2%
    Louisiana (Under 18) - 23.1%
    Colorado (Under 18) - 23%
    Florida (Under 18) - 23%
    Idaho (Under 18) - 22.6%
    California (Under 18) - 22.6%
    Washington (Under 18) - 22.3%
    Connecticut (Under 18) - 22.2%
    Maryland (Under 18) - 22.1%
    New Jersey (Under 18) - 22%
    Oregon (Under 18) - 22%
    Virginia (Under 18) - 21.8%
    Texas (Under 18) - 21.4%
    Indiana (Under 18) - 21%
    Ohio (under 18) - 21%
    New York (Under 18) - 20.5%
    South Carolina (Under 18) - 20.5%
    Montana (Under 18) - 20.3%
    Oklahoma (Under 18) - 20.2%
    Alabama (Under 18) - 20%
    Michigan (Under 18) - 19.6%
    Pennsylvania (Under 18) - 19.6%
    Illinois (Under 18) - 18.7%
    Georgia (Under 18) - 18.5%
    Kentucky (Under 18) - 18.4%
    Wisconsin (Under 18) - 16.4%
    D.C (Under 18) - 15.6%
    Minnesota (Under 18) - 12.8%

    Most Democrat

    D.C (Under 18) - 60.9%
    D.C (18-29) - 53.3%
    Utah (18-29) - 39.1%
    Oregon (18-29) - 39%
    New York (18-29) - 38%
    Minnesota (18-29) - 37.5%
    Washington (18-29) - 36.7%
    Kentucky (18-29) - 36.3%
    California (18-29) - 35.7%
    Maryland (18-29) - 35.6%
    Pennsylvania (18-29) - 35.5%
    Vermont (18-29) - 34.9%
    Illinois (18-29) - 33.9%
    Wisconsin (18-29) - 33.5%
    Nevada (18-29) - 33.2%
    Washington (Under 18) - 32.9%
    Connecticut (18-29) - 32.6%
    Minnesota (Under 18) - 32.4%
    Missouri (18-29) - 32.1%
    Michigan (18-29) - 31.8%
    Vermont (Under 18) - 31.7%
    Iowa (18-29) - 31.6%
    Massachusetts (18-29) - 31.5%
    Oregon (Under 18) - 31.4%
    New Mexico (18-29) - 31.4%
    New Jersey (18-29) - 31.25%
    Maine (18-29) - 31.2%
    West Virginia (18-29) - 30.8%
    New York (Under 18) - 30.5%
    Connecticut (Under 18) - 30.4%
    South Dakota (18-29) - 30.1%
    Arkansas (18-29) - 30%
    Ohio (18-29) - 30%
    Kansas (18-29) - 29.9%
    Oklahoma (18-29) - 29.8%
    Rhode island (18-29) - 29.7%
    Indiana (18-29) - 29.7%
    California (Under 18) - 29.5%
    Maryland (Under 18) - 29.4%
    Wisconsin (Under 18) - 29.2%
    Rhode island (Under 18) - 29.1%
    Florida (18-29) - 29%
    Virginia (18-29) - 28.9%
    Colorado (Under 18) - 28.7%
    New Mexico (Under 18) - 28.7%
    Nebraska (18-29) - 28.5%
    Massachusetts (Under 18) - 28.1%
    North Carolina (18-29) - 28%
    Colorado (18-29) - 28%
    Arizona (18-29) - 28%
    Montana (Under 18) - 27.3%
    Illinois (Under 18) - 27.3%
    Maine (Under 18) - 27.1%
    Michigan (Under 18) - 26.9%
    Pennsylvania (Under 18) - 26.7%
    Virginia (Under 18) - 26.4%
    New Jersey (Under 18) - 26.3%
    Nebraska (Under 18) - 26.2%
    Kentucky (Under 18) - 26.1%
    Georgia (18-29) - 25%
    Indiana (Under 18) - 25%
    Arkansas (Under 18) - 22.5%
    Idaho (Under 18) - 25.2%
    Ohio (Under 18) - 24.9%
    Tennessee (Under 18) - 24.9%
    New Hampshire (Under 18) - 24.5%
    New Hampshire (18-29) - 24.1%
    Texas (18-29) - 24%
    Iowa (Under 18) - 23.8%
    Kansas (Under 18) - 23.7%
    Utah (18-29) - 23.5%
    West Virginia (Under 18) - 23.1%
    South Dakota (Under 18) - 23%
    North Carolina (Under 18) - 22.9%
    Wyoming (18-29) - 22.9%
    Nevada (Under 18) - 22.5%
    South Carolina (18-29) - 22.5%
    Mississippi (18-29) - 22.4%
    Louisiana (18-29) - 22.3%
    Alabama (18-29) - 22%
    Arizona (Under 18) - 21.7%
    Florida (Under 18) - 21.5%
    Wyoming (Under 18) - 20%
    Oklahoma (Under 18) - 19.8%
    Texas (Under 18) - 19.7%
    Alabama (Under 18) - 19.5%
    South Carolina (Under 18) - 19.3%
    Georgia (Under 18) - 19%
    Mississippi (Under 18) - 18.5%
    Louisiana (Under 18) - 18.4%
    Missouri (Under 18) - 18%
    Utah (Under 18) - 17.2%

    Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism

    West Virginia Republican - +1 Authoritarianism
    Utah Republican - +1 Authoritarianism
    Mississippi Republican - +1 Authoritarianism
    Idaho Republican - +1 Authoritarianism
    Arkansas Republican - +1 Authoritarianism
    Nebraska Republican - +.9 Authoritarianism
    Georgia Republicans - +.7 Authoritarianism
    Montana Republican - +.7 Authoritarianism
    North Dakota Republican - +.6 Authoritarianism
    Oregon Republican - .5 Authoritarianism
    Alabama Republican - +.5 Authoritarianism
    Nevada Republican - +.4 Authoritarianism
    Texas Republican - +.4 Authoritarianism
    Tennessee Republican - +.3 Authoritarianism
    Wyoming Republican - +.3 Authoritarianism
    North Carolina Republican - +3 Authoritarianism
    South Carolina Republican - +.25 Authoritariani
    Oklahoma Republican - +.2 Authoritarianism
    Louisiana Republican - +.2 Authoritarianism
    Florida Republican - +.1 Authoritarianism
    Michigan Republican - +.1 Authoritarianism
    Indiana Republican - +.1 Authoritarianism
    Ohio Republican - +.1 Authoritarianism
    Virginia Republican - +.1 Authoritarianism
    New Mexico Republican - +.1 Authoritarianism
    Kentucky Republican - +.1 Authoritarianism
    Maine Republican - +.1 Authoritarianism
    Wisconsin Republican - +0.1Authoritarianism
    Missouri Republican - +0.1 Authoritarianism
    Washington Republican - +0.1 Authoritarianism
    Minnesota Republican - .0 Both
    Colorado Republican - .0 Both
    Iowa Republican - .0 Both
    Illinois Republican - .0 Both
    Pennsylvania Republican - .0 Both
    South Dakota Republican - .0 Both
    Kansas Republican +.1 Libertarian
    Maryland Republican +.1 Libertarian
    Connecticut Republican - +.1 Libertarian
    California Republican - +.1 Libertarian
    Massachusetts Republican +.1 Libertarian
    Arizona Republican - +.2 Libertarian
    New Hampshire Republican - +.2 Libertarian
    New Jersey Republican - +.25 Libertarian
    New York Republican - +.25 Libertarian
    Rhode Island Republican - +.5 Libertarian
    Vermont Republican - +1 Libertarian

    South Dakota independent - +0.7 Libertarian
    Minnesota Independent - +1.5 Libertarian
    Maine Independent - +1.5 Libertarian
    Utah Independent - +1.6 Libertarian
    Idaho Independent - +1.7 Libertarian
    Connecticut Independent - +1.7 Libertarian
    West Virginia Independent - +1.8 Libertarian
    Iowa Independent - +1.9 Libertarian
    North Carolina Independent - +2 Libertarian
    Kentucky Independent - +2 Libertarian
    Arkansas Independent - +2 Libertarian
    Ohio Independent - +2 Libertarian
    Georgia Independent - +2 Libertarian
    Wyoming Independent - +2 Libertarian
    Nebraska independent - +2.1 Libertarian
    North Dakota independent - +2.1 Libertarian
    Michigan Independent - +2.1 Libertarian
    Florida Independent - +2.1 Libertarian
    Wisconsin Independent - +2.1 Libertarian
    Colorado Independent - +2.1 Libertarian
    Missouri Independent - +2.2 Libertarian
    Virginia Independent - +2.2 Libertarian
    Alabama Independent - +2.25 Libertarian
    New Jersey Independent - +2.25 Libertarian
    New Hampshire Independent - +2.3 Libertarian
    Texas Independent - +2.3 Libertarian
    Louisiana Independent - +2.4 Libertarian
    Tennessee Independent - +2.4 Libertarian
    Pennsylvania Independent - +2.4 Libertarian
    Mississippi Independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    Indiana Independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    Nevada independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    Kansas Independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    South Carolina Independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    Oregon Independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    Massachusetts Independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    Arizona Independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    New York Independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    California Independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    Maryland independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    Illinois Independent - +2.5 Libertarian
    Oklahoma Independent - +2.6 Libertarian
    Rhode Island Independent - +3 Libertarian
    Washington independent - +3 Libertarian
    Montana Independent - +3.2 Libertarian
    New Mexico independent - +3.5 Libertarian
    Utah Independent - +4 Libertarian



    North Dakota Democrat - +1 Libertarian
    Nebraska Democrat - +1.5 Lovecraftian
    South Dakota - +1.5 Libertarian
    Iowa Democrat - +1.8 Libertarian
    Montana Democrat - +1.9 Libertarian
    Nevada Democrat - +1.9 Libertarian
    Colorado Democrat - +2 Libertarian
    Wisconsin Democrat - +2 Libertarian
    Arkansas Democrat - +2 Libertarian
    Minnesota Democrat - +2 Libertarian
    West Virginia Democrat - +2 Libertarian
    Maine Democrat - +2 Libertarian
    Ohio Democrat - +2 Libertarian
    Alabama Democrat - +2 Libertarian
    Michigan Democrat - +2.1 Libertarian
    Pennsylvania Democrat - +2.1 Libertarian
    California Democrat - +2.1 Libertarian
    Washington Democrat - +2.1 Libertarian
    New York Democrat - +2.1 Libertarian
    Utah Democrat - +2.1 Libertarian
    Rhode Island Democrat - +2.1 Libertarian
    Oregon Democrat - +2.1 Libertarian
    Idaho Democrat - +2.2 Libertarian
    Kentucky Democrat - +2.2 Libertarian
    Illinois Democrat - +2.2 Libertarian
    Virginia Democrat - +2.2 Libertarian
    New Hampshire Democrat - +2.2 Libertarian
    Indiana Democrat - +2.2 Libertarian
    Missouri Democrat - +2.2 Libertarian
    New Jersey Democrat - +2.25 Libertarian
    Kansas Democrat - +2.3 Libertarian
    Connecticut Democrat - +2.4 Libertarian
    Massachusetts Democrat - +2.4 Libertarian
    Arizona Democrat - +2.5 Libertarian
    Tennessee Democrat - +2.5 Libertarian
    Georgia Democrat - 2.5 Libertarian
    South Carolina Democrat - +2.5 Libertarian
    Florida Democrat - +2.5 Libertarian
    Oklahoma Democrat - +2.5 Libertarian
    Maryland Democrat - +2.5 Libertarian
    Mississippi Democrat - +2.5 Libertarian
    North Carolina Democrat - +2.5 Libertarian
    Texas Democrat - +2.9 Libertarian
    Utah Democrat - +3.0 Libertarian
    Wyoming Democrat - +3.0 Libertarian
    New Mexico Democrat - +3.7 Libertarian
    Louisiana Democrat - +3.5 libertarian

    Left v Right Economy

    Vermont Republican - +3.5 Right
    Maryland Republican - +3.1 Right
    Massachusetts Republican - +3 Right
    Maine Republican - +3 Right
    New Hampshire Republican - +3 Right
    Arkansas Republican - +3 Right
    Wyoming Republican - +3 Right
    New York Republican - +2.9 Right
    Rhode Island Republican - +2.9 Right
    New Mexico Republican - +2.9 Right
    Washington Republican - +2.8 Right
    Arizona Republican - +2.7 Right
    California Republican +2.7 Right
    Connecticut Republican - +2.7 Right
    New Jersey Republican - +2.6 Right
    Illinois Republican - +2.5 Right
    Pennsylvania Republican - +2.5 Right
    Iowa Republican - +2.5 Right
    Alabama Republican - + 2.5 Right
    Texas Republican - +2.5 Right
    Missouri Republican - +2.5 Right
    North Carolina Republican - +2.4 Right
    Virginia Republican - +2.4 Right
    Florida Republican - +2.1 Right
    Georgia Republican - +2.1 Right
    Nebraska Republican - +2.1 Right
    Tennessee Republican - +2.1 Right
    Michigan Republican - +2.1 Right
    South Carolina Republican - +2.1 Right
    Kentucky Republican - +2.1 Right
    Indiana Republican - +2.1 Right
    Louisiana Republican - +2.1 Right
    Minnesota Republican - +2 Right
    Kansas Republican +2 Right
    Wisconsin Republican - +2 Right
    Colorado Republican - +2 Right
    Oklahoma Republican - +2 Right
    Nevada Republican - +2 Right
    Ohio Republican - +2 Right
    Mississippi Republican - +1.8 Right
    Idaho Republican - +1.8 Right
    Utah Republican - +1.8 Right
    North Dakota Republican - +1.8 Right
    Oregon Republican - +1.7 Right
    West Virginia Republican - +1.7 Right
    Montana Republican - +1.5 Right
    South Dakota Republican - +1.5 Right



    Utah Independent - +0.25 Right
    New Hampshire Independent - +0.25 Right
    Montana Independent - +0.25 Right
    Texas Independent - +.5 Left
    Georgia Independent - +.5 left
    Arkansas Independent - +.5 Left
    Oklahoma Independent - +.5 Left
    California Independent - +.6 Left
    Nevada independent - .7 left
    Indiana Independent - +.8 Left
    Wyoming Independent - +.8 Left
    Louisiana Independent - +.9 Left
    Virginia Independent - +.9 Left
    Kansas Independent +.9 Left
    Wisconsin Independent - +.9 Left
    Ohio Independent - +1 Left
    Idaho Independent - +1 Left
    Alabama Independent - +1 Left
    Maryland Independent - +1 Left
    Arizona Independent - +1 Left
    North Carolina Independent - +1 Left
    New York Independent - +1 Left
    Florida Independent - +1.1 Left
    South Dakota Independent - +1.1 Left
    Pennsylvania Independent - +1.1 Left
    Illinois Independent - +1.1 Left
    Rhode island independent - +1.1 Left
    Massachusetts Independent - +1.1 Left
    Tennessee Independent - +1.1 Left
    Colorado Independent - +1.1 Left
    Connecticut Independent - +1.1 Left
    New Mexico Independent - +1.2 Left
    Missouri Independent - +1.2 Left
    South Carolina Independent - +1.2 left
    Iowa Independent - +1.2 Left
    New Jersey Independent - +1.2 Left
    Minnesota Independent - +1.25 Left
    Kentucky Independent - +1.5 Left
    Oregon Independent - +1.5 Left
    Washington independent - +1.5 Left
    Maine Independent - +1.5 Left
    Michigan Independent - +1.5 Left
    Mississippi Independent - +1.7 Left
    West Virginia Independent - +1.7 Left
    North Dakota Independent - +1.8 Left
    Nebraska independent - +1.9 left
    Vermont Independent - +2.1 Left


    North Dakota Democrat - +2.5 Left
    West Virginia Democrat - +2.7 Left
    Kentucky Democrat - +3 Left
    Oklahoma Democrat - +3.1 Left
    Idaho Democrat - 3.25 Left
    Connecticut Democrat - +3.5 Left
    Minnesota Democrat - +3.5 Left
    Nevada Democrat - +3.5 Left
    Michigan Democrat - +3.5 Left
    Illinois Democrat - +3.5 Left
    Utah Democrat - +3.5 Left
    Indiana Democrat - +3.6 Left
    Kansas Democrat - +3.6 Left
    Georgia Democrat - 3.7 Left
    New Jersey Democrat - +3.7 Left
    South Carolina Democrat - +3.7 Left
    Oregon Democrat - +3.7 Left
    Colorado Democrat - 3.8 Left
    Texas Democrat - +3.8 Left
    Florida Democrat - +3.8 Left
    Missouri Democrat - +3.8 Left
    California Democrat - +3.9 Left
    Arizona Democrat - +3.9 Left
    Tennessee Democrat - +3.9 Left
    Maine Democrat - +3.9 Left
    New York Democrat - +3.9 Left
    Virginia Democrat - +3.9 Left
    Rhode Island Democrat - +3.9 Left
    Ohio Democrat - +3.9 Left
    Pennsylvania Democrat - +3.9 Left
    Iowa Democrat - +4 Left
    Alabama Democrat - +4 Left
    Wyoming Democrat - +4 Left
    Arkansas Democrat - +4 Left
    Wisconsin Democrat - +4 Left
    Washington Democrat - +4 Left
    Massachusetts Democrat - +4 Left
    New Mexico Democrat - +4 Left
    Maryland Democrat - +4 Left
    New Hampshire Democrat - +4.1 Left
    Louisiana Democrat - +4.1 Left
    North Carolina Democrat - +4.1 Left
    South Dakota Democrat - +4.1 Left
    Mississippi Democrat - +4.2 Left
    Vermont Democrat - +4.5 Left
    Nebraska Democrat - +4.5 left
    Montana Democrat - +4.5 Left

    Non-Interventionist v. Pro Interventionist

    Wyoming Republican - +4.5 Pro
    Nebraska Republican - +3.9 Pro
    Maine Republican- +3.7 Pro
    Louisiana Republican - +3.5 Pro
    New Mexico Republican - +3.5 Pro
    Maryland Republican - +3.5 Pro
    Rhode island Republican - +3.5 Pro
    Florida Republican - +3.4 Pro
    Arkansas Republican - +3.25 Pro
    New York Republican - +3.25 Pro
    New Hampshire Republican - +3.2 Pro
    Missouri Republican - +3.2 Pro
    Massachusetts Republican - +3.1 Pro
    North Carolina Republican - +3.1 Pro
    Virginia Republican - +3.1 Pro
    West Virginia Republican - +3.1 Pro
    California Republican - +3.1 Pro
    Nevada Republican - +3.1 Pro
    New Jersey Republican - +3.1 Pro
    Colorado Republican - +3.1 Pro
    South Carolina Republican - +3.1 Pro
    Texas Republican - +3.1 Pro
    Oklahoma Republican - +3.1 Pro
    Montana Republican - +3.1 Pro
    Connecticut Republican - +3.1 Pro
    Illinois Republican - +3.1 Pro
    Indiana Republican - +3 Pro
    Georgia Republican - +3 Pro
    Washington Republican - +3 Pro
    Mississippi Republican - +3 Pro
    Tennessee Republican - +3 Pro
    Kentucky Republican +3 Pro
    Alabama Republican - +3 Pro
    Vermont Republican - +3 Pro
    Arizona Republican - +3 Pro
    Pennsylvania Republican - +3 Pro
    Kansas Republican - +2.9 Pro
    North Dakota Republican - +2.9 Pro
    Minnesota Republican +2.9 Pro
    Michigan Republican - +2.9 Pro
    Wisconsin Republican - +2.9 Pro
    Ohio Republican - +2.9 Pro
    Oregon Republican - +2.9 Pro
    Idaho Republican - +2.1 Pro
    Utah Republican - +2.1 Pro
    Iowa Republican - +2.1 Pro
    South Dakota Republican - +2.1 Pro



    South Dakota Independent - +0.5 Non
    New Hampshire Independent - +1 Non
    Connecticut independent - +1 Non
    Arizona Independent- +1 Non
    Iowa Independent - +1.1 Non
    Utah Independent - +1.1 Non
    Georgia Independent - +1.2 Non
    Massachusetts Independent - +1.4 Non
    Florida Independent - +1.5 Non
    Kentucky Independent - +1.5 Non
    Oregon Independent - +1.5 Non
    Maryland Independent - +1.5 Non
    Maine Independent - +1.5 Non
    Wyoming Independent - +1.5 Non
    North Carolina Independent - +1.5 Non
    Kansas Independent - +1.6 Non
    Minnesota Independent - +1.7 Non
    New York Independent - +1.7 Non
    Oklahoma Independent - +1.7 Non
    Colorado Independent - +1.7 Non
    Ohio Independent - +1.8 Non
    Missouri Independent - +1.8 Non
    Nebraska independent - +1.9 Non
    West Virginia Independent - +1.9 Non
    Idaho Independent - +1.9 Non
    Virginia Independent - +1.9 Non
    Texas Independent - +1.9 Non
    New Jersey Independent - +1.9 Non
    Nevada independent - +1.9 Non
    North Dakota - +1.9 Non
    Louisiana Independent - +1.9 Non
    Indiana Independent - +2 Non
    Alabama Independent - +2 Non
    South Carolina Independent - +2 Non
    California Independent - +2 Non
    Arkansas Independent - +2.1 Non
    Illinois Independent - +2.1 Non
    Michigan Independent - +2.1 Non
    Wisconsin Independent - +2.1 Non
    Mississippi Independent - +2.1 Non
    New Mexico Independent - +2.1 Non
    Tennessee Independent - +2.1 Non
    Pennsylvania Independent - +2.1 Non
    Montana Independent - +2.4 Non
    Rhode island independent - +2.5 Non
    Washington independent - +2.5 Non
    Vermont Independent - +2.9 Non


    North Dakota Democrat - +1.9 Non
    West Virginia Democrat - +2.1 Non
    South Dakota Democrat - +2.9 Non
    Oklahoma Democrat - +2.9 Non
    New Jersey Democrat - +2.9 Non
    Nevada Democrat - +3 Non
    Minnesota Democrat - +3 Non
    Connecticut Democrat - +3 Non
    Missouri Democrat - +3 Non
    Wisconsin Democrat - +3 Non
    Illinois Democrat - +3.1 Non
    Iowa Democrat - +3.1 Non
    New York Democrat - +3.1 Non
    Massachusetts Democrat - +3.1 Non
    Oregon Democrat - +3.2 Non
    Virginia Democrat - +3.2 Non
    Florida Democrat - +3.25 Non
    California Democrat - +3.25 Non
    Michigan Democrat - +3.25 Non
    Ohio Democrat - +3.4 Non
    Pennsylvania Democrat - +3.4 Non
    Tennessee Democrat - +3.4 Non
    Utah Democrat - +3.4 Non
    New Hampshire Democrat - +3.5 Non
    Georgia Democrat - +3.5 Non
    Alabama Democrat - +3.5 Non
    Kansas Democrat - +3.5 Non
    Nebraska Democrat - +3.5 Non
    Rhode island Democrat - +3.5 Non
    Maine Democrat - +3.5 Non
    Indiana Democrat - +3.5 Non
    Maryland Democrat - +3.5 Non
    Colorado Democrat - +3.5 Non
    Idaho Democrat - +3.5 Non
    South Carolina Democrat - +3.6 Non
    Wyoming Democrat - +3.7 Non
    Mississippi Democrat - +3.7 non
    Washington Democrat - +3.7 Non
    Arkansas Democrat - +3.9 Non
    Kentucky Democrat - +3.9 Non
    Arizona Democrat - +4 Non
    Texas Democrat - +4 Non
    North Carolina Democrat - +4 Non
    Louisiana Democrat - +4.1 Non
    Vermont Democrat - +4.1 Non
    Montana Democrat - +4.2 Non
    New Mexico Democrat - +4.5 Non

    Culturally liberal v Culturally Conservative

    Mississippi Republican - +1CC
    Utah Republican - +1CC
    Idaho Republican - .9 CC
    Nebraska Republican + - .9 CC
    Arkansas Republican - +.8 CC
    Montana Republican - +.8 CC
    North Dakota Republican - +.7 CC
    West Virginia Republican - +.6 CC
    Georgia Republican - +.5 CC
    Alabama Republican - +.5 CC
    Oregon Republican - +.5CC
    Texas Republican - +.4 CC
    Oklahoma Republican - +.4CC
    Tennessee Republican - +.4 CC
    Nevada Republican - +.4 CC
    South Carolina - +.3 CC
    Louisiana Republican - +.2 CC
    Florida Republican - +.2 CC
    Michigan Republican - +.2 CC
    Wyoming Republican - +.2 CC
    Virginia Republican - +.2 CC
    North Carolina Republican - +.2 CC
    New Mexico Republican - +.2 CC
    Maine Republican - +.1 CC
    Kentucky Republican - +.1 CC
    Indiana Republican - +.1 CC
    Missouri Republican- +.1CC
    Ohio Republican - +.1CC
    Colorado Republican - +.1 CC
    Minnesota Republican - +.1 CC
    Pennsylvania Republican - +.1 CC
    Wisconsin Republican - +.1 CC
    Washington Republican - +0.1 CC
    Iowa Republican - 0 Both
    Illinois Republican - 0 Both
    Kansas Republican - 0 Both
    South Dakota Republican - 0 Both
    Massachusetts Republican - +.1 CL
    Maryland Republican -+.1 CL
    Arizona Republican - +.1 CL
    California Republican - +.1 CL
    Connecticut Republican - +.1 CL
    New York Republican - +.2 CL
    New Hampshire Republican - +0.25 CL
    New Jersey Republican + 0.25 CL
    Rhode island Republican - +.5 CL
    Vermont Republican +1 CL

    South Dakota Independent - +0.7 CL
    Minnesota Independent - +1.5 CL
    Maine Independent - +1.5 CL
    Utah Independent - +1.6 CL
    Connecticut Independent - +1.7 CL
    Idaho Independent - +1.7 CL
    West Virginia Independent - +1.8 CL
    Iowa Independent - +1.9 CL
    Georgia Independent - +2 CL
    Florida Independent - +2 CL
    Michigan Independent - +2 CL
    Kentucky Independent - +2 CL
    Montana Independent - +2.1 CL
    Mississippi Independent - +2.1 CL
    Wyoming Independent - +2.1 CL
    Ohio Independent - +2.1CL
    Arkansas Independent - +2.1 CL
    Louisiana Independent - +2.1 CL
    Wisconsin Independent - +2.1 CL
    Virginia Independent - +2.1 CL
    North Dakota Independent - +2.1 CL
    Colorado Independent - +2.1+ CL
    North Carolina Independent - +2.1 CL
    Alabama Independent - +2.2 CL
    Kansas Independent - +2.3 CL
    Tennessee Independent - +2.3 CL
    New Jersey Independent - +2.3 CL
    Indiana Independent - +2.4 CL
    Pennsylvania Independent ' +2.4 CL
    New Hampshire Independent b- +2.4 CL
    Massachusetts Independent - +2.5 CL
    Arizona Independent - +2.5 CL
    California Independent - +2.5 CL
    New York Independent - +2.5 CL
    Texas Independent - +2.5 CL
    Maryland Independent - +2.5 CL
    Nevada independent - +2.5 CL
    South Carolina Independent - +2.5 CL
    Illinois Independent - +2.5 CL
    Oregon Independent - +2.5 CL
    Oklahoma Independent - +2.6 CL
    Rhode island independent - +2.9 CL
    Washington Independent - +3 CL
    Montana Independent - +3 CL
    New Mexico Independent - +3.5 CL
    Vermont Independent - +4.0 CL


    North Dakota Democrat - +0.9 CL
    Nebraska Democrat - +1.5 CL
    South Dakota Democrat - +1.7 CL
    Montana Democrat - +1.9 CL
    Nevada Democrat - +1.9 CL
    Wisconsin Democrat - +1.9 CL
    Minnesota Democrat - +2 CL
    Michigan Democrat - +2 CL
    West Virginia Democrat - +2 CL
    Utah Democrat - +2 CL
    Maine Democrat - +2.1 CL
    Idaho Democrat - +2.1 CL
    Arkansas Democrat - +2.1 CL
    New York Democrat - +2.1 CL
    Washington Democrat - +2.1 CL
    Alabama Democrat - +2.1 CL
    Colorado Democrat - +2.1 CL
    Mississippi Democrat - +2.1 CL
    New Hampshire Democrat - +2.1 CL
    Iowa Democrat - +2.1 CL
    Ohio Democrat - +2.1 CL
    Rhode island Democrat - +2.1CL
    Virginia Democrat - +2.2 CL
    Florida Democrat - +2.2 CL
    Pennsylvania Democrat - +2.2 CL
    Indiana Democrat - +2.3 CL
    Kentucky Democrat - 2.3 CL
    Kansas Democrat - +2.3 CL
    Oregon Democrat - +2.3 CL
    Tennessee Democrat - +2.3 CL
    Illinois Democrat - 2.4 CL
    Massachusetts Democrat - +2.4CL
    California Democrat - 2.4CL
    New Jersey Democrat - +2.4 CL
    Missouri Democrat - +2.5 CL
    Arizona Democrat - +2.5 CL
    Connecticut Democrat - +2.5CL
    Georgia Democrat - +2.5 CL
    Oklahoma Democrat - +2.5CL
    North Carolina Democrat - +2.5 CL
    South Carolina Democrat - +2.5 CL
    Maryland Democrat - +2.6 CL
    Texas Democrat - +2.8 CL
    New Mexico Democrat - +2.9 CL
    Vermont Democrat - +3.0 CL
    Wyoming Democrat - +3.0 CL
    Louisiana Democrat - +3.1 CL

    Have you entered that in a spreadsheet? Use Google docs if nothing else. It’s free.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    I have a Google Doc that i can share.

    Its interesting watching trends i.e Far left Southern Democrats in Louisiana, Moderate Dems/Indies in Midwest, The South Republicans scoring high authoritarianism and low right wing politics, the Northeast Republicans scoring high individualism and high right wing politics
  30. @Feryl
    When Jesse Ventura was gov. of Minnesota, he and his cabinet often said that the MSM, the Dems, and the GOP were ganging up on him in bad faith, instead of trying to do what was best for the masses.

    Also, the trend since the early 90's has been one of extreme partisanship and grid-lock. People talk about the "uniparty", but the reality is that people from both parties have been increasingly hostile toward each other for 30 years. And this is true for many of the party elites, also (look at Newt Gingrich, whose fortunes went up because both elites and commoners started to buy into extreme partisan hostility). Talk of "impeachment" has occurred within the mainstream of each party, since Clinton in the 90's. Whereas from FDR-GHW Bush, most Americans were content to just "ride out" a given president's term even if he belonged to the "wrong" party (Nixon and Watergate being an obvious exception).

    It’s parenthetical, but when I use “uniparty”, I’m specifically referring to the invade/invite/become indebted to the world trifecta for which there is little effective difference in outcome between the two major parties.

  31. @Audacious Epigone
    Have you entered that in a spreadsheet? Use Google docs if nothing else. It's free.

    I have a Google Doc that i can share.

    Its interesting watching trends i.e Far left Southern Democrats in Louisiana, Moderate Dems/Indies in Midwest, The South Republicans scoring high authoritarianism and low right wing politics, the Northeast Republicans scoring high individualism and high right wing politics

  32. These are interesting stat sets. But I might interject my ceaseless nit picking

    —– definitions. The diffusion of political, ideological and identity distinctions has rendered a lot the above blurry to the particulars.

    The only distinction that resembles something tangible. minus definition is traditional and nontradition and even that is a tough go.

    When republicans started supporting the killing of children in the womb and same relational behavior — whatever they were was but history. Even what it means to support the military or capitalism is no longer what it was.

  33. @Feryl

    hen there was the big one – Ross Perot, to me a precursor to candidate Donald Trump (except the guy was a man of his word, not a total wuss wipe-out like this guy.) He got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and that was after dropping out of the race due to Deep-State threats, and then getting back in.
     
    Perot is no dummy, and I suspect that he did the math about Reagan's assassination attempt in the early 80's. The GHW Bush was deeply involved in the creation and maintenance of the Deep State that we've had since the WW2 era. Reagan was a comparative interloper, and a theoretical libertarian (in practice, well, his policies were mixed), regarded as a threat to the moderate on most issues* Northeastern based GOP establishment that symbolically was over-taken in 1980. The Bushites tried vainly to reverse this via installing Bush in Reagan's White House, and when they felt like the Reaganites were still dissing them, tried to kill Reagan....Only to fail and actually make Reagan more sympathetic. Bush finally got "his" turn in 1989-1992, and of course he showed his true colors by starting a war (while the more libertarian flavored Reagan regime had to shoot down CIA/Bushite propaganda designed to further neo-conservative war mongering). Yet the collapse of the Soviets suddenly made the paranoid and ambitious war-mongering of the Bushites seem passe, and Americans rejected Bush in 1992. Flash to the 2000's, and the Dems should've made the case that Bush represented a return to blustering and bloody foreign policy, but completely failed to do so. Naturally, when Bush 2 made it to the White House, we again started a larger scale conflict. But unlike the 80's, we had no resaonably sane and courageous people left in the White House, and as such there was a total failure to voice skepticism about war**.

    *Except foreign policy, the "moderate" Northeastern Republicans of the 1950's-1980's were basically neo-con hawks, to the point of almost single issue status (e.g., guys like Bill Kristol are mostly indistinguishable from the Leftists of his era/generation, except on foreign policy based on doing what's in the interest of Israel and the Deep State). In the 90's and subsequent decades, many of these "conservatives" have packed their bags and gone to the Democrats (a trend that's exploded in the Trump era, what with populist social conservative isolationists rejecting neo-conservatism). Note also that cutting taxes on rich people was important to wealthy "moderate" Republicans, so naturally they gravitated to the GOP in the 70's and 80's. After Clinton failed to repeal these tax cuts, many "conservatives" (yuppie scum) drifted to the Dems.

    **Bush 1 and Bush 2 are, hands down, the biggest war-mongers in chief since the 70's. Nobody in their regimes seriously and successfully opposed neo-con excesses, whereas Reagan/Bill Clinton/Obama/Trump have had terms noted for relative doves trying to push back against hawks.

    the collapse of the Soviets suddenly made the paranoid and ambitious war-mongering of the Bushites seem passe, and Americans rejected Bush in 1992.

    Americans rejected Bush in 1992 because the economy was in a tailspin. Before that, in the aftermath of Gulf War I, he was enormously popular, and looked like he’d be unbeatable in ’92. IMO, that’s why the major Democrat names like Mario Cuomo and Ted Kennedy stepped back and let Bill Clinton (then little-known outside his home state) take the nomination (OK, Kennedy might have had other reasons).

  34. @Feryl

    Among third parties, the Libertarian party has always advertised itself as “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” but the meaning of social liberalism has shifted over the years.
     
    The good news is that most demographics report being much more pro "big government" than they used to be. In the neo-liberal unraveling that peaked in the 90's, people didn't feel as if there were that many major problems that required great institutional programs to solve. These days, stuff like the border crisis, the student loan crisis, excessive booms and busts from unregulated markets, and the like have all made people much more amenable to sweeping efforts to reform the system. And these days, "reform" means more government, not less, whereas in the 80's and 90's the fashion was to play up the idea of the government being as small as possible.

    Unfortunately, because many of our elites are selfish and clueless, not enough of them are listening to what we want. Whereas in the 1930's-1990's, most Americans generally felt that they were getting the society they wanted. I remember Ann Coulter, shortly into the Trump era, pointing out that even at GOP rallies/functions, the litany about tax cuts and de-regulation elicits yawns, while genuinely populist reforms (like shutting the border) get big cheers.

    The good news is that most demographics report being much more pro “big government” than they used to be.

    Give more power to the system that betrayed us. I see.

  35. @Oleaginous Outrager
    Could any "third party" exist if the only office a member held was the Presidency? The US Congress has little in common with most European parliaments, and its structure is such that any third party would have to capture an almost unfeasible large number of seats (at least a third) to have any impact on governance.

    Could any “third party” exist if the only office a member held was the Presidency?

    Jesse Ventura pulled it off as Governor of Minnesota. He even switched parties along the way.

    It helped that his legislature was split, and he sat atop a three-party government. He could play one side against the other. As could the other two.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    A third party presidency is highly unlikely--but it is still more likely than a kingmaking third party contingent in congress.
  36. @Reg Cæsar

    Could any “third party” exist if the only office a member held was the Presidency?
     
    Jesse Ventura pulled it off as Governor of Minnesota. He even switched parties along the way.

    It helped that his legislature was split, and he sat atop a three-party government. He could play one side against the other. As could the other two.

    A third party presidency is highly unlikely–but it is still more likely than a kingmaking third party contingent in congress.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS