"Majority Of Americans want a third party"Follow

You and I have different definitions of "base" in a political sense particularly when discussing a third party. For instance, I'm using it correctly and you're not.

I assume you are using base to reference the 18-23% of people who subscribe to the part ideology rather than the ~40% who get wrapped in via proximity. Regardless of whether or not they vote.

Nah, a party's base is really more like 45% or so in a national election*. Romney was somewhat accurate in his infamous 47% remark in that both parties start fairly close to around that number and you lose a few percent due to various factors keeping them from the polls. Of course his delivery of it and his reasoning for why people select one base over the other was disastrous but the math was probably fairly accurate. McCain got blown out during a period of deep resentment towards GOP policies and still scratched out over 45%. Friggin' Michael Dukakis who only won a single state still got over 45%.

So you start with your 45% and you bust *** to try to get that of 2% or so to actually vote. That 2% isn't disaffected voters or voters who hate you, it's just people who are lazy or it's raining/snowing or they had a long day or they support you but support sitting on their couch even more. They aren't saying "I hate everyone!", they're just not voting.

The final 3% is voters who are interested in voting but, for whatever reason, haven't decided on a candidate. THOSE are the people you target. You don't waste your time on people huffing about "Republicrats" and how they're "voting by not voting" when there's actual interested voters out there to target. Swaying an interested voter is better than trying to convince an uninterested voter that they really should be interested and interested in you.

This is also why third parties don't work. They never take evenly from both bases. They just break one base along some sub-ideological line and let the other guy win.

*Geographically, the size of a base can be all over the map (that's a pun, get it?) when discussing state and local elections.

Sometime when I feel like my heart has hardened and not bleeding enough, i go into the bathroom and cut it a little bit. If I'd not have fallen into the bleeding heart category, I'd have been pretty disappointed.

They told me I'm not very engaged and torn over the role of government in everyday life.

Meanies.

And I'd love to see something that made the government act in a more moderate fashion, whether that's a 3rd party or not doesn't really matter to me. This choosing between and left-of-center and right-of-center government is just silliness. I don't see how things change easily though. Neither of those groups seem like they'd want to give up power very easily.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 8:39am by someproteinguy

That's a long way of saying the latter.

Well, the focus is on "regardless of whether or not they vote". If you don't vote, you're not a relevant part of any base. You can be a dyed in the wool ideologist through and through but you don't matter unless you're casting a ballot. One "hold my nose and vote Democrat every cycle" voter is worth an infinite number of people spending election day on their couch ************ to Rachel Maddow.

My "bleeding heart" positions aren't driven by selfless respect for my common man. The're driven by cold efficiency, and economic reality. I support poorly implemented social programs because the lack of such generates greater maladies. The GOP leadership is built on idiots, lunatics, and opportunists and is unwilling to create a credible plan to move the country forward. Their best plans are akin to a turtle waiting on its back for someone to flip them. They could be the party of industrious technocrats like the Chinese strain, but they choose to rot. They're federal branch has already made the decision to centralize. The US political system is diseased, structurally, and it would take a huge amount of private wealth and time to restructure it in a more coherent manner.

Really? I don't follow what Collins is up to unless she's making national news but I find that hard to believe. She seems to have found her niche but I don't see her expanding beyond it. At least not electorally -- maybe she could get a cabinet post.

Nexa and I know the likely nominee for the Democratic side of that race a little bit. She cried when she wasn't able to offer Nexa enough money to work for the Maine ACLU. Great woman, she'd be a fantastic senator. She's going to lose by a LOT assuming she does win the nomination. Unless someone has photos of Collins eating rock lobster and orange hot dogs hidden somewhere.

As to the three party thing, as probably already stated somewhere I didn't read, basically structurally impossible in the US with elections as currently construed. Were it more structurally possible, basically politically impossible given the existing networks of money and influence.

Don't challenge his delusions, he'll have another 'episode'.

He's right. I don't think Joph disagrees, though, they're sort of talking past one another. I'd assume TLW is slightly out of phase with out universe. His waveform should collapse back to us shortly.

Those people are a lot different than those who refuse to vote as a protest movement. Those "protest" non-voters aren't worth wasting energy on

Depends how likely they are to vote if you chase them a little. Targeting those voters is something the Obama presidential team did fairly well in 12. You are correct that it's better ROI to give bags of money to preachers with buses to get poors to the polls, but there's really only so much of that you can do.

Before I wink out of existence, I'll prove my point. You could get better increased voter participation rates than the lauded Obama GOTV machine by dropping of early voter cards along with cofee and donuts at major employers and institutions.

That points to a lack of sufficient motivation, rather than "they aren't part of my base".

You don't want general better voter participation. You want increased participation from people who are sure to vote for you.

The lauded Obama GOTV machine could have gotten better general participation rates by taking some of their billion dollars and expanding into red districts. They didn't because they were trying to win, not increase general participation. On the other hand, they did focus on institutions like colleges because those people vote Democratic.