"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that ‘some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest’ of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called ‘social fascists.’

After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
3 points

No third party has reached those thresholds in years.

2020:

  1. Democratic - 51.31%
  2. Republican - 46.85%
  3. Libertarian - 1.18%

2016:

  1. Republican - 46.09%
  2. Democratic - 48.18%
  3. Libertarian - 3.28%

2012:

  1. Democratic - 51.06%
  2. Republican - 47.20%
  3. Libertarian - 0.99%

2008:

  1. Democratic - 52.93%
  2. Republican - 45.65%
  3. Ralph Nader - 0.56%

2004:

  1. Republican - 50.73%
  2. Democratic - 48.27%
  3. Ralph Nader - 0.38%

2000:

  1. Republican - 47.86%
  2. Democratic - 48.38%
  3. Ralph Nader - 2.74%
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

And before then?

Even if the threshold for funding and ballot access isn’t met, voting third party helps get your party at events, tells the major parties how popular their platform is and builds support and awareness.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

The last time a 3rd party got any significant portion of the vote was Ross Perot in '92 and '96, it had 0 significance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election

18.91% in '92, 8.4% in '96.

Before that, you have to go back to '68 where a racist 3rd party won 13.5% of the vote, and the South, also had no significance beyond that election.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

I think you’re making a mistake here. You’re gonna wanna stick with stuff like you had before where you imply nothing can change.

Perot 92 and 96 were extensively studied and had far reaching effects on domestic policy, campaign strategy and both gave rise to the spoiler/throwing your vote away discourse in the modern day and were also proof that it was false after people had time to study the results.

I remember after 92 people would spit on the ground when you brought up nafta. They didn’t know about it before the election that year and the deal was all but signed at that point. Perot dragged that thing into the light and that campaign is the reason trump could speak to people’s memories when he said how bad it was and talked up how good the usmca would be (even though it’s basically a continuation).

I like when people bring up the reform party because there were lots of well studied measurable effects and they didn’t come from serious disciplined parties like one might think of psl or something as but from the abstract, goofy reform party. They even fucked up in 92 and had a little will-they won’t-they drop out.

There’s some study or article in the 92 Wikipedia article that references people’s exit poll sentiment that they “would have voted for Perot if they thought he could win”. Not just in passing either, but reaching the conclusion that he could have won if those people had voted for him.

Did they not vote for him because they didn’t think he was for real after the drop out?

Would the reform party have been able to make more of Perot clowning on hw and Clinton if it had been running candidates in downballot races?

On a more touchy-feely level, I wouldn’t be bringing up how the American political system is most vulnerable to third parties when its sclerotic leadership is struggling to differentiate some of its two parties policies.

Not if I wanted to convince people not to vote third party at least.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

As we all know, time doesn’t pass and yesterday is today. Nothing ever happens for any reason. The world is exactly the same as it was decades ago.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Tell you what, I’ll put my money where my mouth is. I’ll personally donate $1,000 to any 3rd party that cracks 3% nationally in the upcoming election.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You don’t have to, that isn’t my point. My point is that countless quantitative changes over time result in qualitative ones. Society is wildly different as Capitalism continues to decay, and the 2 parties continue to move forward with that decay. There will be a turning point.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.9K

    Posts

  • 122K

    Comments