Ben Sasse

For those who haven't listened to his speech, here you go: [video=youtube;zQMoB4aUn04]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQMoB4aUn04[/video].
 
OK so is Sasse the guy who's calling for a 3rd party candidate to run this year? I'm not all that familiar but who do you think he had in mind?
 
Oklahomahawk said:
OK so is Sasse the guy who's calling for a 3rd party candidate to run this year? I'm not all that familiar but who do you think he had in mind?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I've got friends who know him. I'll see if I can find out. He ruled himself out and I don't doubt him.
 
BedellBrave said:
I don't know. I've got friends who know him. I'll see if I can find out. He ruled himself out and I don't doubt him.
Click to expand...

Well even as bad as I'm at math if it's a Repub of any sort (and why wouldn't it be since it's his party, right?) it's just gonna guarantee Hilldog the election because I can't think of a single soul other than maybe Gandalf or Errol Flynn from the 1940s who could take votes from both parties. It sure as hell ain't anyone currently with an R on their name tag. ;)
 
I suspect that he doesn't think a third party candidate would win. But maybe one would do well enough this time around with both parties showing major fissures to make other options conceivable. Dunno.
 
BedellBrave said:
I suspect that he doesn't think a third party candidate would win. But maybe one would do well enough this time around with both parties showing major fissures to make other options conceivable. Dunno.
Click to expand...

But the 3rd party in this country (which used to be called the Progressive Party or some variation thereof) has never worked, mainly, IMO, because the party itself was never the central theme, but the person who either didn't fit in with the other two parties or got into ideological battles with them and left. It was never about the beliefs of that 3rd party. Teddy Roosevelt adopting the Progressive or Bull Moose moniker in 1912 is one good example. If you/we are going to make a 3rd party work there's going to have to be a soul searching process of organizing and putting forth exactly what values, goals, platform issues, etc., that you/we/they feel are the correct ones and trying to find someone who actually fits them. In other words stress the party and what it stands for, not the personal popularity of the person running with the blessings and support of said 3rd party.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
But the 3rd party in this country (which used to be called the Progressive Party or some variation thereof) has never worked, mainly, IMO, because the party itself was never the central theme, but the person who either didn't fit in with the other two parties or got into ideological battles with them and left. It was never about the beliefs of that 3rd party. Teddy Roosevelt adopting the Progressive or Bull Moose moniker in 1912 is one good example. If you/we are going to make a 3rd party work there's going to have to be a soul searching process of organizing and putting forth exactly what values, goals, platform issues, etc., that you/we/they feel are the correct ones and trying to find someone who actually fits them. In other words stress the party and what it stands for, not the personal popularity of the person running with the blessings and support of said 3rd party.
Click to expand...

Good synopsis. The history of third parties since the firming up of the two-party system with the founding of the Republican party in the 1850's is that they have swung the vote to the party they seek to defeat and then have their principles absorbed into one of the major parties. There have been some distinct "rebellions of the center," led by guys like John Anderson, but I don't know how to categorize Ross Perot's runs or what might happen this year. Perot was anti-fee trade and concerned about immigration when both parties were heading in the other direction on those issues. If anything, those two strains have blossomed into Trump. But it's difficult to know how to fashion a third party that would be a direct reaction to Trump except on his behavior because his views are so mercurial. If this year is ripe for a third party, one would think it would come from the left if (more likely when) Hillary dispatches Bernie. If Bernie ends up being the candidate, you'd likely see a personality-based third party straddling the two major parties that would be moderate in tone and substance.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
But the 3rd party in this country (which used to be called the Progressive Party or some variation thereof) has never worked, mainly, IMO, because the party itself was never the central theme, but the person who either didn't fit in with the other two parties or got into ideological battles with them and left. It was never about the beliefs of that 3rd party. Teddy Roosevelt adopting the Progressive or Bull Moose moniker in 1912 is one good example. If you/we are going to make a 3rd party work there's going to have to be a soul searching process of organizing and putting forth exactly what values, goals, platform issues, etc., that you/we/they feel are the correct ones and trying to find someone who actually fits them. In other words stress the party and what it stands for, not the personal popularity of the person running with the blessings and support of said 3rd party.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely agree. Also, what might initially be a third party might eventually be a main party, with the implosion of an older one. Isn't that what happened for the Republican party with the demise of the Whig (that's your's and 50's area of expertise)?
 
BedellBrave said:
Have you watched the video of his first Senate speech?
Click to expand...

I have. He may very well differ in approach, and that alone would be welcome. My musing about contents had to do with policy.

I will say this about his maiden. It was different, but telling Congress that America hates Congress scarcely qualifies as a hard truth. He took 15 minutes to say something that is both a bullet point in 95% of political journalism, and a stock line for pretty much every Republican ever.

Ditto the entitlement reform. This is not a hard truth. This is a truism.

His approach (heck, just his presence) may make the Senate more interesting and, in fact, better.
 
^^^ Several things I liked about his maiden speech: tone, references to Moynihan and Lewis, and pushing the deliberative, slow, reflective view of what the Senate should be (note how that clashed/clashes with the Cruz ilk).
 
BedellBrave said:
Oh, absolutely agree. Also, what might initially be a third party might eventually be a main party, with the implosion of an older one. Isn't that what happened for the Republican party with the demise of the Whig (that's your's and 50's area of expertise)?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, but what has usually happened since is that either the Democrats or Republicans absorb the third party's platform, or at least parts of it. The pressure of the third party certainly makes the other parties morph at least a bit, but the major parties seem to maintain their basic shapes.
 
BedellBrave said:
Oh, absolutely agree. Also, what might initially be a third party might eventually be a main party, with the implosion of an older one. Isn't that what happened for the Republican party with the demise of the Whig (that's your's and 50's area of expertise)?
Click to expand...

Well the Whig's demise came because the only thing holding them together in the first place was their collective hatred for Andrew Jackson. After he's gone from the scene for 8-10 years they realized they really didn't agree on anything else but their hatred for Jackson so they started squabbling about those those other things, plus. Then you add to it the fact that their only two presidents both died in office after very short times as president and both were succeeded by VPs who were "less than memorable" to say the least.
 
50PoundHead said:
Pretty much, but what has usually happened since is that either the Democrats or Republicans absorb the third party's platform, or at least parts of it. The pressure of the third party certainly makes the other parties morph at least a bit, but the major parties seem to maintain their basic shapes.
Click to expand...

It's too bad the TEA party didn't actually evolve into a legitimate party in its own right rather than just a "bitch fest for all things anti-Obama".
 
Oklahomahawk said:
It's too bad the TEA party didn't actually evolve into a legitimate party in its own right rather than just a "bitch fest for all things anti-Obama".
Click to expand...

In a sense the Tea Party is now embodied (at least in its anger) in Trump- the very thing I don't want to be. I'm a man without a viable option.
 
50PoundHead said:
Pretty much, but what has usually happened since is that either the Democrats or Republicans absorb the third party's platform, or at least parts of it. The pressure of the third party certainly makes the other parties morph at least a bit, but the major parties seem to maintain their basic shapes.
Click to expand...

Oh, how I'd love to see them both implode.... And something sane, compassionate, middle-right emerge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top