5 ms·

In the history of the US, the "third party" either "spoils" in this fashion you've described -- or it subsumes the party it would've spoiled by becoming more po

In the history of the US, the "third party" either "spoils" in this fashion you've described -- or it subsumes the party it would've spoiled by becoming more popular. It's not inconceivable for a new coalition to form around a new ideology and have that replace the GOP.

baggachipz 3y ago
That already happened in the 80's. ;)
- lisper 3y ago
  And again in 2016.
- rythmshifter 3y ago
  Could you explain this further?
  - Macha 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System
    - jfengel 3y ago
      I had not seen this terminology before. Thank you.
  - baggachipz 3y ago
    I was specifically thinking of the "Moral Majority" movement, Reagan doctrine, and "trickle-down economics." It was a sea change in the party and set their direction until 2016. We're still seeing the fallout from it to this day, with consolidation of wealth, pandering to extreme religious conservatives, and endless military engagements to police the globe.
- fsagx 3y ago
  It seems a plausible argument that the same happened to the Democrats beginning Bill Clinton in the 90's. Obama out-fundraised from Wall Street both his Republican opponents. Also, with their lock up on big-tech (Musk aside), and their tepid or purely rhetorical support for unions, the Democrats are the big business party.
  - NoGravitas 3y ago
    Both the Democrats and Republicans are big business parties; they represent different factions of big business. Democrats represent finance, entertainment, and big-tech (which is, honestly, mostly finance); Republicans represent mainly manufacturing and extractive industries.
rsynnott 3y ago
> It's not inconceivable for a new coalition to form around a new ideology and have that replace the GOP. I mean, you could argue that that's happened with Trump anyway; the way the system works, doing it internally to a party is probably easier than completely externally.
- yonaguska 3y ago
  Maybe, but the old GOP is fighting tooth and nail to oust the Trump base from the party. And while Trump may have had the presidency, it looks like most of the GOP was simply paying lipservice to his base until they got rid of him. Imo- the verdict is still out on whether it's easier done internally or externally. The DNC is not making the same mistake with RFK jr- they've just done a complete media blackout of him and pushed him to run independent instead.
  - lazide 3y ago
    He won the presidency, and still has a clear hold on the party. How is that ‘paying lipservice’?
    - yonaguska 3y ago
      The republican majority during the first two years of his presidency stalled on enacting any of his policy- and now they are much more vocally opposed to Trump- as if they always hadn't been. He's a populist candidate- but he's not at all popular with the actual politicians, who are currently the actual infrastructure of the party. His hold on the party is tenuous at best- mostly because the people that oppose him when it comes to voting will still happily campaign with him and win based on his supporters. The recent soft blacklisting of Trump support from Fox is also going to take out a chunk of his base that will continue to vote for the color red.
      - lazide 3y ago
        That’s literally what everyone does within their party to pretty much anyone. He’s still the defacto face of the GOP, no matter how much they want to change it. As tenuous as it may be, it’s stronger than anyone else’s!
ant6n 3y ago
In the last 100 years, the parties have been replaced “from within”
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- beefield 3y ago
  Yep, if I recall my US history correctly, it was the GOP that was the progressive one wanting to get rid of slavery and Democrats were the opposing ones.
  - InTheArena 3y ago
    Indeed. And there have been many, many re-alignments. The GOP was still the party of civil rights until after the 1960s, and then abortion forced a schism between the southern democrats and the democratic party, which led to the GOP increasingly being "the states right" party. The democratic party after the Civil War was was the political wing of the KKK, in a similar relationship of Sinn Fein to the IRA.
OfSanguineFire 3y ago
> It's not inconceivable for a new coalition to form around a new ideology and have that replace the GOP. Hasn’t that already happened? Since 2016 there has been frequent reportage that the GOP has increasingly been taken over by populists, that the platform that the party proclaimed before (small government and a libertarian touch, some military hawkishness) has little appeal or momentum today when it comes to deciding elections. When the candidate for president who wanted to run under that party had enough charisma to be elected (or at least defeat all other primary challengers), ideology went out the window. And all without creating a third party.
- b112 3y ago
  This is still happening in the framework of the existing party. True replacement would be an entirely new party, from the ground up eventually forming government.
- wyldfire 3y ago
  > Hasn’t that already happened? Well, yes, several times. Like I said "in the history of the US..." - because it's happened before. But what you describe here is shifting platform of the party itself, perhaps due to gerrymandered House districts shifting the rhetoric to include ever more extreme ideals.

baggachipz 3y ago

That already happened in the 80's. ;)

lisper 3y ago
And again in 2016.
rythmshifter 3y ago
Could you explain this further?
- Macha 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System
  - jfengel 3y ago
    I had not seen this terminology before. Thank you.
- baggachipz 3y ago
  I was specifically thinking of the "Moral Majority" movement, Reagan doctrine, and "trickle-down economics." It was a sea change in the party and set their direction until 2016. We're still seeing the fallout from it to this day, with consolidation of wealth, pandering to extreme religious conservatives, and endless military engagements to police the globe.
fsagx 3y ago
It seems a plausible argument that the same happened to the Democrats beginning Bill Clinton in the 90's. Obama out-fundraised from Wall Street both his Republican opponents. Also, with their lock up on big-tech (Musk aside), and their tepid or purely rhetorical support for unions, the Democrats are the big business party.
- NoGravitas 3y ago
  Both the Democrats and Republicans are big business parties; they represent different factions of big business. Democrats represent finance, entertainment, and big-tech (which is, honestly, mostly finance); Republicans represent mainly manufacturing and extractive industries.

rsynnott 3y ago

> It's not inconceivable for a new coalition to form around a new ideology and have that replace the GOP. I mean, you could argue that that's happened with Trump anyway; the way the system works, doing it internally to a party is probably easier than completely externally.

yonaguska 3y ago
Maybe, but the old GOP is fighting tooth and nail to oust the Trump base from the party. And while Trump may have had the presidency, it looks like most of the GOP was simply paying lipservice to his base until they got rid of him. Imo- the verdict is still out on whether it's easier done internally or externally. The DNC is not making the same mistake with RFK jr- they've just done a complete media blackout of him and pushed him to run independent instead.
- lazide 3y ago
  He won the presidency, and still has a clear hold on the party. How is that ‘paying lipservice’?
  - yonaguska 3y ago
    The republican majority during the first two years of his presidency stalled on enacting any of his policy- and now they are much more vocally opposed to Trump- as if they always hadn't been. He's a populist candidate- but he's not at all popular with the actual politicians, who are currently the actual infrastructure of the party. His hold on the party is tenuous at best- mostly because the people that oppose him when it comes to voting will still happily campaign with him and win based on his supporters. The recent soft blacklisting of Trump support from Fox is also going to take out a chunk of his base that will continue to vote for the color red.
    - lazide 3y ago
      That’s literally what everyone does within their party to pretty much anyone. He’s still the defacto face of the GOP, no matter how much they want to change it. As tenuous as it may be, it’s stronger than anyone else’s!

ant6n 3y ago

In the last 100 years, the parties have been replaced “from within”

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
beefield 3y ago
Yep, if I recall my US history correctly, it was the GOP that was the progressive one wanting to get rid of slavery and Democrats were the opposing ones.
- InTheArena 3y ago
  Indeed. And there have been many, many re-alignments. The GOP was still the party of civil rights until after the 1960s, and then abortion forced a schism between the southern democrats and the democratic party, which led to the GOP increasingly being "the states right" party. The democratic party after the Civil War was was the political wing of the KKK, in a similar relationship of Sinn Fein to the IRA.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

> It's not inconceivable for a new coalition to form around a new ideology and have that replace the GOP. Hasn’t that already happened? Since 2016 there has been frequent reportage that the GOP has increasingly been taken over by populists, that the platform that the party proclaimed before (small government and a libertarian touch, some military hawkishness) has little appeal or momentum today when it comes to deciding elections. When the candidate for president who wanted to run under that party had enough charisma to be elected (or at least defeat all other primary challengers), ideology went out the window. And all without creating a third party.

b112 3y ago
This is still happening in the framework of the existing party. True replacement would be an entirely new party, from the ground up eventually forming government.
wyldfire 3y ago
> Hasn’t that already happened? Well, yes, several times. Like I said "in the history of the US..." - because it's happened before. But what you describe here is shifting platform of the party itself, perhaps due to gerrymandered House districts shifting the rhetoric to include ever more extreme ideals.