Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So it seems that for the third time in a row the Tea Party is going to give their own speech:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/08/rand-paul-to-deliver-tea-party-response-to-obama-gop/

My main question is this: when is the Tea Party going to split and just become their own party. Seems to me that they want all the freedoms and benefits of being a third party, but they don't want to give up the advantage of being one of the players in a two-party system. I've spend 4 years being involved with a new party in Germany and the struggles of starting a new third party in the US/Oklahoma, so I know how hard it is to be a third party in a two-party world. But it seems like the Tea Party is not willing to fight that battle.

The problem is that you inevitably end up splitting the vote in a manner that is unfavorable to your desires.

A "real" third party doesn't work in America due to the fact that we're a Republic that directly elects people into office as opposed to a Parliment where people often vote for a party which later appoints officeholders without voter input. This means that coalition governments (thankfully) can't exist here. In a winner-takes-all race, the last thing you want is to diminish the chances of seeing your beliefs being advanced. This is why we have the current (and very stable) two-party system that's been around for over 150 years.

As a independent voter who leans liberal, I adore the the Tea Party. I think they've been swell and I hope they keep popping out those Sharron Angles, Todd Akins, Herman Cains, Richard Mourdocks, and Christine O'Donnells. Heckuva job, guys! I can't wait to see what election they steal defeat from the jaws of victory from next.

And thus we see the second reason there won't be an actual "Tea Party". The "Tea Party" movement was its own worst enemy last election because it's a mostly grass-roots operation and that means it's harder to get candidates properly vetted..

So sad they they took such an amzing drink and tainted it with their name.

I am also entirely glad of them, I hope they stay firmly in the Republican nest for years to come, creating a system where no sensible conservative can survive their primaries so that you will always end up with a lunatic like Santorum or Palin, or a beige yes man like Romnid.

Hell, if the right put up Christie now, their own party would shoot him down for being a RINO.

Here's to tricorn hats, badly spelled signs, closeted racism, homophobia and alienating the moderate middle ground voter for decades to come.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I am also entirely glad of them, I hope they stay firmly in the Republican nest for years to come, creating a system where no sensible conservative can survive their primaries so that you will always end up with a lunatic like Santorum or Palin, or a beige yes man like Romnid.

Hell, if the right put up Christie now, their own party would shoot him down for being a RINO.

Here's to tricorn hats, badly spelled signs, closeted racism, homophobia and alienating the moderate middle ground voter for decades to come.

While hilariously pointing out the problems with the Tea party, MeanGreen has answered the OP.

The Tea Party doesn't have the support to run nationally on their own, but they have enough to shift Republican Party politics their way. The crazy way.

 LordofHats wrote:
The Tea Party doesn't have the support to run nationally on their own, but they have enough to shift Republican Party politics their way. The crazy way.

I have to say, that afterthought of a second sentence cracked me up.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So sad they they took such an amzing drink and tainted it with their name.

and the normally happy event as well

not that I really know much about them

I'd also propose that it really comes down to ideaology. At the end of the day, Tea Party politics are Republican politics. The only thing that really sets the Tea Party apart is that in the hay day of blaming politicians for all the world's problems after the recession started, they blamed all politicians. Really, the Tea Party is just an opportunistic groups of local and state level Republicans and former independents who realized there was a chance to propel themselves to national politics by blaming their fellows.

"Don't vote for this Republican, vote for me!"
"But I don't like Republicans!"
"Don't worry! I'm with the Tea party!"

They're Republicans by another name. Why shouldn't they be in the Republican Party?

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd also propose that it really comes down to ideaology. At the end of the day, Tea Party politics are Republican politics. The only thing that really sets the Tea Party apart is that in the hay day of blaming politicians for all the world's problems after the recession started, they blamed all politicians. Really, the Tea Party is just an opportunistic groups of local and state level Republicans and former independents who realized there was a chance to propel themselves to national politics by blaming their fellows.

"Don't vote for this Republican, vote for me!"
"But I don't like Republicans!"
"Don't worry! I'm with the Tea party!"

They're Republicans by another name. Why shouldn't they be in the Republican Party?

You're sorta right...

It's really about the establishment. It's the new blood vs the old blood of the party.

So... consequently, we'd get some of the looneys come out of the woodwork. But, that's politics...

At least some of the looneys ARE already in the democratic party.

The problem of the two party system could easily be solved with some very simple (and much needed) election reform legislation. Two simple ones:
political party and/or affiliation will no longer appear on any federal election ballots.
Congressional majority and minority leaders are no longer recognized as official positions (rightly so considering that its an invented position).

Oh and while were at it ratify article the first and repeal the 17, pretty please with a cherry on top?

chaos0xomega wrote:
The problem of the two party system could easily be solved with some very simple (and much needed) election reform legislation. Two simple ones:
political party and/or affiliation will no longer appear on any federal election ballots.
Congressional majority and minority leaders are no longer recognized as official positions (rightly so considering that its an invented position).

Oh and while were at it ratify article the first and repeal the 17, pretty please with a cherry on top?

I think simply repealing the 17th amendment would go a long way...

 d-usa wrote:
My main question is this: when is the Tea Party going to split and just become their own party. Seems to me that they want all the freedoms and benefits of being a third party, but they don't want to give up the advantage of being one of the players in a two-party system. I've spend 4 years being involved with a new party in Germany and the struggles of starting a new third party in the US/Oklahoma, so I know how hard it is to be a third party in a two-party world. But it seems like the Tea Party is not willing to fight that battle.

I'm still new to the US political system (and my own view is that having more than two parties would help) but my understanding is that for the Tea Party to stand on their own as a separate party means that they effectively split the Republic vote 2 ways instead of one. That gives the Democrats a massive advantage when it comes time to campaign and sets back the agenda that the Republicans and Tea Party run on.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm still new to the US political system (and my own view is that having more than two parties would help) but my understanding is that for the Tea Party to stand on their own as a separate party means that they effectively split the Republic vote 2 ways instead of one. That gives the Democrats a massive advantage when it comes time to campaign and sets back the agenda that the Republicans and Tea Party run on.

Yep, however I think there is more of an internal fight coming for the Republicans, they courted this element, beguiled by it during it's emergence during Palin's rallies and now that it's been placed in significant positions in the party and given a voice in the party's steering, far out of proportion to it's size, many centrist right wingers and economical conservatives are eyeing this cuckoo in their nest and asking what this marriage actually got them.

The 'Powers That Be' funding and ruling the party will either keep on whipping up this monster because it appeals to them or they will realize it's alienating the rest of the nation utterly, turn an eye to the increasing suntan of future generations and look to curb it back, perhaps with some form of night of long knives cull of it's more radical lunatics in power.

It should be screaming warnings of impending extinction to the GOP when a prime candidate like Huntsman can't make the primaries due to saying he believes in evolution but a frothing basketcase like Santorum nearly lands the role.

Republicans are always going to vote Republican, whether its a RINO or a Tea Party person. Moderates will run.

Open primaries would help the Republicans by letting moderate republicans get moderate votes instead of Tea Party dominated primaries.

 Breotan wrote:

A "real" third party doesn't work in America due to the fact that we're a Republic that directly elects people into office as opposed to a Parliment where people often vote for a party which later appoints officeholders without voter input.

The distinction, broadly, between a Presidential system (what you're incorrectly calling a republic) and a Parliamentary system is election of the Executive. In a Presidential system it tends to be direct, in a Parliamentary system it does not. Of course, there are exceptions.

As to appointments: are you really going to claim that the US system doesn't allow for them?

chaos0xomega wrote:

Congressional majority and minority leaders are no longer recognized as official positions (rightly so considering that its an invented position).

They're not official potions, outside the relevant parties.

Game: "You have found a Potion of Majority Leader."

Me: Toss it.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Congressional majority and minority leaders are no longer recognized as official positions (rightly so considering that its an invented position).

They're not official potions, outside the relevant parties.

 d-usa wrote:
Republicans are always going to vote Republican, whether its a RINO or a Tea Party person. Moderates will run.

This is not true.



There is a growing number of centrist Republicans who have moved to voting democrat on occasion due to their dislike of the hardline rightwing dominance. I know of several fiscal conservatives who have been voting democrat due to their dislike of the social conservatism dominating their party recently.

Those guys need to make the news more...

chaos0xomega wrote:

Partially incorrect, in practical terms the majority/minority leaders play a role in how Congress functions, and the impact of that role can and does cross party lines.

Yes, the floor leaders play a role in how Congress functions. But that does not make the position of floor leader official, outside the body granting them the title; the relevant party.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Simply put, political parties should have no official recognition by the government whatsoever, and should be treated as what they are: lobbyists.

They don't have any official recognition. And no, they shouldn't be treated as lobbyists, because they're not lobbyists. They often employ lobbyists, but they are not themselves lobbyists.

 dogma wrote:


They don't have any official recognition. And no, they shouldn't be treated as lobbyists, because they're not lobbyists. They often employ lobbyists, but they are not themselves lobbyists.

Quick question; does that mean that minor parties and independants have the same amount of time and representation in the electoral debates?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Quick question; does that mean that minor parties and independants have the same amount of time and representation in the electoral debates?

No, but the debates aren't run by the government, they're run by the parties.

Speaking only to Presidential elections.

Weird. So any party could hold their debates? Is there a green party debate?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Weird. So any party could hold their debates? Is there a green party debate?

Usually the third parties hold a debate together

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2012/11/05/10900/watch-live-video-3rd-party-debate-between-gary-joh/

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Weird. So any party could hold their debates?

They could, but no one would pay attention.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Is there a green party debate?

There are numerous third party debates.

I wonder if this is an evolution where in another few years Democrats and Repulicans bear as much resemblence to what we now have as the current parties resemble the Civil war Democrats and Republicans.

Relapse wrote:
I wonder if this is an evolution where in another few years Democrats and Repulicans bear as much resemblence to what we now have as the current parties resemble the Civil war Democrats and Republicans.

To be honest, I'm not very familiar with what the parties were like at that point in history (other than knowing they were a lot different then now) - can you expand upon that?

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I wonder if this is an evolution where in another few years Democrats and Repulicans bear as much resemblence to what we now have as the current parties resemble the Civil war Democrats and Republicans.

To be honest, I'm not very familiar with what the parties were like at that point in history (other than knowing they were a lot different then now) - can you expand upon that?

This can explain it better than I can.

http://howardgarcia.com/Articles/Two_Centuries_of_Role_Reversal.htm