Were there 4 political parties in the last election?

A convincing case could be made that there were actual 4 different political parties involved in the presidential election:

1. Clinton: Establishment insider Democratic Party
2. Sanders: Democratic Socialist Party
3. Republican incumbents in primary: Establishment insider Republican Party.
5. Trump: National Populist Party.

This narrowed in the hot and unusually protracted primary election to 2 political parties battling it out:
Establishment Democratic Party
National Populist Party

The establishment MSM went nuts attacking the National Populist, but were bitter over the Democratic Socialist losing so gave the Establishment Democrat candidate hell too.

Some Republican establishment types literally jumped to the Democratic side or voted 3rd party, but many working class Democrats switched to the National Populist candidate, and some of the Democrat Socialists stayed home or voted 3rd party. The unusual nature of the electoral college gave it to the National Populist, although the establishment Democrat received more votes.

Now? The Democratic Party is trying to more envelope the Democratic Socialists under their banner, while the some in the Republican establishment have joined with the Democrats to try to discredit the winning National Populist candid by collective none-stop personal attacks against him, all his family, all his staff and everyone - tens of millions - who support the candidate and movement by calling them every nasty and accusatory name they can think of.

My contention is that while people say they want a 3rd party candidate, in fact that happened in both Sanders and Trump, political revolutions from opposite directions. If the Democratic Primary had been legitimate and honest, the election would have been as it should have been: Trump versus Sanders - the TWO alternative party candidates of clearly defined differences.

President Trump is a 3rd party politician of a 3rd political party in real terms.

 

BTW: I did not see this on a blog or hear this theory on radio or the MSM. It my own analysis. How am I wrong?

Of the future? Can the Establishment Democrat and Republican Parties revert back to how things were prior to the last election, or is the new shifts and divisions an evolution on its own path they can only try to manipulate rather than eliminate?

 

The part about Democrats and Republicans trying "to discredit the winning National Populist candid by collective none-stop personal attacks against him, all his family, all his staff and everyone - tens of millions - who support the candidate and movement by calling them every nasty and accusatory name they can think of." Trump discredits himself every single day, usually via Twitter. What they say about him is simply the truth, and all too often coated in sugar.

I do wish it would have been Sanders and Trump running against one another, though. I still think it would have made for a significantly different tone and, potentially, much more interesting debate topics. I really have to wonder what brands and personal insults Trump would have come up with for Sanders, though, and how he would have reacted to that.

 

That's easy. "Commie" to start with. Anti American, Elitist, Traitor, etc.
Bernie would have been a very able competitor and would have won over millions of voters.

 

It goes beyond just what Trump twitters. Just look at this forum and otherwise. It is every member of his family, everyone on his staff - and every person - tens of millions - who supports and/or voted for him.

As for the future, it does seem to be the Sanders side, not Clinton side, that more influential - or at least louder - on the Democrat side - and pro-Trump, not establishment Republicans - who are more influential - or at least louder - on the Republican side.

What seems increasingly more difficult to measure and define is what now constitutes the middle and being a moderate? The media does not even allow middle viewpoints generally. Rather, only the two most exact and oft extreme positions.

 

The MSM often declared Sanders too extreme to win, but "too extreme" won both the Republican primary and general election. There really is no way to predict what a Sanders vs Trump election would have produced.

I do believe if Biden had run and won the primary he would have beaten Trump, because Biden has a style ideal to counter Trump's style of personal attacks - and because Biden knows how to communicate to old white people, something Clinton couldn't.

 

Elitist seems like one that would easily blow up in Agent Orange's face But yeah, Commie or some variant of it would seem obvious. Maybe hypocrite also, since even without him having won the primary, we were hearing about how he has gotten wealthy in his position.

At any rate, again, it's sad that such kindergarten tactics worked for Trump. Democracy does not work as intended when the electorate is this stupid and easily manipulated by unscrupulous people.

 

Kindergarten tactics- exactly.

 

There were more than 4 in the beginning.

 

I don't think that the clock can be wound back and that you're right to speak of evolution of the political animal.

 

Given that the Democrat super delegates were pledged to Hillary before the primaries even started, I'm not sure Bernie was even an actual candidate. He had no chance of winning no matter how many states he won and every time he won a state the momentum was quickly diluted by the Hillary camp holding up the delegate count which would always be in her favor.

 

ions
Diehard partisans do not decide general elections, the LEAST knowledgeable voters do. Any time people are asked political questions on the street that is apparent - VERY. Most can not make their US Senator, don't know who the USA fought in the Revolutionary War, and otherwise know next to nothing.

Only a very stupid or arrogant candidate would not use "kindergarten tactics," since the decisive voters have a kindergarten knowledge in terms of government and political issues. I suspect one thing that so annoys Democrats is that Trump beat them at their own game.

The Democrats are a study is kindergarten tactics. They rants and shout that the opponent is a racist, bigot, xenophobe, only cares about the rich, and lament the world will come to an end if people vote Republican. They will used the word "racist" a million times. Think of all the name calling Hilary Clinton did such as "deplorables," calling Trump supporters every possible hateful name she could think of. And Democrats promise free everything.

But Trump out did the Democrats and her in simplicity, promises and name-calling - and Democrats can't stand it! How DARE he campaign like us - and even better at it!

That is what it really comes down to. There was nothing sophisticated about Sander's or Clinton's campaigns either. Simple, one sentence exaggerated sound bite words. All campaigning for president is "kindergarten tactics" because of kindergarten voters.

 

Well, per the Florida 2016 ballot there were 6 parties with candidates on the ballot. Your #2 and #5 did not exist, except in your imagination.
☐ Darrell Lane Castle/Scott Bradley (Constitution)

☐ Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine (Democratic)

☐ Rocky De La Fuente/Michael Steinberg (Reform)

☐ Gary Johnson/Bill Weld (Libertarian)

☐ Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka (Green)

☑ Donald Trump/Mike Pence (Republican)

 

The others weren't viable candidates or political parties. I am talking about the concept of different political parties, not technical filings.

 

I didn't buy your premise, which is why I pointed out reality, not simply your opinion.

 

Trump is a member of the Trump party. The guy switched parties at least 8 times that we know of. Now both major party candidates weren't liked much outside of their avid supporters. As for whom voted for whom.
Republicans 88% Trump, 8% Clinton 4% third party
Democrats 8% Trump, 89% Clinton 3% third party
Independents 46% Trump, 42% Clinton, 12% third party

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

Considering the dislikes of both Trump and Clinton, especially after rough primaries, there really wasn't much switching.

In 2008 the breakdown was this:
Republicans 90% McCain, 9% Obama, 1% third party
Democrats 10% McCain, 89% Obama, 1% third party
Independents 44% McCain, 52% Obama, 4% third party

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2008/

Not much change except for independents. They went from Democratic to Republican. Where 1.2% of the electorate voted third party in 2008, 6% did so in 2016.

 

The evolution seems within the major political parties themselves. Trump really was the Trump party, but pushing nationalism and populism on the right. Sanders really was the Sanders party, but pushing socialism and populism on the left.

3rd parties are only sometimes spoilers leading to a result furthest from the outcome the 3rd party voters would have made their second choice. For example, I doubt if Nader supporters 2nd choice was Bush.

While people like to talk of politics in clearly defined divisions - this party and that party - the reality may be that the ESSENCE of 3rd party (or alternative views) candidates may have to come within one of the two major parties. It is my contention that is what happened. Simply, there is essentially an outsider challenge within the primaries (Sanders and Trump), and then the winner of those 2 face off in the general election

In virtually any national election and often state elections, it usually is only about 10% of voters who make the decision ("swing votes"). Whoever reaches those 10% better wins, depending on where they are. The rest tend to vote straight party lines no matter what.

 

Ok.

 

According to Gallup, independents make up approximately 40% of the electorate. Also using the figures provided by Gallup one can breakdown independents into three groups, lean Republican, lean Democrat and pure or true independents with no leans. There is a difference between the leans and those who identify or affiliate with the two major parties. History shows the later votes the party line 90% of the time, while the leans drop to 80%. Give or take a couple of points depending on the election and candidates involved.

The thing is independents have wild swings at times between parties. Here is the history of those 40% who call themselves independents since 2006.

In 2006 the Congressional Democrats won 57% of the independent vote to 39% for Republicans, (Pew Research) In 2008, Obama won the independent vote over McCain 52-46. (Roper). In 2010 Independents voted Republican 57-41. (ABC News Exit polls) In 2012, Romney barely won the independent vote 51-48 (Pew) and in 2014 it was 54-44 voting Republican, (Pew) 2016 46-42 voting Republican CNN exit polls.



2006 independents voted Democratic by a margin of 57-39 over Republicans. Democrats received 52% total congressional vote vs. 44% for the Republicans.


2008 independents voted for Obama by a 52-46 margin over McCain. Obama won 53-46 over McCain. Independents voted 50-48 for Democratic congressional candidates. Total congressional vote was 53-43 Democratic.


2010 independents voted 57-41 Republican over Democrat and the total congressional vote was Republican 52% Democratic 45%


2012 independents voted for Romney by a 51-48 margin, close to a wash. Obama won the election 51-47. Independents voted 52-47 for Republican congressional candidates. Total congressional vote was 49-48 Democratic.


2014 independents voted 54-44 for Republican congressional candidates and the total vote was 51-46 Republican.


2016 Independents voted for Trump 46-42 with 12% voting third party. In congressional election independents voted Republican 51-47. Total congressional vote was 49-48 Republican.


Over the last eight years Republicans have received a low 39% of the independent vote to a high of 57%. Democrats on the other hand have received a low of 40% and a high of 57% from independents. That is quite a variance.

 

I think the interviews of the man in the street are very carefully screened-if everyone were as uninformed and unthinking as the interviews imply, the US would have never progressed past 1950. Those interviews give a very slanted impression of tertiary education.

 

In your partisan blindness you miss the obvious. On the Republican side, any non-RINO establishment person who stood up and fought was going to win. In 2016, there was only one candidate who met the criteria, that was Trump. Given the GOP internal civil war that has been raging for 8 years, the grassroots was not going to vote for any RINO if there were any alternative.

Trump did not win because he used "kindergarten tactics", and the people that voted for Trump are not "stupid and easily manipulated" - and those excuses are kindergarten logic. Trump won because the conservatives rejected the GOP RINO's, and rejected Hilary (the most corrupt and disgusting person ever).

 

I agree that often those interviews, such as Watters World, are to deliberately make people look stupid and those were particularly annoying. However, in fact, most people know very little about history, government or any details of any issues.

 

How can people be uninformed about those issues? I've always thought that civics education is a good part of the education system.

 

Schools are now taught to the tests, with civics and history virtually non-existent on those tests. Nor does a high school degree in many jurisdictions mean the person received much of any education. For example, year after year reports including from non-political universities show that around 80% of NYC high school graduates are functionally illiterate. This is certainly not limited to NYC by any means. Now you add all the kids taken out of testing for "special ed," which is not tested and therefore essentially taught nothing, combined with high school dropouts, and you can reach numbers as high as 90% literally couldn't read a book to save their life.

Add to this all the people who can technically read, but truly don't give a damn about politics, government and issues, though they may well vote. Did you know that of the 3 major 24/7 news networks - FOX, CNN and MSNBC - the total viewership of all 3 combines is just over 4 million. That means among voters, less than 4% EVER look at those channels, meaning at the MOST they see a few minutes on the evening news - which the majority of people also essentially never watch.

So... they at least read the newspaper, correct? As of 2015, less than 15% of homes receive a newspaper.

Thus, for the majority even of those who are literate, at the most they might see a bit of information here and there online - and we know how twisted, false and bias online blogs and social media is. MOST politics now is uneducated ranting within social media.

THIS IS WHY CAMPAIGNS MAKE IT SO SIMPLE. Hopefully, maybe, those uninformed voters - who actually are who decides elections unfortunately - MIGHT be able to remember a catchy 5 word slogan. THIS is why when Trump speaks, he literally re-arranges sentences to hit on key WORDS - literally hoping voters at least remember the word. "WALL!" Say "WALL!" 10,000 times. It is why is juvenile name calling was so effective. THAT people can remember. "Lying Ted." "Little Marco," "Low Energy Jeb." It is why Democrats say "racist" and "sexist" and "bigot" a million times.

In the past I've worked with candidates essentially as a consultant. Of the many things I explain, one is "NEVER OVER ESTIMATE THE VOTERS." Literally, I would try every way I could to get local candidates to SPELL THEIR NAME at least 3 times - slowly - to say their name at least 10 times - and make some silly joke or slogan about their name. Literally it is a real challenge to get a voter to even remember candidates names, let alone issues. The idea? The LOWEST KNOWLEDGEABLE VOTERS looking down the ballot will see that name and think "oh, I know that person" - so vote for the name. That will be the ONLY thing they remember - but a vote is a vote.

There was a famous case in Houston of a criminal lawyer running against an long term respected incumbent judge. The lawyer was literally captures on video tape sexually grabbing and touching a minor aged female defendant he was appointed to represent. It was all over the newspapers and TV. Newspapers editorialized against him harshly. Demanded he drop out. His party openly disavowed him, demanding he drop out. He didn't - and he won by a landslide. Why? Everyone remembered his name, but not why.

NEVER OVER ESTIMATE THE VOTERS. Consider this forum has some of the most political addict junkies you can find, yet you see how often tricked by obviously fake news, the extreme lack of knowledge and overall common dunderheadedness - and WE are probably in the top 1% of knowledgeable voters. What does that tell you?

COMMENT: When this country was first started, many academics and such seriously questioned if the uneducated masses really could run a government via democracy. While a wonderful concept, there were many long term dire consequences warned of. That there would be an ever growing list of laws and regulations as people tend to want everything they don't do or don't like themselves outlawed. Of course, that the public would constantly demand more and more money from the government ultimately driving the government and country broke. Another concept was that low information people are easily manipulated, tricked and used against each other by those who are powerful.