Third Party, is it time?

Not too squishy and feckless, not too hard and bristly, but somewhere in the middle. Is it time for a group that doesn’t have any true direction, but leads whichever way the political winds are blowing?

I’m talking about a centrist party. The political affiliation breakdown is 30% Republicans, 30% Democrats, and 40% independents. That squishy spineless center encompasses the majority of voters either two primary parties fight over every election cycle. It’s time they had a home.

I had thought for some time that the right would fracture and create a libertarian party, but it’s looking more like some on the left are just as disgusted with their party as they too have moved farther from the center.

So whataya say? Is it time for tail chasing leadership that you really don’t know from one day to the next what they stand for, other than against the other two options?


I’m to agenda driven to support centralist party.

1 Like

I would call that the Realist Party…some might call it “squishy” but I would call it understanding that issues we face don’t neatly fit into any ideologies.

The only “ideology” would be a systematic approach to problem solving which would “naturally” direct issues to be handled by those organizations (private, local, state or federal) that are best suited to deal with them.

And there are some principles in a Realist Party anyway.

Systematic approach to problem solving
True stakeholder involvement, not paid access
Realist approach to taxation- taxes are to pay for government, not influence behaviors we would “like to see” or reward certain groups.

I have no idea how any of this would work, BTW.

I would love a third party, but what issues would either side compromise on to build the foundation? And would those issues build enough good will that the party could then move on to pricklier issues? I just don’t see that happening.

It won’t because that’s not how human beings make decisions or solve problems.

I know…they make decisions based on who tells the best stories.

Besides…Trump was common sense centralist and libs totally resented that approach.

1 Like

Sure. That invokes the best emotion.

No he wasn’t.

OK well- no he wasn’t for the most part.

I disagree.

He was a populist, a political windsock, until you pissed him off and he gravitated towards the ones that didn’t call him names.

1 Like

You couldn’t get past the hatred the extreme left had of him.

Look at his policies…not the man. Yes I understand you want to bitch slap him…hell so do I but look as his policies.

1 Like

As long as the US has an Electoral System, there will not be a viable third party.


I did look at his policies…some I liked…most did not solve problems but were designed to fire up his base and/or enrage the left.

I pretty much agree. Not detail oriented. Not bound. He didn’t start making it personal, but would escalate it by an order of magnitude.

I disagree. I think that is a fundamental attribution error.

No he didn’t have to fire up his base. It was libs that resented everything that Trump purposed to fire up their base. Building a wall and securing our border was common sense policy. Pushing NATO to fund their share of their security was common sense policy. Avoiding more foreigner engagement was common sense policy. Giving incentives to build and bring back our industry was common sense policies.

So tell me Jay…which of those were used to fire up his base? I see the extreme left used that to fire up their base…and now you’re left with bunch of radical extremist nut cases running our government…the very people you are now claiming you don’t support?


So he had no set values then…He only went Conservative because the Conservative base didn’t piss him off. Sounds like a real tried and true Conservative.

Any time you start a post with “So”, you should not.

1 Like

I disagree…