The Birth of a Strong Third Party

[saysmydoctor]

I've noticed discussions of this happening in a lot of threads, so I figured a bigger umbrella topic should be made.

The Blue Dogs appear to be rearing their head, Specter switched parties, Independents are becoming the keys to elections, moderates in the Republican Party are expressing grievances with party leadership, there is a slowly growing libertarian movement in the country, amongst other things.

I think we are literally a few years away from a legitimate, powerful third party forming and being competitive at a national level. The question is who benefits the most from this?

Will we see coalition movements occur in our Congress? Will this empower the moderates? Will this weaken the Democrats at a national level? Will this make the GOP seem even more out of touch with the issues? Who are the future leaders of such a third party? How will this effect the electoral map?

[GuitarR0cker1]

The birth of a third party has the slight possibility of happening if things go horribly wrong in the Republican Party 2012 primaries. The Democrats will probably continue to have the blue dogs angry at them but nothing will happen because a good chunk of the blue dogs depend on african american support for them. If they ran as a independent, there is a good chance of them getting trounced by a fully conservative Republican who will tie them to Obama. I think moderates are really overrated in this country. Specter is facing a huge challenge from Sestak, and is becoming very unpopular.

Basically the only scenario where I see a significant third party emerging is if the Republicans have a mainstream vs fundie battle in 2012. Huckabee is extremely popular, especially in a time of economic recession when his folksy talk has the potential to impress more than evangelicals. The party establishment hates him though and so do most of the candidates. Chances are he will run and do well. If he does well enough there will be an even battle between him and Romney/any number of other possible mainstream conservatives. Chances are Romney will win. Unlike the Obama vs. Clinton primary fight there will be differences in policy and the evangelicals will even have a bigger reason to vote against Romney. If Huckabee decided to run, he would be Wallace 2.0 and would be a regional candidate but because the South is so important to the Republicans it would cripple Romney.

[Nevuk]

No third party will ever be sustainable due to our electoral college and system of election. We may see one that lasts for 10-15 years, but the only way it will ever do anything is if it supplants one of the other ones, as we saw with whigs and republicans. More like is it would be like the progressive party TR tried to start when he wanted a 3rd term.

Also, all of the various groups right now have absolutely nothing in common - moderate republicans and libertarians are pretty different. If there is a 3rd party, it'll be basically a slightly further left republican party that celebrates its moderation with all the arrogant snobbery of most moderates.

[GuitarR0cker1]

No third party will ever be sustainable due to our electoral college and system of election. We may see one that lasts for 10-15 years, but the only way it will ever do anything is if it supplants one of the other ones, as we saw with whigs and republicans. More like is it would be like the progressive party TR tried to start when he wanted a 3rd term.

Also, all of the various groups right now have absolutely nothing in common - moderate republicans and libertarians are pretty different. If there is a 3rd party, it'll be basically a slightly further left republican party that celebrates its moderation with all the arrogant snobbery of most moderates.
Bingo, unless we have something really odd happen in the next 20 to 30 years we will have the same two party system maybe with a blip or two where a third party does well in one cycle.

[saysmydoctor]

Moderates are overrated?

Moderates hold the real power in this country, are you crazy? Until Specter switched, the key swing votes in the senate were Collins, Snowe, and Specter (and he is still a swing vote). Justice Kennedy is a moderate and is considered the key swing vote on the Court. The Blue Dogs compose 52 seats of the Democrats' 257. Bill Clinton governed from the center, and Obama is doing the same thing. Moderates are probably underrated if anything!

[The Pharmacist]

maybe a change over who the two main parties are, but considering American history, third parties don't last

[GuitarR0cker1]

Moderates are overrated?

Moderates hold the real power in this country, are you crazy? Until Specter switched, the key swing votes in the senate were Collins, Snowe, and Specter (and he is still a swing vote). Justice Kennedy is a moderate and is considered the key swing vote on the Court. The Blue Dogs compose 52 seats of the Democrats' 257. Bill Clinton governed from the center, and Obama is doing the same thing. Moderates are probably underrated if anything!
They are overrated in the sense that people think that they have the power to form a third party and win. I think they hold definite power in congress and state governments though. Whoops I didn't make that clear enough, I guess. I really do think that the moderates will shrink heavily or that the moderate wings will be pushed to the left soon enough.

[saysmydoctor]

I still think you are hugely underestimating the reach and size and support the moderates have in the political infrastructure.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I think you are overestimating their reach. Do you honestly see the blue dogs holding lots of their power after 2010? I am curious as to what you think the 2010 elections will do to moderates as whole. Anyways the center will always hold large amounts of power in American politics. What will hold them back from every upsetting the two party system long term are their differences and the way our system is structured.

[xshady121]

I think you are overestimating their reach. Do you honestly see the blue dogs holding lots of their power after 2010? I am curious as to what you think the 2010 elections will do to moderates as whole. Anyways the center will always hold large amounts of power in American politics. What will hold them back from every upsetting the two party system long term are their differences and the way our system is structured.

Yeah, I don't know what you think the American political system looks like, but I know it would sure be interesting to live in the world you describe. I don't think you comprehend the complexities of the political system. About the only correct point you've made all night is that it is impossible for a third party to survive. Denying the power of the blue dogs, the animosity that is present between the two sides of the party, and the fact that if the blue dogs left the party their seats would likely go to repubs in great numbers is just showing your young idealistic jaded view of politics.


edit: I just went back and re-read this thread. You questioned my knowledge of political elections and then you have the guts to say "moderates are overrated"? Courting the moderate vote is the first rule of elections. You really are too much. You don't have to even go far in history to find case studies to that effect. Look at 92. I know it's before your time, but still.

[xshady121]

I still think you are hugely underestimating the reach and size and support the moderates have in the political infrastructure.

Ladies and gentleman, the post of the evening.

[saysmydoctor]

Yes, I do. People like moderates and the moderates take pride in their 'pragmatic' and moderate agenda.

I personally see the Radical Center to be in it all for the power and the public plays into it--a lot. You don't see Collins or Snowe in danger of losing reelection. Gillibrand, when a representative, won a generally conservative district as a moderate democrat. And there are tons of other examples.

Blue Dogs have been around for years, I can't think of a time though when they've ever been such a big hindrance to the Democrats agenda.

[saysmydoctor]

I even disagree that a third party isn't sustainable. There has been talk for years of amending the constitution to eliminate the electoral college. The legitimacy can easily be created, even though both major parties will fight it. The third party, however, would never win the Presidency. But winning a Senate seat or taking numerous representative seats or a few state capitals?? I can see it happening.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Yeah, I don't know what you think the American political system looks like, but I know it would sure be interesting to live in the world you describe. I don't think you comprehend the complexities of the political system. About the only correct point you've made all night is that it is impossible for a third party to survive. Denying the power of the blue dogs, the animosity that is present between the two sides of the party, and the fact that if the blue dogs left the party their seats would likely go to repubs in great numbers is just showing your young idealistic jaded view of politics.


edit: I just went back and re-read this thread. You questioned my knowledge of political elections and then you have the guts to say "moderates are overrated". Courting the moderate vote is the first rule of elections. You really are too much. You don't have to even go far in history to find case studies to that effect. Look at 92. I know it's before your time, but still.
I sure as hell understand the complexities of the political system. We have this thing called the electoral college that makes it impossible for third parties to exist for long periods of time. Either the third party swallows the smaller of the two parties or the third party is swallowed. The hindrance of not being allowed to be elected president as a small third party singificantly hold them back as this is their only real power because they have the ability to run a popular personality. In a two party system there is the ability for a big tent so this also makes for moderates to feel rather accepted in their party. If that changes they switch parties. I am talking about the people that are moderates though, politicans mostly stay in the same parties.

Did you read the part where I say that I was talking about their ability to form a third party? This topic comes up constantly, I remember people bringing it up in last year and in 2006 and I have read stuff that indicates it coming up in 2004. It never happens. Of course moderates have vast power in elections, they are the swing vote.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I even disagree that a third party isn't sustainable. There has been talk for years of amending the constitution to eliminate the electoral college. The legitimacy can easily be created, even though both major parties will fight it. The third party, however, would never win the Presidency. But winning a Senate seat or taking numerous representative seats or a few state capitals?? I can see it happening.
This could happen but things burn out. Look at Jesse Ventura and the Minnesota Independence Party. Actually it was a huge trend in the 90's to have local third parties do well. I think it makes perfect sense why they did well in the 90's.

Yeah though I agree with the above part. If there is ever a change in the constitution that does away with the electoral college prepare for a sea change to happen in politics over the next 30 or 40 years. It would be difficult to pull off though.

[saysmydoctor]

The electoral college is only relevant concerning Presidential elections. The Presidents don't make the law, the Congress does.

[Nevuk]

Moderates are overrated?

Moderates hold the real power in this country, are you crazy? Until Specter switched, the key swing votes in the senate were Collins, Snowe, and Specter (and he is still a swing vote). Justice Kennedy is a moderate and is considered the key swing vote on the Court. The Blue Dogs compose 52 seats of the Democrats' 257. Bill Clinton governed from the center, and Obama is doing the same thing. Moderates are probably underrated if anything!
Moderates do have a huge reach. The issue is that they aren't really "moderate" at all.

[saysmydoctor]

No arguments there.

[Machu505]

I could have sworn I made a post in this thread.

EDIT: Here we go. I just posted it in the wrong thread:

I live in the mindset of if there's something I'm not content with, fix it. The creation of a third party may or may not achieve the goal of getting shit done. Most likely it will just splinter which ever side of the center the party's coming out of.

[Love As Arson]

I think we first need to eliminate the ridiculous legal road-blocks that prevents a third-party candidate from being heard. Then, as in other countries, it should be compulsory to allow other candidates have equal time in the debates. Ralph Nader, in my opinion, would have schooled most candidates on all of the issues.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Oh and the other reason why I don't see a moderate third party emerging is because moderate parties don't have enough issues to campaign on that would incite anger and enthusiasm among "moderate" constituencies. Third parties throughout American history have always been radical for their time and were radical enough so that they could incite extreme support. The things they said were never really pleasant either. The Know Nothings, the Socialists, the wave of southern Democratic bids for the presidency by Wallace and other radicals, etc.

1992 was an odd year in politics and one that won't be repeated. Perot's candidacy was too odd and he drew support from loads of opposing interests and groups.

[Until The Bombs]

Don't know enough about the issue, but isn't it alreadly established that this cannot happen within the current/historical U.S. political system?

[Praetor]

Don't know enough about the issue, but isn't it alreadly established that this cannot happen within the current/historical U.S. political system?
I think that wherever you stand on the supposed need for a major third party, this is pretty much universal fact.

[saysmydoctor]

You guys are looking at third parties from a purely presidential election point of view. There are numerous other offices where the party can be a legitimate threat to the two major parties. The electoral college is irrelevant in Nevada's Senate race or a North Carolina district race.

Also, to the 'third parties are radical' point, moderates generally aren't seen as radical.

[macabre]

The electoral college isn't the only institution inhibiting us from having a third party. Single-member districts nearly always result in two parties (see: Duverger's Law). We would need a serious re-structuring of the American electoral system (i.e. switching to a proportional representation system) in order to have a strong third party.

[GuitarR0cker1]

You guys are looking at third parties from a purely presidential election point of view. There are numerous other offices where the party can be a legitimate threat to the two major parties. The electoral college is irrelevant in Nevada's Senate race or a North Carolina district race.

Also, to the 'third parties are radical' point, moderates generally aren't seen as radical.
Third parties have to be radical to gain support. That it the whole purpose behind them. You keep on bringing up this point on congressional elections but third parties have troubles here because it is difficult to recruit the right candidates for each race. Even in uncompetitive, uber Republican districts, Democrats don't have that much trouble finding decent candidates. Third parties don't have the infrastructure or broad reach to recruit very good or memorable candidates, especially when it looks like there is a high chance of losing. The only time third parties win is when there is widespread regional radicalism that makes people more uncaring about the quality of the candidate and his background and just makes them care about the issue and the ineptitude of the other two parties towards that issue.

Anyways maybe there could be a tiny resurgence of third parties. I just don't see it right now. It probably won't come from blue dog Democrats though.

[OveriseFan]

Political parties... ugh.

[OveriseFan]

Don't know enough about the issue, but isn't it alreadly established that this cannot happen within the current/historical U.S. political system?

It's happened a few times in history... and by "strong" I mean strong enough to be a legitimate threat.

[saysmydoctor]

Third parties have to be radical to gain support. That it the whole purpose behind them. You keep on bringing up this point on congressional elections but third parties have troubles here because it is difficult to recruit the right candidates for each race. Even in uncompetitive, uber Republican districts, Democrats don't have that much trouble finding decent candidates. Third parties don't have the infrastructure or broad reach to recruit very good or memorable candidates, especially when it looks like there is a high chance of losing. The only time third parties win is when there is widespread regional radicalism that makes people more uncaring about the quality of the candidate and his background and just makes them care about the issue and the ineptitude of the other two parties towards that issue.

Anyways maybe there could be a tiny resurgence of third parties. I just don't see it right now. It probably won't come from blue dog Democrats though.
No they don't, now you are just inventing facts.

[GuitarR0cker1]

No they don't, now you are just inventing facts.
Name a strong third party that hasn't had very unorthodox positions during its time.

[saysmydoctor]

Name a strong third party that hasn't had very unorthodox positions during its time.
Negative evidence doesn't confirm your theory of third parties. There is no clause or unwritten law that states that a third party must be radical. Just because the trend is that they are radical doesn't mean they have to be radical.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Negative evidence doesn't confirm your theory of third parties. There is no clause or unwritten law that states that a third party must be radical. Just because the trend is that they are radical doesn't mean they have to be radical.
This might be true but the point I was trying to make is that it is very unlikely a non-radical third party could gain any support. Maybe if something bizarre happens in politics during the next 10 or 20 years but I just don't see a third party getting huge based on moderation, bi-partisanship and a comprimise of ideas.

[x togepi x]

moderates blow.

[Neo Cassady]

Like the Love/Fear continuum in Donnie Darko, I refuse to believe that everyone's political leanings fall on a linear conservative/liberal axis. The problem with the two-party system is that it pigeonholes voters into that way of thinking, when in reality how many people actually agree with EVERYTHING their particular party preaches? The Democratic and Republican parties are already both extremely moderate, so for a viable third party to exist, it has to fall outside those moderate constraints on either end (which too many people are afraid to throw support behind because it will always be hailed as fascism or communism), or break the lineage altogether and come up with something new, which probably won't happen. So the way I see it, 99% of third parties don't do squat because they're too close to one of the existing major parties, and potential 3rd party voters default to whichever party fits best.

[Praetor]

Like the Love/Fear continuum in Donnie Darko, I refuse to believe that everyone's political leanings fall on a linear conservative/liberal axis.
Yes, yes, and yes, which is why a political spectrum with at least two axes is the solution. I think.
The problem with the two-party system is that it pigeonholes voters into that way of thinking, when in reality how many people actually agree with EVERYTHING their particular party preaches? I agree with this, but I don't agree with this. I think the problem is that the current system that exists (both in politics and the media) is that only two sides are presented to each issue so people think there's only two sides, making their political beliefs fall in line with either party. It's like a chicken/egg scenario; do most people really believe this way, or does the media/two-party system just make them believe that way? Which came first?
The Democratic and Republican parties are already both extremely moderate, This is where we disagree, both are authoritarian conservative parties but the Democrats exist much closer to the center than the Republicans who are quite far to the right.
(which too many people are afraid to throw support behind because it will always be hailed as fascism or communism), or break the lineage altogether and come up with something new, which probably won't happen. So the This right here is the heart of the problem. The fact is that the scope of the American political spectrum is so narrow and people underestimate that, so little differences get blown way out of proportion. Case in point: apparently Obama is a socialist. Can you imagine what would happen if a major political party appeared whose ideas were truly different? Wow.

[rockxyourxhole]

The electoral college isn't the only institution inhibiting us from having a third party. Single-member districts nearly always result in two parties (see: Duverger's Law). We would need a serious re-structuring of the American electoral system (i.e. switching to a proportional representation system) in order to have a strong third party.

This. You must be a poli-sci major. I wrote the best paper on Duverger's law and PR vs Single member districts. Good times.

[macabre]

This. You must be a poli-sci major. I wrote the best paper on Duverger's law and PR vs Single member districts. Good times.

Haha yeah, my university tends to teach from the institutional perspective so almost every class goes over Duverger's Law.

[saysmydoctor]

Aren't there numerous counterexamples to Duverger's Law though?

[macabre]

Aren't there numerous counterexamples to Duverger's Law though?

Yeah, Duverger's Law is not a law per se but a general tendency. As with any theory, there are exceptions to the rule but in general, SMD systems nearly always result in a two-party system.

http://rangevoting.org/duvpict.png

[Nevuk]

You guys are looking at third parties from a purely presidential election point of view. There are numerous other offices where the party can be a legitimate threat to the two major parties. The electoral college is irrelevant in Nevada's Senate race or a North Carolina district race.

Also, to the 'third parties are radical' point, moderates generally aren't seen as radical.
Really strong third parties tend to be single issue - like the know-nothings (anti-immigration), the pro-prohibiton groups, etc. To gain a national seat, I mean. On a smaller scale the issue is that the democrats can afford to fund a state representatives run, while an independent politician would have to spend a larger portion of their time accumulating money. On a small, state and local scale it's almost more difficult to get elected as a third party- but remember, in Eastern ky, for example, a democrat is very different from a democrat in florida.

[saysmydoctor]

I honestly think the moderates are the group of people that could totally shock everyone. They aren't a single-issue constituency but they appeal to a lot of people in the country. The center has always been where the votes are.

[Nevuk]

Name a strong third party that hasn't had very unorthodox positions during its time.
Anti-masonic party. However, the person they put up to run for president turned out to be a mason.

Also, the Federalist and Whig parties were destroyed. (Whigs by dissent over slavery and Federalists probably by Hamilton's death.)
If you look at 1860 elections, there were 4 viable parties - Lincoln got approximately 40%, but 2nd got 30%, then 19%, then 13%. Had there not been 3 other parties, Lincoln would never have won that election (The 3rd and 4th parties split the slave vote).

Bull Mooses were another third party that got around 30% of the popular vote without being unusually radical. Once again, this permitted wilson to win an election he would never have won otherwise (there's a cartoon that depicts this perfectly somewhere). In fact, the progressives were pretty strong until the depression. George Wallace was the last really strong 3rd party candidate.

Here's a list for comparison : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)#Notable _third-party_presidential_candidates

[Nevuk]

I honestly think the moderates are the group of people that could totally shock everyone. They aren't a single-issue constituency but they appeal to a lot of people in the country. The center has always been where the votes are.
That's true, but in this case it is more that the republicans are moving away from them and opening the space for a new party in the second party system. A better question to ask, I think, is how long until the republicans become a third party.

[saysmydoctor]

The way I see it, it's the democrats that would lose more. The moderates have more in common with the Republicans--maybe it's perspective based.

[Nevuk]

The way I see it, it's the democrats that would lose more. The moderates have more in common with the Republicans--maybe it's perspective based.
Mmm, it really depends. The republicans are really alienating everyone but their base right now. It might be different in 2-3 years, however. (It usually is).

[MattADALIE]

I believe that everyone should be independent of a political party affiliation. Although the founding fathers were primarily Anglo-Saxon, wealthy landowners as well as a substantial number being Freemasons; to them, political parties as well as a centralized bank would be the death of this nation. Looks like that's occurring now. The Articles of Confederation were amended and eventually replaced by the Constitution we know and revere today which better pleased the wealthy. Anyway, I don't wish to ramble into tangents. Place yourself outside the contemporary political arena. Take notice to all the unnecessary infighting, especially due to political affiliations. Even the proletarians, or "sheeple", out there are much like this: "I'm a democrat. Blah, blah, blah..." -or- "I'm a republican. Blah, blah, blah..." If everyone could place all affiliations aside and work together as more productive human beings unilaterally, the political system would be better off. If not, continue being distracted with your blame games and keep fighting your fellow man when the reptilian, blue-blooded asshats at the top of the pyramid watch in delight and find it even more convenient to push their agendas through the system.

[macabre]

the reptilian, blue-blooded asshats

Do you seriously believe in Reptilians or were you using that figuratively?

[MattADALIE]

Do you seriously believe in Reptilians or were you using that figuratively?

I was using the term figuratively, as in the reptilian brain which pretty much leaves no more questions to be asked about the most powerful people in the world. Rather than including their human conscience (if they even have one at this point) in the mix, all their decisions are highly impulsive. The reptilian brain contains our most primal instincts; competition, libido, anger, violent urges, etc. These people just keep taking, taking, and taking. It's a very territorial trait. I just don't want to get into too many details as I should've most likely answered your question simply with a yes or no... hahahaha.

[inertiatic_sks]

The fundamental problem is that our government operates within a bi-cameral legislature that is independent of the executive wing; if we operated within a parliamentary government in which the legislative and executive branches were essentially one branch, that would give way to a third, fourth or even fifth party. A parliamentary system not only allows for more voices to be heard but allows for an responsible party system in which the party in power can fulfill its campaign promises, since the power of the legislature and its legislators are dependent upon the power and appointments of the executive branch.

[saysmydoctor]

I believe that everyone should be independent of a political party affiliation. Although the founding fathers were primarily Anglo-Saxon, wealthy landowners as well as a substantial number being Freemasons; to them, political parties as well as a centralized bank would be the death of this nation. Looks like that's occurring now. The Articles of Confederation were amended and eventually replaced by the Constitution we know and revere today which better pleased the wealthy. Anyway, I don't wish to ramble into tangents. Place yourself outside the contemporary political arena. Take notice to all the unnecessary infighting, especially due to political affiliations. Even the proletarians, or "sheeple", out there are much like this: "I'm a democrat. Blah, blah, blah..." -or- "I'm a republican. Blah, blah, blah..." If everyone could place all affiliations aside and work together as more productive human beings unilaterally, the political system would be better off. If not, continue being distracted with your blame games and keep fighting your fellow man when the reptilian, blue-blooded asshats at the top of the pyramid watch in delight and find it even more convenient to push their agendas through the system.

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~rozeh/courses/e465a/Utopia.jpg

[MattADALIE]

http://lamar.colostate.edu/%7Erozeh/courses/e465a/Utopia.jpg

I can't even really make out this picture, but, I seriously feel that a select few avid political thread posters despise my views. I'm finding myself getting quoted on shit I posted even a week ago. I haven't made a presence in these forums for at least a few days now. It's either one extreme or the opposite. I'm not going to battle it out with a bunch of high school debate team stars. I've got a lot more to do than posting here.

[saysmydoctor]

I can't even really make out this picture, but, I seriously feel that a select few avid political thread posters despise my views. I'm finding myself getting quoted on shit I posted even a week ago. I haven't made a presence in these forums for at least a few days now. It's either one extreme or the opposite. I'm not going to battle it out with a bunch of high school debate team stars. I've got a lot more to do than posting here.
It's Utopia, you fucking idiot.

This is why you shouldn't post here. Because you are uninformed. Thanks proving my point.

[MattADALIE]

It's Utopia, you fucking idiot.

This is why you shouldn't post here. Because you are uninformed. Thanks proving my point.

Okay. That's understandable and I'm sorry for flying off the handle. I seriously could not tell what the hell the picture was. I couldn't enlarge it or anything from my computer. Having a utopian society would be great, but, there's a lot to be done to make that possible.

[saysmydoctor]

But that's exactly why I bolded what you said. It was utopian and therefore virtually impossibly at the moment in time.

Jesus Christ, Timberwolf.

[ShShShark]

I don't see a third party rising as much as a shift in the conservative party. The rebublicans are falling on their faces and scrambling to force a smile. I think Libertarianism will be the republican party's replacement.

A third party system is the last thing that the Dems and Reps want.

[GeeBee]

Okay. That's understandable and I'm sorry for flying off the handle. I seriously could not tell what the hell the picture was. I couldn't enlarge it or anything from my computer. Having a utopian society would be great, but, there's a lot to be done to make that possible.

The abolishment of pseudo-intellectual conservatism, for starters.

[MattADALIE]

The abolishment of pseudo-intellectual conservatism, for starters.

I intentionally wanted to keep my statement ambiguous. I know where my posts get me and I'm not trying to start another web of quotes accompanied by insults. A lot of the posts here either correlate with one extreme or the opposite. Especially being more music-minded, I'm just looking to network and make new friends anyway. The political forums were a mistake for what I should be doing.

[saysmydoctor]

I am all for intellectual discussion and all, but if you are basically spouting the most inane bullshit, pass.

[GeeBee]

I intentionally wanted to keep my statement ambiguous. I know where my posts get me and I'm not trying to start another web of quotes accompanied by insults. A lot of the posts here either correlate with one extreme or the opposite. Especially being more music-minded, I'm just looking to network and make new friends anyway. The political forums were a mistake for what I should be doing.

Hey, if you've got rational reasons for thinking like you do, I'm all ears. There is such a thing as intelligent conservatism. But so far the nonsense I've seen you post doesn't even come close to it. I'd examine my views carefully if I were you, and determine if they're really tenable positions to be holding.