Most of the poorest states are republican

[TheArtist]

  I think we have seen a big shift in what it means to be a Democrat and Republican in the last couple of decades.  And even now I see a realignment happening with new positions on old issues being formed and voiced.  I hate the labels myself for as soon as I say for instance, that I am "for this", then people automatically label you and think that you are also "against that".   There is no conversation, they hear you say one thing then knowingly nod and go "oooh" and for every topic and position your pegged.  I think there are a lot of people (perhaps its just my perspective ala projection) who don't feel comfortable in either party.  I am an independent, and find that I am looking for the party that will , or that I can get to, evolve the most towards my over all positions.       

[TulsaMoon]

  I think we have seen a big shift in what it means to be a Democrat and Republican in the last couple of decades.  And even now I see a realignment happening with new positions on old issues being formed and voiced.  I hate the labels myself for as soon as I say for instance, that I am "for this", then people automatically label you and think that you are also "against that".   There is no conversation, they hear you say one thing then knowingly nod and go "oooh" and for every topic and position your pegged.  I think there are a lot of people (perhaps its just my perspective ala projection) who don't feel comfortable in either party.  I am an independent, and find that I am looking for the party that will , or that I can get to, evolve the most towards my over all positions.       

Someone who gets it....

[heironymouspasparagus]

  I think we have seen a big shift in what it means to be a Democrat and Republican in the last couple of decades.  And even now I see a realignment happening with new positions on old issues being formed and voiced.  I hate the labels myself for as soon as I say for instance, that I am "for this", then people automatically label you and think that you are also "against that".   There is no conversation, they hear you say one thing then knowingly nod and go "oooh" and for every topic and position your pegged.  I think there are a lot of people (perhaps its just my perspective ala projection) who don't feel comfortable in either party.  I am an independent, and find that I am looking for the party that will , or that I can get to, evolve the most towards my over all positions.       

Good luck with that!!  I have been looking for that since about 1967.  Let me know if you find it! (since I suspect your ideas are more alike than different to mine right now.)

Biggest problem I see with that "other party" idea is that the vast majority will not go there because it will be so small as to be ineffective.  Most will pick the least stinky alternative of the two big ones.  For 30 years (until 1981) that was Republicontin.  For the next 30 years it was Dummycrat.

[we vs us]

Barring something cataclysmic happening, we are a two party system for good and all.  The money, the support networks, the primary system, even the form of government at this point is optimized for two parties.  IMO, we're just never going to be a parliament, we're never going to have to form coalitions to get things done.  What will happen is that movements will eat parties alive from the inside (ahem, the Tea Party) and slowly the party will become partly or wholly that insurgent movement. 

[Breadburner]

It's not going to keep President Dumb love from getting the boot......

[Conan71]

Barring something cataclysmic happening, we are a two party system for good and all.  The money, the support networks, the primary system, even the form of government at this point is optimized for two parties.  IMO, we're just never going to be a parliament, we're never going to have to form coalitions to get things done.  What will happen is that movements will eat parties alive from the inside (ahem, the Tea Party) and slowly the party will become partly or wholly that insurgent movement. 

Is the Tea Party really any different than what the deeply liberal faction is to the Democrats?

[Townsend]

Is the Tea Party really any different than what the deeply liberal faction is to the Democrats?

Yes, they are.

Tea Party Debate Audience Cheered Idea of Letting Uninsured Patients Die

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheered-idea-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die/

[Conan71]

Yes, they are.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheered-idea-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die/

After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking "Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?" to which a small number of audience members shouted "Yeah!"

A small number doesn't define a whole movement unless you also believe that Cindy Sheehan and the Code Pinko's define the liberal left.

And yes, I found the "yeah" comment by those in the audience reprehensible.

[Townsend]

A small number doesn't define a whole movement unless you also believe that Cindy Sheehan and the Code Pinko's define the liberal left.

And yes, I found the "yeah" comment by those in the audience reprehensible.

Either side will have their wackos.  It's sad the GOP is allowing itself to be defined by theirs.

[we vs us]

Is the Tea Party really any different than what the deeply liberal faction is to the Democrats?

Yes in a lot of ways, actually. The one that really matters is how the GOP responds to the Tea Party's policy preferences (coherent or not), vs the way the Democrats respond to their most liberal factions' policy preferences.  There's no question that the GOP is vastly more responsive to the Tea Party.  All the "agendas" that American liberals push are nearly nonexistent from a policy perspective.  I'm not even talking about the crazies at Earth First or PETA or whoever . . . I'm talking about mainstream groups like Planned Parenthood.     

[Conan71]

Yes in a lot of ways, actually. The one that really matters is how the GOP responds to the Tea Party's policy preferences (coherent or not), vs the way the Democrats respond to their most liberal factions' policy preferences.  There's no question that the GOP is vastly more responsive to the Tea Party.  All the "agendas" that American liberals push are nearly nonexistent from a policy perspective.  I'm not even talking about the crazies at Earth First or PETA or whoever . . . I'm talking about mainstream groups like Planned Parenthood.     

Orly?  Shall we start with DADT and Obamacare and go from there?  Just because Obamacare didn't wind up being a single-payer plan doesn't mean it wasn't a nod to libs, there was plenty in there for them to like.

[Townsend]

Apparently the only GOP front runner not looking for Trump's approval is the governor of New Jersey.

[we vs us]

Orly?  Shall we start with DADT and Obamacare and go from there?  Just because Obamacare didn't wind up being a single-payer plan doesn't mean it wasn't a nod to libs, there was plenty in there for them to like.

Obamacare was barely a nod to libs and there's actually very little to like in there if you're a lib policy wonk and have been following even in broad strokes what works internationally.  It was much more a nod to traditional Republican politics, a la Romney. And it was specifically built so it could garner bipartisan support (Romneycare wasn't controversial till Obama adopted most of it).   

DADT has polled low for years, and was an easy win.  Not nearly as controversial as it sounds and very much the bare minimum in terms of effort for the gay community, who would like to see a much more vigorous defense of civil unions and/or full marriage rights.