Party Time? - A Situation-oriented Approach To Party Identification

[Chase]

Take notes kiddies.

1. This thread looks to put in four American based political parties - and have them graded by likelihood of supporting their nominee for President of the United States. There will be the two very familiar major parties - (Democrats, Republicans), as well as two minor parties - the Libertarians and the Green Party. You don't have to identify as a member of any party, but should you choose to participate, you will rank the four parties in likelihood of presidential voter support. I will give a brief overview of all four parties - and their presumptive nominees - in effect.

Two...just, do it. It could be fun.

Anyway, let's meet the contestants.

The Democratic Party: Have you ever wondered what party President Obama hailed from? - well, this is it. The Democrats are a party that focuses on centrist-liberalism, or "common-sense" liberalism, advocating progressive measures in social policy (such as supporting Abortion rights, being pro-LGBT, being proponents of 'gun control', opposing victim-less crimes such as usage of Marijuana, and being pro-Defendent in Criminal Justice scenarios), supporting protectionism in trade, and being very much in favor of expansive government to regulate the various nuances of American life. Democrats tend to target the Military as the most wasteful spending government program in the country. The Dems are trying to decide their 2016 nomination between front-runner and former secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and challenging Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders. If you're #FeelintheBern, or if you 'side with her', you're most likely leaning Democrat.

Democrats waffle on interventionism, but were generally opposed to George W. Bush's 'War on Terror'.

Hillary Clinton's most notably known for framing a potential presidency that is the equivalent of a third Obama term. Sanders on the other hand, is much less a centrist liberal, and even a self-avowed 'Socialist'. The question Democratic voters are asking themselves is - is Obama's liberal exploits enough, or do we need even faster reform?

The Republican Party: President Bush was the last sitting President to hail from the opposing major party to Obama's. The Republicans - or the GOP (Grand Old Party) - have a focus on centrist-conservatism, or common-sense conservatism. These folks tend to opt for a traditionalist social viewpoint (Religious Liberty, Second Amendment Rights, Pro-Life, for arrests for victim-less crimes, and being Pro-Prosecution in Criminal Justice scenarios.) Republicans also tend to favor small government and are generally very endeared to the Armed Forces, claiming that most wasteful spending comes from various other federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. There are three candidates remaining in the GOP primary race, which is being lead by insurgent businessman Donald Trump. The challengers are Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and Ohio Governor John Kasich. All three men offer a unique flavor of 'Republicanism' - but all three men also have different levels of viability as the race goes on.

Republicans are mostly hawkish and tend to favor globalization in many forms - usually on trade.

What political identity does Donald Trump have? The only thing that's certain is that he's distinctly authoritarian, favoring subjectivity and obedience from the top down, while claiming to be an "evolved" conservative. Ted Cruz is the opposite, libertarian (pro-individual-freedom) and a very far-right winger who is both a social -and- fiscal conservative and is known most for supporting and even playing a part in the government shutdown. John Kasich is a centrist-conservative and most notably is a social liberal.

The Libertarian Party: The first minor party under the microscope is the one I consider to be the "hipsters" of the conservative movement. the Libertarian Party is a front for what is the 'Libertarian Movement' - of which Texas Representative Ron Paul is the considerable 'godfather' figure - and son Rand is the Republican they love the most. The Libertarian mantra is essentially to encourage individual freedom in as many instances as possible. They tend to be much more progressive than their GOP counterparts - supporting LGBT rights, while giving the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate back to the individual (Ron Paul was pro-Life, most-likely Presidential Nominee New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is Pro-Choice). Libertarians tend to support legalization of marijuana and are more favorable to defendants than the GOP. However, the Libertarians carry this full on stroke of individual freedom all the way to the top, being rank-and-file Republicans on issues like fiscal responsibility and opposing big government. The only conservative social stance Libertarians embrace is defending the individual right to bear arms. #ANARCHY?

Libertarians are uniquely anti-interventionist, meaning they side with Democrats on the 'War on Terror' and would prefer to avoid foreign conflict.

Governor Johnson was the former 2012 Libertarian Presidential Nominee as well, and identifies as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal who is most notably a supporter of abortion rights. Johnson's most "drastic" policy point is proposing to cut the military budget by 42 percent - which is a step further than most Republicans would take spending cuts.

The Green Party: The Green Party is an alternative party for liberals that focuses on issues such as race relations, gender relations, LGBT rights, various equality and social justice efforts, along with most evidently in the name, environmental issues. The biggest name in GPUS politics is Ralph Nader - A.K.A., one of the biggest reasons the Democrats lost to George W. Bush in 2000 - (when voting for a minor party candidate the major party candidate you most agree with loses your vote, so it's par for the course.) Greens tend to like big government because it enables better regulation, but are starkly proponents of things like community-based economics (or local substitution). The Greens are a mold of their own - but could potentially be the landing place of disenfranchised Bernie Sanders supporters who are anti-Clinton in the same vein many Republicans are Anti-Trump and perhaps destined to land in the Libertarian ranks this fall - largely due to being against big banks and big business in the same vein #Berners are.

Greens are much more dove than they are hawk, and nonviolence is principle to them.

The likely 2016 Green nominee is activist and physician Jill Stein. Stein differs from Bernie in that instead of a socialist approach, she is going for a Roosevelt-esque attack on banks and businesses.

---

75% - Libertarian Party - Governor Johnson being pro-choice is a nose-wrinkler, but I find him much more fitting than a President Trump or a President Clinton. My vote for a losing candidate isn't based on winning - but on principle. If Trump is the GOP nominee, than Johnson is the closest thing to a conservative that I can vote for in the fall.

21% - Republican Party - The GOP's hopes of getting my vote rest in Trump losing the nomination to Cruz or a white knight candidate at the Cleveland Convention. Cruz identifies with me the most (which is arms length at best.) - and an establishment candidate could potentially have a great chance of beating Clinton - at the risk of pissing off the majority of their own party that voted for Trump or Cruz.

3% - Democratic Party - Hillary -has- to be the nominee period to even have a prayer of getting my vote as the bigger centrist - but Sanders has forced her into copying him enough to make her more distasteful than Trump in many cases. That's .... not a good thing.

1% - Green Party - Voting for Jill Stein is like voting for Bernie Sanders....except she has absolutely no chance of winning and would result in the most worthless vote ever logistically. There is no principle that gives Jill any nudges like Johnson gets either.

[mde2001]

In terms of ideology my order would be:

1. Greens

2. Democrats

3. Libertarians

4. Republicans

In terms of who I'd vote for if I had a vote

1. Democrats

2. Greens (even though I agree with them more- they have so little chance of winning a Presidential nomination it isn't exactly worth it)

3. Libertarians

4. Republicans (I just can't stand any of the possible candidates at this point)

In terms of who I think will get the most votes

1. Democrats (with either of the two frontrunners, I think a lot of Republicans won't vote. If Trump loses the convention and runs as an independent he'll split the vote enough)

2. Republicans

3. Libertarians

4. Greens

[Halloween]

I'm still bummed Elizabeth Warren isn't running, but since she's not: feel the bern. i'm not 100% bernie, but the things we disagree on - immigration for example - no one else anywhere near my other opinions seems to be running, so if bernie wins the primary, he gets my support, and if he doesn't... sigh.

then i guess hillary would have my support, despite being pretty much the urban dictionary definition of shady bitch. i feel like the green party are focusing too much on the identity politics and too little on the execution; they're starting in the wrong end, so to speak. and while identity politics are incredibly, incredibly important, they're not the most important thing in politics, since so many of the issues are rooted in society itself rather than laws and regulations; we need to fix this fucking economy, because that's gonna help everyone. the class gaps are a clear precursor to racism and homophobia, and those lessen, minorities are those who will benefit the most. they're also the face of environmentalism and they're not even looking at the meat industry to my knowledge...

I agree with Mde though: the republican candidates are just straight up evil this year. four years ago i was looking at Mitt Romney and i was just like... "this is it, they've done it: literal voldemort is running for president, and he's split a little piece of his soul into each one of his children." and now i just feel like "ok maybe voldy wasn't that bad".

tl;dr: 99% social democrat, lots of ellipsis

edit: did the isidewith that Jericho posted below; I side with Bernie on 97% of all issues

Edited April 18, 2016 by Halloween

[Cobalt996]

Considering I find the Democrats rather distasteful this time around, and I'm not voting for Trump, here's the lisT:

1- Republican (Cruz) (Only person I can stand at this point in the main 5 candidates)

2- Green (Matches my views, but not primary choice because throwaway vote, sadly)

3- Democrat (Sanders) (Only other person I can stand at this point in the main 5 candidates)

4- Republican (Kasich) (He's better than Clinton. That's about it)

5- Democrat (Clinton) (Also known as "Never, unless Trump is the only other option")

6- ******* Trump (Literally the worst candidate)

7- Trump bought a second position "anywhere" in my list. (If this fused with the one above it, Clinton would still come out on top)

8- Libertarian (I would leave the country before supporting this party.)

Overall, it averages out to:

Green (2)

Republican (2.5)

Democrat (4)

Trump (6.5)

Libertarian (8)

Edit: Took the... later-mentioned test, deciding I'd be fine with anyone at or above 80%. Guess that means I'm fine with nobody

Editedit: Forgot to set importance in the test. Now everybody is below 70%. Bernie on top at 69%, with a lot of disagreeing

Edited April 18, 2016 by Cobalt996

[Deleted User]

8- Libertarian (I would leave the country before supporting this party.)

Liberty is one of the fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded. If you don't like more freedoms, then I hope you at least enjoyed your stay.

As always I will advocate for the use of isidewith.com - take the quiz (be sure to click 'see more questions' as well as 'see more answers' in each question). Once you are finished scroll down a ways and you'll see a map that gauges your party affiliation. Feel free to share that. This is a bit of a lengthy process but by far the most accurate in my opinion and very telling about where you stand.

[AuthorReborn]

I did the isidewithquiz in November last year and I ended up mostly agreeing with Bernie, which I can safely say was the first time I had heard of him due to the media failing to cover his campaign to a similar extent of the other candidates. (Read: Trump.) Since then, I have been reading up on all the candidates and I can safely say that Bernie is the candidate I agree with more so than anyone else who has a chance. I would certainly be OK with Jill Stein, but honestly, she won't be the POTUS (President of the United States of America). It always saddens me to see the current system that we have is so focused on keeping the power between the two major parties. The system of only picking on candidate on your ballot instead of ranking your favorite candidates and then slowly eliminating candidates until eventually one eventually wins out, based on everyone's rankings and choices, is terrible and it discourages outsider candidates.

[Chase]

Under normal circumstances, I have few qualms with the two party system. I tend to view minor parties as "enzymes" or "change agents" - who by making waves in the presidential election and down ballot cause internal reform in the Democratic and Republican parties. For example, it's safe to say the Green Party's strong showing with Ralph Nader potentially helped cause modern liberalism changes seen in the Democratic Party today. Libertarian influence is sort of the "flavor of the month" for many Republicans, who hailed Rand Paul as a Presidential candidate and are most likely backing Ted Cruz now at arm's length.

Looking at political identity in depth, I would consider myself a fiscal conservative and a right-leaning social-moderate.

• Peace Through Strength (Conservative)
• 1st and 2nd Amendment rights should be protected from government overstep (Conservative)
• Democratically reach the current scenario for LGBT rights (moderate-Liberal)
• Pro-Defendent Justice (Liberal)
• Continue 'War on Drugs' until we have a suitable protection for victims of drug abuse (It's not my current belief that substance use is truly "victimless" - moderate-Conservative)
• Pro-Life - exceptions made in cases of rape or if carrying the baby to term puts mother's life at risk. (Conservative)
• Improving conditions for transgender persons (Liberal)
• Tackling institutionalized racism (Liberal)
• Complimentarian stance on women's issues - while being open to wage equality and military service depending on ability (Moderate-Conservative)

This means that under normal circumstances I would have the following support for the four parties

1. Grand Old Party - 51% - Keeping in mind that the GOP tends to favor centrism in establishment politics and that many Republicans quite easily hold liberal positions, the GOP is generally my home (ISideWith projects a rough average of 92 percent agreement). Republican candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney are softer candidates that crumbled under a louder liberal movement, but were easily agreeable from my vantage point. The Republicans tend to act as a stopgap for hyper-progressivism and it was telling back in the last mid-term vote that Obama wasn't completely impervious even after re-election (Republicans managed to take full control of the Legislative branch by maintaining their House majority and snatching the Senate away from Harry Reid.) Republicans are the major party that embraces the mantra of "It it ain't broke, don't fix it." these days - and that's ultimately what gives them the edge in normal politics.

2. Democratic Party - 45% - Democrats come in different shapes and sizes. It just so happens that one Democratic candidate early in the race had an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association! (Jim Webb). There are two reasons voting Democrat isn't usually a crime against common sense for me, and that it's usually a center-left party, and that it's a party with a genuine chance of hosting the President. However, things went south for the Dems this year when Hillary Clinton was announced to be the "centrist" option years ago - and further still when Bernie Sanders pushed her even further away form ideal.

3. Libertarian - 4% - More freedom ain't bad - the Libertarians would be the outlet of any "change" I would need to see made in the Republican Party in the future. Kinda like this year when they decided Donald Trump was a logically-sound front-runner or when they decided to pretend to be Democrats.

[Odybld]

I've held myself back from most political conversation around here but I have to step in and remind you that the american political spectrum is significantly narrower that the political spectrum in many, many, many parts of the rest of the world. Trying to ask someone to identify themselves inside this spectrum is an excercise in meaningless restriction, ignoring all possibilities outside the spectrum. And that involves, for example, me trying to be identified as an imaginary potential voter for the presidential election: although I can pick one of the candidates, this choice is fueled by factors outside the american political spectrum.

The vote of the american president is a global matter. To give you a straight-in-the-guts example, recall George Bush Jr: with the Iraq War he destabilized a country far, far away from the US, with this country never recovering, breeding chaos, and eventually an organization named ISIS rising out of this chaos, engulfing the area to war and causing incredible destruction, hitting non-neighbours with terrorist strikes and creating a huge wave of war refugees from Near and Middle East towards Europe. For the US, this story is long over and the impact was minimal. For other parts of the world, a strictly american desicion has created, well... what I mentioned.

So please, embrace that the President is a world leader and don't think in political terms and matters regarding America.

[Deleted User]

The reason I support Rand is because he's a Libertarian in Republican clothing. He follows in the footsteps of his father Ron with a slight few differences. Both of them are socially liberal outside of Abortion which is more or less where I am at as well. Not here to discuss that matter specifically though.

I've held myself back from most political conversation around here but I have to step in and remind you that the american political spectrum is significantly narrower that the political spectrum in many, many, many parts of the rest of the world. Trying to ask someone to identify themselves inside this spectrum is an exercise in meaningless restriction, ignoring all possibilities outside the spectrum. And that involves, for example, me trying to be identified as an imaginary potential voter for the presidential election: although I can pick one of the candidates, this choice is fueled by factors outside the american political spectrum.

The vote of the american president is a global matter. To give you a straight-in-the-guts example, recall George Bush Jr: with the Iraq War he destabilized a country far, far away from the US, with this country never recovering, breeding chaos, and eventually an organization named ISIS rising out of this chaos, engulfing the area to war and causing incredible destruction, hitting non-neighbours with terrorist strikes and creating a huge wave of war refugees from Near and Middle East towards Europe. For the US, this story is long over and the impact was minimal. For other parts of the world, a strictly american desicion has created, well... what I mentioned.

So please, embrace that the President is a world leader and don't think in political terms and matters regarding America.

It would seem based off your post that you care. Yes the establishment on both sides are relatively interchangeable despite their labels of 'Republican and Democrat' the biggest reason I've stop using said labels at all. Conservative Liberal, and Moderate are far more telling. The reason it is narrow is because the establishment on both sides wants it that way. The big money in these lanes is fed to their campaigns because they'll keep fueling the policies big companies want and hence those pulling the strings don't want someone who would challenge their ways. Gary Johnson the Libertarian nomination is irate at those who are organizing the debates because only the 'Republicans' and 'Democrats' are permitted a seat at the table. There's a good chance MANY voters would sway in the ways of the Libertarian and Green parties respectively in this day and age if they were given a fair seat at the table. Can't have that now. I support Capitalism, not Facism and Statism, two principles that have started to run amok over the past 25-30 years.

And yeah, I'll be frank. The POTUS shouldn't deliberately go out of their way to cause troubles for other nations, but the US comes first. Their duty is to their country before the rest of the world. Hence why I am a proponent of backing out of NATO should other countries not start funding a more significant portion.