Posted on 01/14/2016 4:10:58 AM PST by HomerBohn
*More people in the United States than ever are breaking away from the political duopoly by refusing to self-identify as either Democrat or Republican -- and they now effectively comprise the true silent majority: Independents.*
According to a Gallup poll released Monday, for 2015, just 29% of respondents call themselves Democrats, while 26% identify as Republicans -- but fully 42% say 'nay' to both parties and claim to be Independents, down only marginally from 43% last year. Indeed, Independents as a group reached 40% of the population for the first time in 2011, and have comprised at least that percentage since then.
Before Gallup began polling by phone in 1988, "there were several years when the average percentage of Republican identifiers ... was lower than 25%." But for Democrats, that self-identification reached a 27-year low, down from the previous year's 30% -- and because "data from 1951-1987 collected in person never found a yearly average Democratic identification less than 37%," it is "safe to conclude that the current 29% is also the lowest in Gallup polling history."
When pressed further, 16% of Independents admitted leaning Democratic and another 16% admitted a Republican tendency, evidencing the weight of the two-party system on voters' feelings, as Gallup pointed out, "because in most elections, voters are asked to choose a candidate from one of the two parties."
*What could explain this virtual nadir in party identification? It's the gub'ment, stupid.*
For the second year in a row, exasperation with the government topped the U.S. populace's list of pressing grievances in a separate Gallup poll. They named it the nation's number one problem more often than the ubiquitous 'economy.' In fact, *of the last 15 years, the economy was the top complaint eight times -- including each of the six years prior to the government, itself, taking first place in 2014.*
With party fervor inevitably headed for a crescendo with the 2016 presidential race in full swing, perhaps the lackluster red and blue loyalty evidences the precursor to a shift. Imagine the possibilities should this silently growing majority decide to cast votes outside the two-party platform.* Maybe, just maybe, these Independents have begun to see the duopoly for what it is -- two sides of the same tarnished coin.*
Either the Tea Party or Oath Givers should be the group representing Americans. The central socialist government needs to be beaten down to the point that its on life support with national defense being its major role.
Our 'one party' system has turned it into a big business in which none of us are shareholders. .
Outlaw political parties and about 90% of our problems with the federal government would evaporate.
The are like labor unions for the ethically challenged.
I am not against a government that follows the intentions and goals of the Constitution on a scale just large enough to fulfill its intended function. It is when the 'representatives' of the people to that government stop representing the people is where I have a big, big problem.
To my mind, the establishment Republican Party and the 'representatives' in Congress clearly do not represent us, largely representing themselves and continuation of a corrupt party of elitists. The few 'Republicans' in Congress that aren't in that category can be counted on the fingers of one hand. In that regard, I consider that party more of an enemy than Democrats.
America is just flat out fed up and pissed off
If President Trump claims to be a Republican, he will re-define the party and the name will stay
The dems have committed suicide with the *****r faggot and lezzie SOS
Headline is wrong.
We are ditching the ONE (1) party system.
The Uni-party has so perverted the both the Constitution and the original intent to such that not one of the founding fathers would recognize what we have in Washington D C.
They would probably think they were in King George’s court rather than the seat of government of the Constitutional Republic they founded.
To quote henchie Taggert;
I am depressed.
The Republicrats are burning calories like crazy!
They keep running to the right, then back to the center making an occasional lurch to the left.
The Democrats are self-destructing thanks to seven gruesome years of Obozo and his homosexual, Muslim and communist staffers.
Our nation is so screwed up it may never recover.
Note that in 2009, the Federal Reserve began channeling digitally created funds through bond traders aligned with their member investment banks. The traders, in turn, bought government securities. In effect, the Fed was creating digital funds for the central government (propping up the federal system).
The flow of digital funds has the effect of detaching the government class from its historical constituencies.
The debt has risen by 10 trillion.
As a result, the area surrounding the District of Columbia has experienced unprecedented growth in wealth. The inhabitants, most of whom are tied to government work or contracts, have not experienced the great recession.
The only glimpse by the federal leviathan of the reality that most Americans face was short-lived inside an attempt in the Autumn of 2013 by Ted Cruz to spur Congress to use its power of the purse. This tryst was unsuccessful and was branded as an attempt to shut down the government.
The future three to five years will be bleak. This is not pessimism or doomsday rhetoric. This is physics.
To counter this gross error in pathway leadership requires utilizing Article V of the Constitution to amend the Constitution to set term limits and to rebalance powers between federal and state governments. This the only action that can restore a representative republic because those with control of the digital funds creation apparatus do not need state constituencies. They are now a world unto their own.
There are 2 political parties? From where I sit it looks like 1. The party system isnt the issue.
“Political parties represent a centralized government, which is dangerous to a representative Republic.”
And this has been the appeal of first Ross Perot, and now The Donald. Ross Perot fumbled it badly in 1992, when he managed to get name recognition and a general consensus for his program, then made an executive decision to suspend campaigning, followed by a late return to the fray, but by then he had beaten himself and any real chance he had. In the end, nearly every vote that Perot took was at the expense of George H.W. Bush. And like the Bull Moose bid of Teddy Roosevelt against Taft, the Democrats squeaked in on a minority of the vote, but did prodigious damage in the few years they held office (16th, 17th and 18th Amendments, and involvement in the Great War).
The Donald has kind of shot his way into the Republican Party (proving once again it is not at all necessary to be a Republican to be a Republican front-runner), and like Superman seizing a speeding locomotive, spinning it around in the air, and set it down on the tracks pointed the other direction, The Donald has managed almost single-handedly to bring whole new perspectives to the window of political discussions, first by breaking down a lot of Political Correctness, then by focusing on what actually is important to the Americans left in that territory once known as “the United States of America”.
Is The Donald “conservative”? Not by historic standards, but then, Napoleon, in quelling the Paris Mob, brought an end to the Paris Commune, was no “conservative”, either. The Donald’s whole campaign is directed at throwing “a whiff of grapeshot” (Napoleon actually said, in accurate translation, ‘let the grapeshot be fired for three quarters of an hour’) against this whole construct of Political Correctness. The volley was so powerful, that it essentially broke the back of whatever authority the Jacobins had.
Not just 2009. For at least 6 years (including 2009) the Fed created money at a clip of $85 Billion PER MONTH and purchased mortgage backed securities (MBSs) and T Bills (to legitimize the debt they just created I guess). An effective 50/50 split between the two. NOTHING backed up those purchases and it was a complete creation from nothing.
The idea of doing away with parties is a progressive idea under the guise of solving a problem it won’t solve. Progressives rely on unrest rush to the rescue and solve the problem. Unfortunately their “fixes” are always about control with no real fix.
Giving the people the right to elect senators by popular vote was sold as a means of ending corruption. Here we are 100 years later, the urban democrats are happily electing a large portion of our senators who have no term limits and cannot be recalled.
So 58% of the population does not understand what’s going on!
Yes it began in 2009 and continues to this day. It is the new reality of Rule By Central Banks and it is global.
The deal was in part arranged for creating digital funds to purchase worthless MBS with instructions to use the created funds to purchase government securities (prop up the federal government). Some may view this as a coup by central bankers.
The effect is a controlled demolition of the representative apparatus operated by the federal government on behalf of state constituencies. From the POV of the government industry, there is no need for such representation responsibility as long as the source of funding is artificial and uncontrolled by taxpayers.
From what I can see there are two different reasons for people leaving their respective political parties.
For Pubbies it is because they have moved too far to the Left. For the Dems it is because they haven’t moved far enough Left.
Yet the talking heads say voters are not decided which I find silly. We are pissed and we are for the outsiders.
They convince themselves that they are righteous and the brightest, doing the work of the people as legislators or journalists, but ultimately it is about their individual egos and life styles.
If trump is the nominee, I’ll vote third party.
I accept your premise that doing away with political parties is a progressive idea. In fact, I found a quote from a great early progressive president that proves you are right.
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
I guess, I must be a progressive .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.