Seth Bodnar - independent US Senate candidate

[Big Fin]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5988528-joe-manchin-launches-independent-council/

 

[SAJ-99]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5988528-joe-manchin-launches-independent-council/

All for it, but it has to acknowledge the problem. Most Ind and even Liberatarians started their careers as either Dems or Reps. Once they got name recognition they switched the letter and ran on name and power of incumbency. This and the Independent party seems to lack $$$. My guess is because Independent candidates can vary widely in their views and Americans don't want to do the hard work of vetting all the candidates. Because of this, any Indy is just going to steal votes of well-informed voters from a D or R in a close race. I hope that Bodnar breaks the cycle. It will be hard for other Independents until someone proves it can be done.

 

[406dn]

All for it, but it has to acknowledge the problem. Most Ind and even Liberatarians started their careers as either Dems or Reps. Once they got name recognition they switched the letter and ran on name and power of incumbency. This and the Independent party seems to lack $$$. My guess is because Independent candidates can vary widely in their views and Americans don't want to do the hard work of vetting all the candidates. Because of this, any Indy is just going to steal votes of well-informed voters from a D or R in a close race. I hope that Bodnar breaks the cycle. It will be hard for other Independents until someone proves it can be done.

I do not think most people neatly fit entirely in either party. But, given the fact that for almost the entirety of our history, there have been two political parties, that are dominant, people most often pick the party that come closest to their views. There are fringe parties, like the Green Party, Libertarian Party, but they effectively serve as spoilers of their own interests.

Going back fifty or sixty years, there were left and right wings in each party. The bulk of southern Democrats became Republicans, after the various civil rights acts became law. At one time all of New England was dominated by moderate Republicans.

Now the parties have sorted out to be more homogenous in their views. It makes bi partisan coalitions much harder to form. Committee chairmen were once nearly as powerful as the leaders of their party. Now they mostly get to bang a gavel, to restore order.

We can all see it's not working very well, but it is not easy to imagine it working much differently.

 

[SAJ-99]

We can all see it's not working very well, but it is not easy to imagine it working much differently.

We can restart Jefferson’s Democratic Republican Party and confuse everyone.

In the end, we the voters are to blame for any flaws in the system. We can revisit this thread in 4 months and see if Montanans put their vote behind their complaints.

 

[jimh406]

We can revisit this thread in 4 months and see if Montanans put their vote behind their complaints.

I don't know how you measure that unless we agree on what complaints count. There are enough to go around.

 

[R.K.]

The biggest problem is our voting system creates a false dichotomy, and the parties in power push the fear-based division of “we cannot allow the other person to be elected!” That is their most powerful weapon- working to not vote for your preferred candidate, but to vote AGAINST your non preferred candidate. If it weren’t for this, independents could run and regularly win open, fair elections.

But as we have seen in the past 3 presidential elections, the two-party system will lie, cheat, and steal to lock out the candidates that the voting public prefers in order to push them aside. Johnson and Sanders were physically barred from debates they were legally required to be in.

I might be a tad jaded…

 

[Nunyacreek]

I enjoyed the podcast and while I might not agree with all Bodners positions he certainly seemed genuine. I understand committee assignments and party power but a candidate who caucuses with both parties depending on the issue could wield enormous power in a senate with a narrow majority. Arguable far more than a more predictable party-line candidate. They certainly have recently.

 

[Dakotakid]

Sending anyone to Washington to “fix” anything is futile. It may have taken 250 years to prove Jefferson right, but centralized federal power is by its very nature corrupt.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Sending anyone to Washington to “fix” anything is futile. It may have taken 250 years to prove Jefferson right, but centralized federal power is by its very nature corrupt.

True individually. But imagine a senate with 10 independents, 40 dems and 40 repubs. Cant get there without an independent breaking through.

I imagine people that will be liking this post also resonated with "draining the swamp" and had the idea that sending trump to the DC would fix their life and countries problems.

 

[Alpine01]

True individually. But imagine a senate with 10 independents, 40 dems and 40 repubs. Cant get there without an independent breaking through.

I imagine people that will be liking this post also resonated with "draining the swamp" and had the idea that sending trump to the DC would fix their life and countries problems.

Can't get there with only 90 senators either ....

 

[jimh406]

A coworker years ago said he always voted the opposite party for House/Senate compared to President. He felt like it's better if there is gridlock since they can't make anything worse. There's some truth to that reasoning.