69 comments

  1. As long as it dos’nt affect Manchin’s coal company he will vote for it.Maybe when CNN mentions his name they should mention his coal company.

    Reply

    1. A pre pubescent girl wrote in her diary that SHOWERS with her DAD were INAPPROPRIATE 😳

      Reply

    2. @Andy Lord Even better if you are a Congressman and own a coal company. That way you can vote against any other bills that support other forms of energy.

      Reply

    4. @Jonathan Storie use coal?????
      Ahhhh to charge my tesla snow flake
      What a stupid comment
      Go back to mums basement and grease the wheels on that skateboard

      Reply

  2. No it’s not stupid! The fact that you have only two side creates such disparity each side see each others as the good vs the evil – it ain’t about policies and ideas. Having multiple parties naturally leads to talking about ideas how things should be instead of just demonizing the other party. Wake up! Your flawed political system created this mess.

    Reply

    1. Two parties work just fine. Each side moves toward the center and it works, unless you have obstruction on one side. Three parties at this time in history is reckless and foolish and opportunistic. If we factionalize beyond two parties, there will never be a sound majority either way. The Republicans have used the filibuster to fracture the system …….third parties could complete the break. We need to right this ship before embarking on another mystery tour…..

      Reply

  3. I have been nonpartisan since age 18, and that will literally never change. I believe that political parties should be abolished, forcing people to actually use thier brains and not a hat to determine who to vote for. Anyhow, the only reason politicians in general (both parties) think that this is a horrible idea is that they are scared that this new party (if successful) will be nothing but a spoiler for thier party.

    Reply

    1. @Mister Sarajevo LoL, people back then thought there would never be more then two parties, and literally the same thing happened there that’s happening here, two parties not representing or meeting in the middle. You say it’s not possible just like others said in the EU, I say history of other countries say it is absolutely possible, especially if we continue this madness of being so divided for the sake of being politically divided. But hey keep staying loyal to a system that will never represent you.

      Reply

    2. A pre pubescent girl wrote in her diary that SHOWERS with her DAD were INAPPROPRIATE 😳

      Reply

  5. Isn’t it telling that McConnell calls a bill that MASSIVELY helps the *AMERICAN PEOPLE* is a ‘betrayal’ to him? 🤔🤡

    Reply

  6. Less then 60% of registered voters register with a specific party, roughly 31% register democrat and 27% register Republican, over 40% don’t feel like they are being represented enough to go all in picking a side. The majority sit somewhere in the middle lean right or lean left, so how is it stupid to suggest representing that majority that are essentially not represented??? Trump wasn’t elected because of Jill stien, Trump was elected because the democrat party didn’t give a candidate for the majority to feel like supporting. If you represent the majority people you’ll win elections. The problem is, both parties are going so extreme left or right that clearly we “the majority” in the middle don’t have a pick we like, we keep having to pick between the lessor of two evils. Had any other candidate then Hillary had been picked, Trump wouldn’t have won, just like the only reason Biden won is because of Trump. We haven’t really had an election that truly gets large support in a very long time. Probably not since Regan or even further back, Kennedy.

    Reply

    1. @Steve Worthington ?? The term “roughly” and “approximately” means what? There’s nothing wrong with my addition or subtraction, I used rough numbers because one year dnc has 31% the next year 28% the next election 34%, the RNC ranges between 29% and their recent low of 24%… but what is pretty consistent approx 60% stay registered to one of the two parties and 40% stay undeclared/independent with a few percent picking one of the further right or left parties like green and libertarian. Reading comprehension?

      Reply

    2. @soylentdean that’s more a problem with the primary process, which is one reason why many states are going to a ranked choice system where party affiliation doesn’t pick who’s on the ballot directly but more the voters as a whole.

      Reply

    3. A pre pubescent girl wrote in her diary that SHOWERS with her DAD were INAPPROPRIATE 😳

      Reply

    4. We have 2 right wing parties now, just adding another party that isn’t going to be “left” is going to do nothing

      Reply

  7. I expect establishment democrats like Carville to be against the idea of third parties. It’s one thing that Democrats and Republicans could agree on since it could hurt both parties.
    However, a lone major 3rd party is not enough. You need 2 to at least balance it out.

    Reply

    1. The problem is the transition between what we have now and having the better system. At this point, there is a high likelihood that the stakes in November are whether democracy will have a shot at continued life or not. Those are the stakes. Splitting the democratic vote at this stage could mean the end of the American experiment.

      Reply

    2. A pre pubescent girl wrote in her diary that SHOWERS with her DAD were INAPPROPRIATE 😳

      Reply

    2. The sickest thing is Mitch is likely much more upset about being bettered at his own game than he is about losing 25 souls in Kentucky floods yesterday. That man has no heart.

      Reply

    3. A pre pubescent girl wrote in her diary that SHOWERS with her DAD were INAPPROPRIATE 😳

      Reply

  10. We need ranked choice voting so people don’t feel they are throwing away their vote if they support some other party. Democrats should embrace ranked choice voting and make it a campaign promise if they truly care about saving democracy. If Democrats campaigned on getting ranked choice voting they’d annihilate the Republicans in November because they’d attract moderate Republicans, Independents, and Progressives who are sick of a two-party system.

    Reply

    2. A pre pubescent girl wrote in her diary that SHOWERS with her DAD were INAPPROPRIATE 😳

      Reply

  11. Disagree! We were stuck with two parties swapping spots and doing nothing for the people for over 30 years of corrupt dealings. Now that we have a third party that also wins forces those two dinosaur parties to look for ways of including the people back into their platforms. Mr. Carville, you are wrong!

    Reply

    1. @Terry Stevens The real change we need isn’t ‘in between’ those two parties. It’s beyond both of those parties, but the only one that has any chance of being anything different than a fascist Republican Party dictatorship is to stay with the Democratic Party and bend them into what is needed. “Starting over,” isn’t an option. Too many Americans are too stupid and lazy to do the work that is required to select and elect good and honest people to public offices. They want to be suckered into one party or the other and then just go into the voting booth and pull the ‘Vote Straight Party’ lever. Their ‘education’ about a candidate is whatever the last (usually false) “Scandal Card” was that came in the mail a day or two before the election.

      Reply

    2. @Luke_SkyWanker Americans have a hard time when keeping an eye on the “don’t devolve into fascism” ball

      Reply

  12. We have democracy here in Maine, we have had ranked choice voting for a long time and will soon have open primaries. We had an independent governor, and now have the only real independent Senator. We almost always have one of the highest voter participation rates in the country. I have read 2 of Yang’s books. He is a thoughtful man. I encourage other Americans to try living in an actual democracy before knocking it.

    Reply

    1. @kris Pedersen

      Think the founding father’s guided by God fought for nothing? Wake your azz up. You have a 4th Amendment for a reason. Wake up, human.

      Reply

    3. A pre pubescent girl wrote in her diary that SHOWERS with her DAD were INAPPROPRIATE 😳

      Reply

  13. I like Yang, but this new party is a really stupid idea. I feel like it’ll pull votes away from the dems when they desperately need them.

    Reply

  14. Every nation with FPP voting (one rep per district) will only have 2 parties (mostly old rich useless men). Ranked choice voting or MMP or proportional representation make elections competitive and keeps reps accountable. USA will always have only 2 viable parties unless the system is changed.

    Reply

    2. A pre pubescent girl wrote in her diary that SHOWERS with her DAD were INAPPROPRIATE 😳

      Reply

  15. I believe a third party will help the GOP more.
    The Democratic Party needs to strategize more !!! 🙄

    Reply

    3. If your whole motto is to vote against a party rather than on policies and principles you are already in the fringes. I am a Conservative myself but I am also driven by Andrew Yang, I he were the Presidential candidate last time I would’ve voted for him. Not because I want GOP to lose but on principles and policies.

      Reply

  16. James you become part of the biggest problem in our country when you say another party is a bad idea. Other first world countries have a more fluid party system than we do. The gridlock between the two parties is what’s making the big culture clash were in. And from what you said, I can see why you have this opinion. You’re actually doing what bubba said in his book about 12 years ago. Your holding on to a position that prevents us from seeing new and even better ones. #fixamerica

    Reply

    3. A pre pubescent girl wrote in her diary that SHOWERS with her DAD were INAPPROPRIATE 😳

      Reply

  17. The fundamental problem is that when all the power goes to 50% + 1, you will get two political parties which almost exactly divides the electorate. Each of those political parties will be biased toward their extreme rather than the middle, because policies must appeal to 50% + 1 of that party, which is already only 50% of the entire electorate. It is inevitable because that is the only way you get to form government. People or parties which do not engage in this ideological compromise will never form government because they never get 50%+1.

    This is a mathematical inevitability. We should be surprised it has taken this long for it to really fall apart. I find this encouraging because it means even politicians are ultimately trying to do the right thing despite the structural flaws in the system.

    The solution is enforced power sharing so that there is less incentive to be partisan. Exactly how that can be done is the problem. Proportional representation is one possible answer. For example, if the President is compelled to pick his cabinet based on proportion of votes for parties then power must be shared with the “opposition”. Obviously, the President will pick moderates from the other party, so it isn’t a perfect solution, but it may be enough to take the edge off of increasing partisanship and force parties to take responsibility for both enacting and implementing their policies. By doing that, they are also less likely to say and do crazy, unworkable things.

    Reply

  20. This guy Carville I been listening to for a long time, thank you man for not having a racist bone in your body.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.