You complain about a lack of change in your lifetime; when given examples of these changes, you maneuver the goalposts to state essentially the same thing that was refuted only using different conditions. That's not exactly a style of argument I approve of.
Maybe I'm not always right about things, there's no need to be. Once in a while something good does happen, but I've not had a very optimistic view upon the current state of affairs. People's attitudes in general have shifted on gays and pot, but I kind of have mixed feelings on the latter.
Yes: 1988. He got blasted for weird remarks over Jews. As for dubya and his chances, he actually came pretty close for an incumbent being unseated, and this is still with some of that "rally behind the flag" element that 9/11 and Iraqi Freedom netted him.
Do you mean Bush being unseated in the 2004 election itself, or unseated in the 2004 primary? I'm aware the election was fairly close, but either way, it wouldn't surprise me if he almost got toppled in the primary. Even with his edge as an incumbent and all that 9/11 super-patriot acting, no one was sure. But generally, people tend to go with the guy they know over the one they don't, at least with second-term bids.
It's a big part of our national psyche, so of course race relations are a major topic. I mean fuck, we have people who still can remember being told "we don't serve your kind here". Still kind of a big deal because of it.
Sad but true, it's pretty depressing no matter how you look at it. Even Canada makes a huge deal out of race relations at times, as I may have mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, in the US, this one's not likely to by dying down anytime soon.
Traditionally 3rd parties do the worst out of any of the parties, probably because most if not all of them are vehicles for essentially sore losers. The four way race in 1860 was due to the Democrats disagreeing on who to front and a compromise bloc headed by John Bell. The 1912 elections was due to Roosevelt essentially being pissed that he didn't get the nod. 1924 was Robert M. Follete creating a vehicle to get elected. Dixiecrats and George Wallace did it to express annoyance that the Dems were being nicer to not-white people. And most recently, Perot kind of did it on a lark and backed out at one point.
Third parties have always been a strange lot. While I don't want to believe that they're all kooks or anything like that, some of their ideas may be a bit off the beaten path. There's obvious outliers like the Prohibition Party, which still exists today. Sure, few people advocate the outlawing of alcohol today, but it's out there. Some third parties do have good ideas, sadly, there's little chance of them coming to fruition.
Sadly, we are going to have to accept that we are stuck with a two-party system, and that means that people are going to be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, or not be heard at all.
The only poll I remotely bother to look to is Nate Silver's predictions, mainly because he's not prone to rip off other polls to create his own. That and he actually has a decent track record, unlike Mr. Celeste and Washington Blog.
Polls themselves are not 100% reliable indicators of anything, but they do help to paint a decent picture, if done right. Of course, there's the question of bias and people skewing polls to get the results they want from them, in order to support a specific claim. While I am not affiliated with Celeste, Washington Blog, or Gallup, the Gallup polls have for the most part correctly predicted the winners of presidential elections with a few exceptions. Polls are subject to margin of error and sample size, regardless, but combined with other information, can give a good picture of the situation overall.
And losing that election basically murdered said party since Teddy went back into the fold and it allowed Woodrow Wilson into office. So yeah, 3rd parties often serve as spoilers. When people say they will, the often change their mind I've noticed. Even the really good 3rd party runs experience a notable drop-off in numbers.
Unfortunately, most third parties don't even get this far, but under the right circumstances, it is possible. The reason most third party supporters usually don't follow through boils down to the fear that their first choice has no chance of winning, so they simply end up voting for whichever of the two major parties they dislike less. While some third parties have won locally, such as Jesse Ventura as Minnesota governor, most of them lack the foresight to build a base and try simply winning local elections, and thinking long term. Instead, they aim too high, and that hurts their chances. You have to walk before you can run, but many don't think it through. All it does is make third parties look like kooks running for personal glory rather than anything else, even if that's not the case. Some of them have legitimate concerns and ideas, and it's sad to see those go to waste or go unconsidered.
I seem to recall him mostly talking about how the ultra-big corporations do it as a means to get words in, and that it only mitigated that element and may be getting more and more prevalent. I don't see this surety you're trying to state is there.
It is certainly getting more prevalent, and while it may not be a sure-fire way for lobbyists to get their way with the lawmakers, it certainly holds a degree of influence over the actual decision-making. No one can predict the final decision, but what's basically legalized bribery in our legislature does wield quite a bit of power.
All due to the fact that people are flighty and often go "it won't effect me" like idiots. Really this is more of a sign that direct democracy fucks things up than a sign of needing a third party element to me.
Well, if people were better informed or cared to be, it probably wouldn't be as bad, but that's just me being optimistic. People not understanding the issues in general is certainly a major contributor though. California doesn't even have room for two parties, let alone a third.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system#Americas
Arnie as a decent governor?
He was not only in the running as one of the worst governors in the country, but he left office with approval ratings on par with Dubya. This is what happens when you base your government on whims.
I never said he was good, that was more in jest. As much as I like his movies, I don't think actors make good statesmen. The point is, California was messed up both before and after he left, and even though he didn't perform too well, he was fighting an uphill battle either way. Did he leave California in worse shape than before? It's hard to say, there's a conflicting number of sources on the deal.
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2028599,00.html
Either way, he should probably stick to acting and bodybuilding.
It's why they rapidly fell into and created their own political parties. Hell, even Washington favored a faction; the Federalists. I mean fuck, Jefferson was the father of the Democratic party for pete's sake.
While Washington and others disfavored political parties, it's inevitable that they're going to take form in any sort of political system, whether it be a republic, democracy, parliamentary, what-have-you, factions tend to form. Even communist countries have factions within their parties at times.
Here's a good read regarding the negatives of party politics:
http://www.localelectors.org/2012/09/01/political-parties-were-never-meant-to-be/
And this problem is not limited to democratic forms of government, either
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/world/asia/china-political-factions-primer/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/14/chin-j14.html
Well of course not; research is effort and people just want it spoonfed to them as my experience with this has shown me. It's why no one ever bothers to actually read on the scientific literature and just takes what they see with blogs and news outlets.
It can be interesting to read about for some people, but many feel that it's all distant from themselves and are less interested than they would be otherwise. Doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions on anything can be difficult, and it takes time and effort to make informed decisions. Most are just happy to take 30 second news bites at face value and go with that, even in the face of an obviously biased source.
