Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Political Party March Madness Round 1


vcczar

Political Party March Madness Round 1  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Political Parties Should go to Round 2

    • Moderate Federalists (J Adams and, unofficially, Washington)
    • Arch-Federalists (Hamilton, Ames, Pinckney)
    • Jeffersonian Republicans (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe)
    • New York Republicans (George Clinton, DeWitt Clinton, Aaron Burr)
    • National Republicans (JQ Adams, Clay)
    • Populist Democrats I (Jackson, Van Buren, Cass, Douglas, Benton)
    • Anti-Masons (Wirt)
    • Nullifiers (Floyd and Calhoun)
    • Conscience Whigs (Webster, Seward, Sumner and Taylor once president)
    • Cotton Whigs (Lincoln, Fillmore, WH Harrison, Scott, Clay, Everett, Stephens)
    • Free Soil (CF Adams, Hale, Van Buren)
    • Know Nothing (Fillmore, Banks, Donelson)
    • States Rights Democrats (Calhoun, Pierce, Buchanan, Taney, Vallandigham, Bright, F Wood)
    • Southern Democrats (J Davis, Breckinridge, Stephens)
    • Moderate Republicans (Lincoln)
    • Radical Republicans (US Grant arguably, Sumner)
    • Liberal Republicans (Greeley, Schurz)
    • Union Democrats (A Johnson)
    • Constitutional Union (Bell, Everett)
    • Half-Breed Repubicans (Blaine)
    • Stalwart Republicans (Conkling)
    • Bourbon Democrats (Cleveland, Bayard, AB Parker)
    • Populist Democrats II (WJ Bryan, Blaine)
    • Conservative Republicans (Cannon, Coolidge, Harding)
    • Moderate Republicans II (Taft, Hoover, CE Hughes)
    • Progressive Republicans (T Roosevelt, La Follette, H Johnson, Wheeler)
    • Liberal Democrats (Wilson, A Smith, FDR, Truman, A Stevenson II, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey, Mondale)
    • Southern Democrats II (JW Davis, Pitchfork Tillman)
    • Progressive Democrats (GW Norris, HP Long, HA Wallace, Kefauver, McGovern)
    • Populists (Weaver)
    • Socialists (Debs)
    • Liberal "Rockefeller" Republicans (Dewey, Wilkie, Landon, N Rockefeller)
    • Moderate Republican III (Eisenhower, Ford, Nixon as pres only)
    • Conservative Republicans II (R Taft, J McCarthy, pre-pres Nixon, Goldwater, Reagan)
    • Moderate "New Democrats" (Carter, Dukakis, B Clinton, A Gore)
    • Neocon Republicans (GHW Bush, GW Bush, Powell, Cheney, McCain)
    • Liberal Democrats II (Obama, H Clinton, Biden, Pelosi)
    • Conservative Republicans III (McConnell, Rubio, Grassley)
    • Moderate Republicans IV (Baker, Hogan, Scott, Sununu)
    • Traditionalist Republicans (Cruz, Lee, Rand Paul)
    • Ron Paul Libertarian (Ron Paul)
    • States Right Democrats (Thurmond and GA Wallace)
    • Reform (Perot)
    • Green (Nader and Stein)
    • Progressive Democrat II (Kucinich and E Warren)
    • MAGA Republican (Trump, Gaetz, MTG, Boebert)
    • Democratic Socialists (B Sanders, AOC)
    • Moderate Democrats (Manchin and formerly Sinema)
    • Libertarian II (G Johnson and Weld)
    • Forward Party (A Yang)


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I'd say only 1 or maybe two spots I'd argue with the allocation of a pol, but I like the granularity in general.

Some of them are difficult because politicians will shift on positions. Daniel Webster has been called both a cotton and a conscience Whig before, for example. Seward also shifted from being "liberal" to moderate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Some of them are difficult because politicians will shift on positions. Daniel Webster has been called both a cotton and a conscience Whig before, for example. Seward also shifted from being "liberal" to moderate. 

Yeah, that was mainly what I was referring too.  Really the only thing that I'd truly flag is the fact that Kucinich hangs out with Tulsi Gabbard these days which would tell you a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Yeah, that was mainly what I was referring too.  Really the only thing that I'd truly flag is the fact that Kucinich hangs out with Tulsi Gabbard these days which would tell you a lot.

But Kucinich hasn't really been in office or politically relevant in ages. Kucinich was the first politician I was excited about -- in 2004. He first started to lose appeal when he was regularly linking up with Ron Paul, in his "You Need Two Wings to Fly" campaign, arguing that their differences were good so long as they had a common goal -- anti-establishment and anti-war. While I supported the common goal, the idea that Ron Paul would ever support Kucinich domestically, if they ever did create a new party or organization, was completely insane. Sometime after 2008, he was just saying more and more things that seemed politically illogical. He was my preferred presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008, but I wouldn't have supported him in 2012. I don't even know what to call Gabbard. Maybe Populist Independent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

But Kucinich hasn't really been in office or politically relevant in ages. Kucinich was the first politician I was excited about -- in 2004. He first started to lose appeal when he was regularly linking up with Ron Paul, in his "You Need Two Wings to Fly" campaign, arguing that their differences were good so long as they had a common goal -- anti-establishment and anti-war. While I supported the common goal, the idea that Ron Paul would ever support Kucinich domestically, if they ever did create a new party or organization, was completely insane. Sometime after 2008, he was just saying more and more things that seemed politically illogical. He was my preferred presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008, but I wouldn't have supported him in 2012. I don't even know what to call Gabbard. Maybe Populist Independent.

That's true, but it's the lumping him with Warren which is what I took issue with, specifically.  I mean back in the day it'd be fine, but now it would be not.  We agree on that.  The issue is Warren is still politically relevant in 2023.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, vcczar said:

He first started to lose appeal when he was regularly linking up with Ron Paul, in his "You Need Two Wings to Fly" campaign

I remember that, and I remember how disheartened I was to see Paul working with a far-left Democrat. I voted for Paul all the way back in 1988 when he ran as the Libertarian nominee (It may surprise some users on here, but I didn’t vote for a Republican on the Presidential level until 2000) and supported him in 2008 (I was going to vote for Chuck Baldwin in the general until McCain selected Palin to be his running mate), and 2012 (Romney was too moderate for my tastes, also too Mormon, so I wrote in Randall Terry). I wish Rand was more like his father, but he’s always struck be as… uninspiring.

I like Tulsi Gabbard. She’s probably the only Democrat I would’ve considered voting for in 2020.

  • Based 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...