Start a new political party, the 'American Progressive Majority'.
Start a new political party, the 'American Progressive Majority'.
cross-posted from: https://50501.chat/post/54068
Time to break free of traditional political ideological labeling and divisions. Time to abandon old, divisive sociopolitical labels like "liberal" and "conservative".
A new political party based on a vastly, commonly held virtures lends itself to embrace over 66% of Americans, and it clearly embraces progressive principled thinking. In the most ideal American sense of unity, a political party should not be able to be defined or placed as "to the left" or "to the right" of where the Democratic or Republican parties currently are. Just let it exist organically based on present-day principled thinking. The American Progressive Majority.
Originally Posted By
u/AtlanticbboyAt2025-03-23 04:38:18 AM| Source
oh yay another ineffective 3rd party to dilute the votes
Now try and get the majority to agree on what anything in this list means
i'm still trying to wrap my head around the irony of forming a party against parties.
BE. INDEPENDENT. fuck, do the research. America's government was supposed to be against such things.
Only 69% support gay marriage? That's wild.
Nice
I mean the 69, not the 31% bigots
IIRC interracial marriage didn't get more than 50% support until the late 90s. In general public support lags behind progressive lawmaking.
That in addition to more 'nuanced' opinions on it. Does "Sure 'they' can do whatever they want, but none of my children are allowed!" count as support or not? It probably gets counted as support/opposition depending on what the poll asker wants, if they even get that granular.
Also, does "support" mean they support it being legal or support it happening? You can be in favor of it being allowed without agreeing with people doing it.
I agree with all except not owning a gun. I’m not a 2A’er, but legal and responsible gun ownership is one of our constitutional rights. The problems we have with guns right now fall directly into gun control territory, which is listed right below owning a gun on this list.
The militias are not well-regulated.
Yeah, I would be very careful how they word any mention of guns. It's very easy to get people arguing past each other even when they share very similar views, thanks to how groups like the NRA have mucked up 2A discourse.
If only people felt as fervent about the other amendments.
Owning guns to defend yourself against tyrannical government made sense a hundred years ago .... it wouldn't make a difference in modern times.
Maybe. But, and hear me out, we do not want to make it easy for them when they inevitably come for us.
Right, we need anti-air missiles now! Where do I sign up?
Theres no way the government would routinely drone people in their own county. An authoritarian regime wants control, which is achieved with boots on the ground, kicked in doors and a massive police state. All of those can be disturbed and fought with conventional firearms.
A revolver, shotgun, or other firearms without magazines are fine for most hunting and self-defense cases. I don't have a problem with an 18yo buying one of these on their birthday. I do have major problems with a teen, or anyone really, coming in with zero history of firearm ownership and buying 1000 rounds and a semi-auto, high-powered weapon.
I'm calling BS on most of these numbers.
The top 3 are already wrong so I can only hazard a guess that the rest are also wrong.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/513623/majority-continues-favor-stricter-gun-laws.aspx
I'm not even going to bother looking at the rest because the top 3 were already wrong.
The graphic is either poorly researched or intentionally misleading and either way I don't care for it.
I checked the first three and they all seemed the same or higher.
69 vs 85% for abortion according to your first link. Although clearly the number is from another source with different phrasing.
72 vs 68% according to your second source
And here's a source for 90% on #3 - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/90-percent-want-background-checks/
Anyway, I hate info graphics, too, but these hardly seem wrong or misleading.
yeah, I had found that gun control rate highly suspect.
Medicare for all 55% is just the saddest stat have seen in a while.
Probably poor branding, after years of being called a scam. Kind of like Obamacare v. ACA.
Surely the problem with all the other third parties is that they didn't try to appeal to the majority of people.
My question is: what percentage support all of those? The curse of dimensionality applies here because of the large number of features.
Since most are >50% and many are >75%, the crossover is probably large enough that it won’t make a difference
Intuitively it would seem like that, but that’s why the curse of dimensionality is a mathematical paradox: its results are not intuitive!
Yep. Even the gun control issue, which is the most conflicted on this thread, isn't a binary. What gun control? Background checks? Magazine restrictions? Firing mode restrictions? Barrel length restrictions? Round size/energy restrictions? Education, training, and/or storage requirements?
90% of people may agree that we need something, but they likely won't agree on what.
"Even the gun control issue, which is the most conflicted on this thread"
I've long been convinced a lot more Democrats and Progressives could make it much further on other issues if they simply sat down on the 'Gun control' issue. To me it seems like a rallying cry of a wedge-issue that gets used to make sure they don't have to try and address all those other things listed. It also guarantees a spike in gun sales every time they make a public statement about the issue.
An appeal to majority isn't going to sway anyone on either side of the issue because it rings false to those opposed and lacks actual reason to those who support, this is the kind of messaging that will sink a campaign
I mean, "We're starting a new party! The Infograph Party!" was a loser to begin with. But coming straight out of the gate with "You're already a member, you just don't know it yet" naive dogmatism certainly isn't helping.
Only 55% approves of medicare for all? What is wrong with you guys?
Most think about how they can’t afford a 2% increase in their taxes and forget about the $500 per month premium they won’t have to pay anymore
Persistent, heavy propaganda has convinced many Americans that Medicare is somehow worse than their current insurance coverage. It’s quite insane but that’s why this number is so low.
To put a fine point on it: the common lie in the media is that Medicare for all means you lose your current insurance. This is true, and it would be replaced by the much better and more affordable Medicare, but they never say this last part.
Nope.
So, the same people who couldn't get past the DNC to get Bernie nominated think they can create a viable 3rd Party in under 24 months?
Stop dreaming of pie in the sky and start worrying about the Dem. Congressional primaries
Ah yes, the Dem primaries. If we’re lucky enough to be allowed a vote, millions in corporate PAC money will be spent on the establishment incumbent. No thanks, Dems are corrupt beyond redemption.
You got an actual plan? You got a billion dollars to get this Party up and running?
It's easy to spout off about how bad things are, let's hear a solution.
I donated to Bernie in 2016, 2020, and 2024. I'd kind of like to win once.
Let me see your plan.
Sure sure, if only 40% of us could be arsed to vote.
Why did Americans bother putting in first past the post if they were gonna be too dumb to understand it?
Because only a handful of rich and educated landowners could vote at the time.
Once you include the uneducated masses, it becomes a popularity contest about who can create the most rage.
rich and educated landowners
uneducated masses
Living in a historical moment in which the US is on the cusp of tipping into full on autocracy, and I get to hear about how our problem is "Not enough rich people with advanced degrees making the decisions around here".
The whole premise of democracy is that individuals bring useful perspective at every walk of life. The education system exists because the uneducated masses desire them and construct them and socially replicate them, not because the elites foist it on the public unwillingly. The accumulated social wealth exists because the masses build it, not because elites magically summon it into existence. The institutions that define normal public life persist because the masses endorse them and gladly participate in them, not because landlords own and operate them.
Without the "uneducated masses" you do not have a social contract or a labor force capable of implementing any meaningful public policy. Leaving decision making exclusively to landlords gets you to theocracy and cult demagoguery, not modern post-industrial plenty.
it only took 3 bullet points to find out just how bs this list is
I feel like there's a lot off on this one.
If they count neutral or no-votes, this might be true.
If this is the real feel of the country, I believe we would've voted as such.
Na, it's real...
The thing is, most voters are low information voters. There are a hell of a lot of reliable republican voters who oppose the majority of their agenda, even before project2025...
Personally I think what we really need is a prominent reform party.
Should call it the 66% party and only support things that 2/3rds of the public support.
There is the Labor party, the Democratic Socialists party, now you want to start another one? You need to consolidate people into a single one. Or, more effectively, we could takeover the Democratic Party given the challenges of having a third party in a winner take all system.