This group wants to form a new party. I'd call them the Statistics Abusers Party.

[Towlie]

Washington Post Opinion: Most third parties have failed. Here’s why ours won’t.

By David Jolly, Christine Todd Whitman and Andrew Yang

Some excerpts featuring statistics:

Americans have lost faith in government. Nearly 8 in 10 say the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to a recent survey...

[This statistic conveniently omits what these 8 in 10 believe is the right direction. They could consist of multiple groups advocating going in radically different directions, so they shouldn't be mis-characterized as a single group sharing a common cause.]

... and two-thirds of voters think neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have the right priorities.

[Similarly, this statistic conveniently omits what these 8 in 10 believe are the right priorities. No doubt they differ widely on that as well.]

Shockingly, roughly 30 million Americans believe violence against the current government is justified. The same number want to forcibly return former president Donald Trump to the White House.

[Notice that they don't say "the same people", just "the same number". There's no telling how many believe in violence against the government but don't want Trump returned to the White House, and vice versa, yet they present this statistic in a way that suggests 30 million Americans want Trump to violently be returned to the White House.]

For the first time in modern history, roughly half of Americans consider themselves “independents,” and two-thirds say a new party is needed (and would vote for it).

[Two-thirds of what? If they mean two-thirds of that roughly half of Americans then that would be 1/2 X 2/3 = 1/3 of Americans say a new party is needed, and they are no-doubt further divided into a group that wants a more liberal party than the Democratic party, a group that wants a more conservative party than the Republican party, and a group that wants a party somewhere between those two parties. Again, they shouldn't be mischaracterized as a single group sharing a common cause.]

This is what I like to call the "Goldilocks Syndrome". If 1/3 think the porridge is too hot, 1/3 think it's too cold, and 1/3 think it's just right then 67% dislike the porridge.

Read the rest of the article here.

[Wounded Bear]

1. Because you'd have to be a sap to vote for them...

[msongs]

2. republican front group nt

[brush]

5. That's probably what it is instead of a left, right and center...

coalition. Left, right and center voters have three different viewpoints. The chance of them agreeing on policy on anything is as implausible as it sounds.

[wiggs]

7. Agree. Not sure what dems are aboard (Yang isn't a dem). Plus, reading the opinion piece, they

mis-represent what the left calls for on a variety of issues...including that neither party is mainstream when it comes to gun issues since the far right wants no controls, the far left wants to 'confiscate all guns'.) Infuriating...dems are solidly mainstream on guns.

Also, 'most americans don't agree with the far-left's view on late term abortions...and most americans are alarmed that a woman's choice can be criminalized.' What is the left's view on late term abortions? Aren't dems aligned with most americans on a woman's right to choose? Can the right say the same?

Same BS on climate change: far left wants to upend the economy and end our way of life...while the right denies there's a problem. Is that a fair assessment of the dem position?

I do agree with their supposed goals regarding elimination of gerrymandering and protection of voting rights. As do most democrats! They ignore that MOST AMERICANS STILL AGREE with dems on the issues even though GOP leaders are effective at pissing on facts, dems, knowledge, education, good government, safety nets, empathy, competence, justice, honesty, rule of law.

they consistently state the right's main/base stance on issues and then compare it to some made-up fringe stance by a few dems (not mainstream dem perhaps, and none are nutty) and then say both are equally wrong.

I find the Jolly/Whiman/Yang article disingenuous, at best. I'm not necessarily opposed to a third party but this one is starting off just like the one we have that wants to campaign full time rather than govern.

[Wednesdays]

3. Figures don't lie

but liars will figure.

[brush]

4. Little chance voters on the left, right and center will...

come together to form a viable party.

How will the leftist relate to the neo-fascists on the right, and how will the centrist keep them from tearing each other apart?

Guess we'll find out when they have their convention next summer. If that ever happens.

[WVGal1963]

6. Yes,well...

……GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!!

[wiggs]

8. Their article is outrageous and makes me angry. See post #7. I'm fairly far left

and they completely miss the mark on what I and most dems believe and use their mis-chacterization to say that dems and goprs are equally out of step with most americans.

I'm not necessarily opposed to a 3rd party but this one is starting off just like the one we already have that doesn't believe in government but will lie, mis-state, exaggerate, scare, and mis-inform to get their party elected.

[wiggs]

9. Abramson makes similar points to my posts 7 and 8. And twitter comments

add the point that since dems are already mainstream (ignoring the article's claim that dems aren't), a new third party which stakes out similar moderate stances will take votes from the dems, and both will lose.

Link to tweet