Which party would you support out of these hypothetical parties

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Socialist Party - They believe in single payer healthcare, free colleges, a return to the pre Reagan tax code(including tax hikes for middle class as well), strongly believe in redistribution of wealth , believe in extremely strict regulations for Wall Street, the environment, and business, and would make it illegal to profit of essential services .On social issues they are pro choice, and very socially liberal while on foreign policy  they oppose intervention  in general .

2020 Edit: They moved left on healthcare now more in supportive of moving towards a fully nationalized healthcare service and support nationalizing much of the energy as well. They also are strongly in favor of annual wealth taxes


The Progressive Party: They believe in expanding medicare and introducing a public option for healthcare . They believe that taxes should return to pre Reagan 2nd round of  tax cuts code(top rate at 50%), and believe the money should be used to expand social  welfare services ,   send poor people to college without debt, and rebuild American infrastructure  . They oppose all free trade deals as they say it hurts working class families , and we need to make sure corporations invest here in the US first.On foreign policy they believe that America should help spread democracy across the world though through diplomatic means and international organizations and not force.

Update: Are now in favor of a single payer ala Warren plan

The Labor party- They are running on rebuilding unions by repealing Taft-Harley, and making it illegal for companies or organizations from stopping workers to unionize. They also believe that the federal government should help workers of all stripes(no matter the race, or job including coal miners). Lastly the believe the federal government should sponsor an new deal type infrastructure project to hep Appalachian and Rust Belt Cities become great again. They are also opposed to Free Trade and believe we need to reform our immigration system to which the immigration system doesnt hurt workers.They are centrists on foreign policy and Social issues.  


The Liberal Party - They are running on continuing Obama's Policies for another 4 years. On economic issues they are center left as while they believe in tax increases for the rich they believe in tax cuts for the middle class. They also believe that Obamacare should not be tampared with and believe that it should just be continued as Obamacare is universal healthcare without it becoming socialist. The are strong supporters in free trade and open borders as they believe integrating the United States with the rest of the world is the only thing which can strengthen our economy now days. On Social Issues they are strongly liberal and believe that those issues our are biggest problems domestically. On Foreign Policy they believe that we should continue status quo

Update: Now in Favor of Public Option

The Libertarian Party- They are running on a very limited government admin. They believe that most social service programs should be privatized , and believe that taxes and  regulations should be brought down to a level they were in the roaring 20s as they argue that the roaring 20s were a result of harding/coolidge massive tax cuts and deregulation policies. They believe that the United states should be isolationist and should only worry about our own affairs and not care what happens in the rest of the world . On social issues they believe in a policy of states rights and the fedeal government shouldnt intervene in a states right to implement social policy.

The National Security Party- They believe that the united states should expand the surveillance state, and should build up the us military. They also believe that the US should send ground troops to defeat ISIS , and stabilize the region. They are unabashedly  Pro Israel and Anti Iran and believe that the US should rip up the Iran deal and possibly consider air strikes against Iran if they refuse to cooperate with the US. They also believe that the United States should participate in Nation Building as thats the best way to stop terrorist groups from rising .On economic issues they are more moderate as they believe that while we need to cut taxes and spending we need to also have revenue to keep the United States safe .

Update: Have growing number of people in party prioritizing China as the main focus over middle east


The Conservative Party- They are also running on a pro business platform of  tax cuts and supporting deregulation for business  .  They are a strong believe on the idea that what ever is good for small business is good for the economy and believe that the government should get out of the way so our business can innovate, grow , and create jobs for Americans. To reduce the deficit they believe that the government should cut spending across the board, pass a balanced budget amendment which requires the federal government budget to be balenced except in time of war and recession.They also support expanding America H1B program as they believe that will bring the best talent from all around the world to the US and they will help grow our business and our economy.  On foreign policy they support sending ground troops to defeat ISIS but they oppose the concept of nation building as they believe that makes the problem worse instead of better. They are also centrist on social issues which means while they dont believe in banning abortion they support stricter regulations against it, and while they support gay marriage they oppose bills requiring business to provide services to them .




The Nationalist Party - They are running on an America first campaign . This means they oppose free trade, would want a wall built on the border, deporting all illegal immigrants ,banning immigrants from high risk countries  , stop all foreign aid and instead use that money to rebuild this country. They also believe we should withdraw from the UN and NATO and also use that money to rebuild America.

The Family Values Party- They are running on a very socially conservative platform. They believe that the government should ban abortion, support prayer in schools , and support North Carolina controversial decision to leave transgender people out of anti discrimination.  laws. They also believe US should defund planned parenthood totally and instead use that money to fund socially conservative organizations . While on Economic policy they agree with they Conservatives and on forign policy with the National Security Party they wouldnt put as much of a priority on those two issues as those parties would and instead focus on social issues.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would obviously support the Conservatives

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Conservative overall, although I do like aspects of the Libertarian, Family Values and National Security parties.

[Intell]

Do the Labor Party, support a transition into clean energy, while investing in jobs in former coal mining areas? For a party of the kind, the party should remain supportive of american interests overseas, and also generally anti-intervention, and anti-war.

Are the Socialist Party, anti-free trade? Are they patriotic, to some extent? Do they have appeal to working class america, same goes for the progressives?

[Intell]

[1] Labor Party
[2] Progressive Party
[3] Socialist Party
[4] Liberal Party
[5] Conservative Party
[6] Nationalist Party
[7] National Security Party
[8] Family Values Party
[9] Libertarian Party

You should change the National Security party, to Party for National Unity, the Nationalist Party, to Patriotic American Unity, and Family Values Party to the Christian Democratic Union or Christian Social Party etc.

[dead0man]

uggg, even with all these options there are still great reasons to not pick any of them.  Somewhere between liberal and libertarian I guess.  The Family Values, Nationalists, Socialists and Progressives are all right out.  I can take bits and pieces from Labor, Security and Conservatives, but they are mostly completely unacceptable.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Do the Labor Party, support a transition into clean energy, while investing in jobs in former coal mining areas? For a party of the kind, the party should remain supportive of american interests overseas, and also generally anti-intervention, and anti-war.

Are the Socialist Party, anti-free trade? Are they patriotic, to some extent? Do they have appeal to working class america, same goes for the progressives?

Yah labor supports a transition to clean energy but they believe we should still help coal workers till that transition is complete

Socialist party is anti free trade , but they do not appeal to working class people (they appeal more to leftists and young idealists )

[RaphaelDLG]

Probably the Progressive Party, but they are a little too anti-trade.  They were perfect up until that sentence.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Probably the Progressive Party, but they are a little too anti-trade.  They were perfect up until that sentence.

[SATW]

National Security Party, but Conservative Party is a close second for me.

[OSR stands with Israel]

To me this is how I believe our past presidents would fit in this party system


William McKinley- Conservative
Teddy Roosevelt- National Security since labor is to isolationist for him
Taft- Conservative
Wilson- Progressive
Harding- Libertarian
Coolidge- Libertarian
Hoover- Not sure
FDR- Progressive  
Truman - Labor
IKE - National Security
JFK - Progressive  
LBJ- Progressive
Nixon - National Security
Ford - Hard to say  
Carter - Hard to say
Reagan - Conservative
HW- National Secirity
Clinton - Liberal
W Bush - Family Values
Obama - Liberal
Trump - Nationalist


To me Hoover is a mix of Liberal and Libertarian  but not a good mix and would not be part of either
Ford - doenst seem a fit for any of these parties
Carter - A mix of Family Values and Progressive

[Santander]

Family Values sounds like an amazing party.

[SATW]

ike and H.W. would not be National Security party members. Ike was absolutely reviled by foreign policy hawks of the neoconservative flavor.  H.W. was more of a moderate, on everything.

W. Bush is def. a national security party member, though, imo.

[OSR stands with Israel]

ike and H.W. would not be National Security party members. Ike was absolutely reviled by foreign policy hawks of the neoconservative flavor.  H.W. was more of a moderate, on everything.

W. Bush is def. a national security party member, though, imo.

IKE to me seemed like only talked anti military industrial complex , but during his presidency he overthrew multiple governments not allied with the USA , dramatically increased USA nuclear weapons ( from less then a 1000 to 20,000) and refused to hold elections in Vietnam in afraid that the anti USA side would win .  To me that sounds like national security on policy even though he wasn't on rethoric

[DPKdebator]

I'd vote for either the Conservative, Nationalist, or Family Values party, though I picked Family Values on the survey.

[SATW]

ike and H.W. would not be National Security party members. Ike was absolutely reviled by foreign policy hawks of the neoconservative flavor.  H.W. was more of a moderate, on everything.

W. Bush is def. a national security party member, though, imo.

IKE to me seemed like only talked anti military industrial complex , but during his presidency he overthrew multiple governments not allied with the USA , dramatically increased USA nuclear weapons ( from less then a 1000 to 20,000) and refused to hold elections in Vietnam in afraid that the anti USA side would win .  To me that sounds like national security on policy even though he wasn't on rethoric

Yea, but no neoconservative or modern national security hawk would ever support some of his decision-making.

He caved, repeatedly, to the State and Defense Departments on Middle East Issues. He kept trying to win Egypt over to our anti-Communist coalition even though they were clearly aligned w/ the USSR (though, not out of any ideological reasoning...more out of a thirst for regional domination).

Ike flat out betrayed the UK, France and Israel in the Suez Canal Crisis. After bashing Obama for abandoning traditional allies to try and gain new ones, I'd imagine these same hawks would also bash Ike for it.

Ike nearly let Lebanon's U.S.-friendly government fall in the late 1950's because he was so in love w/ Egypt.

Ike's ouster of the President of Iran is where Hawks are more split. Some say that the Shah was a great leader and that if Carter had just defended him then we wouldn't have a theocratic/terrorist-sponsoring Iran in today's world. Others say that Mohammad Mosaddegh was a great democrat and that we smothered democracy.

Many Neocons purely want to attack Mosaddegh and defend the Shah. Left-leaning Hawks and also foreign policy doves want to claim the opposite: Mosaddegh was great and the Shah wasn't.

I'll put my personal opinion below, but it's irrelevant to my point. My main point is that Ike had a very Arabist dominated foreign policy. This completely differs from the Neoconservative-dominated foreign policy of the 1980s-2000s.

Your National Security Party seems more based off the 1980s-2000s foreign policy model on the right and not the 1950s-1970s model of foreign policy (the latter which Ike was more aligned with).


My Opinion on Operation Ajax:
(My opinion is somewhere in between. Once the Shah rose, I will easily and happily admit that I supported protecting his regime. It wasn't some perfect regime, but it was better then his predecessor and most definitely better then his successor. Jimmy Carter's ignorance was a major reason why the Shah fell and why the Ayatollahs took power.

But: Operation Ajax was a disaster and should never have occurred. Mosadeggh was problematic, on many counts and anyone who defends him as some angelic leader who blessed the earth are completely delusional. He caused many problems for not only his country but for others as well. However, that does not justify an overthrow attempt. )

[America Needs R'hllor]

Well, Family Values and Nationalists are kicked out immediately. Socialists and Libertarians too, though I wouldn't despise them like the first two. I like some aspects of Labour and Progressives, but the foreign policy and opposition to trade removes them from the list. Same for National Security, way too fanatic. The Conservative are too right wing on economics, so I'd choose the Liberal Party, but would be a bit to the left of them on healthcare and education, and a bit to the right on immigration. All in all, I'd find it acceptable to vote for Libera, Progressive, Labout, National Security or Conservative candidates in different circumstances.

1] Liberal Party
[2] Progressive Party

[3] Conservative Party
[4] Labour Party

[5] National Security Party


[6] Socialist Party
[7] Libertarian Party




[8] Nationalistic Party
[9] Family Values Party

[Mr. Smith]

Socialists aren't conservative enough, Progressives are warmongerers, Labor aren't environmentally friendly, Family Values are too obsessed with cultural wonks, Libertarians are damaging on all levels but foreign policy, Liberals are the epitome of Moderate Hero,  Nationalists would make us the laughing stock on foreign policy, and the Conservatives and National Security Parties are just irredeemable.

...There's just nothing here at all.

But I guess Labor is the least awful lot.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The Socialists foreign policy is pretty bad(and the tone of their economic policy makes it sound like they might do economically damaging things).

The Progressives are extreme protectionists, and have pretty delusional foreign policy.

The Labor people are also protectionists, and are too focused on attempts to rebuild a rose-tinted view of what once was instead of adjusting to the future.

The National Security people are defined by bad foreign policy.

The Nationalists and Family Valuers are disgusting and devoid of redeeming qualities.

The Conservatives aren't much better.

The libertarians have awful economics and foreign policy.

That leaves the Liberals. They aren't great, but they're the only party that doesn't have something really bad.

1. Liberal


2. Socialist(if they're free trade, otherwise they go to




3. Conservative(very grudgingly)



4. Labor(not as likely to nuke the economy with anti"1%" policies)

5. Progressive




6. National Security

7. Libertarian









f[inks] both of the last two.

[Kingpoleon]

Conservative/Liberal/Libertarian swing voter.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Family values, easily.  But, I would consider strategically voting for the Conservative Party if the individual candidates were pro-life.  I don't hate the National Security Party either (I don't care for the Nationalist or Libertarian and actively dislike the rest).

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

1.   Libertarian
2.   Nationalist
3.   Conservative
4.   Socialist
5.   Progressive
6.   Labor
7.   Family Values
8.   Liberal
9.   National Security

[White Trash]

The Labor Party sounds more than perfect.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If I had to rank them heres how I would do it

1. Conservatives
2. National Security
3. Liberal
4. Libertarian
5. Labor
6. Family Values
7. Nationalist
8. Progressive
9. Socialist

[White Trash]

Would vote for enthusiastically:
1. Labor
2. Socialist
3. Progressive

Would vote for begrudgingly:
4. Nationalist

Would rather abstain than vote for, but would consider:
5. Liberal
6. Family values
7. National Security

Would never vote for:
7. Conservative
8. Libertarian

Ideal coalition would be Labor-Socialist, with the Progressives and Nationalists being junior partners.