2008 US Presidential Election.

Economic issues

Minimum wage
Democrats favor a higher minimum wage, and more regular increases, in order to assist the working poor. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 is an early component of the Democrats’ agenda during the 110th Congress. Various state ballot initiatives in 2006 to increase the minimum wage were supported by the Democrats, and all six such initiatives passed.

Renewable energy and oil
Democrats have opposed tax cuts and incentives to oil companies, favoring a policy of developing domestic renewable energy. Democratic governors have led the way in this issue, such as Montana’s state-supported wind farm and “clean coal” programs.

Fiscal responsibility
Democrats are trying to position their party as the party of fiscal responsibility. Democrats increasingly call for responsible tax policies and government spending that keeps the budget deficit under control. The Democratic-led House of Representatives reinstated the PAYGO (pay-as-you-go) budget rule at the start of the 110th Congress. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has cited Bill Clinton’s presidency as a model for fiscal responsibility.

Health care and insurance coverage
Democrats call for “affordable and quality health care,” and many advocate an expansion of government intervention in this area. Many Democrats favor a national health insurance system in a variety of forms to address the rising costs of modern health insurance. Some Democrats, such as Senator Edward Kennedy, have called for a program of “Medicare for All.”

Some Democratic governors have supported purchasing Canadian drugs, citing lower costs and budget restrictions as a primary incentive. Recognizing that unpaid insurance bills increase costs to the service provider, who passes the cost on to health-care consumers, many Democrats advocate expansion of health insurance coverage.

Environment
The Democratic Party generally sides with environmentalists and favors conservation of natural resources together with strong environmental laws against pollution. Democrats support preservation of endangered lands and species, clean land management and regulation on pollutants.

The most contentious and concerning environmental issue championed by the party is global warming. Democrats, most notably former Vice President Al Gore, have pressed for stern regulation of greenhouse gases.

College education
Most Democrats have the long term aim of having low-cost, publicly funded college education with low tuition fees (like in much of continental Europe) which should be available to every eligible American student, or alternatively, with increasing state funding for student financial aid such as the Pell grant or college tuition tax-deduction.

Trade agreements
The Democratic Party has a mixed record on international trade agreements that reflects a diversity of viewpoints in the party. Generally, more conservative and moderate Democrats favor free trade agreements while those further to the left, supporters of fair trade, populists, and unions often oppose them. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration and a number of prominent Democrats pushed through a number of agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Since then, the party’s shift away from free trade became evident in the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) vote, with 15 House Democrats voting for the agreement and 187 voting against.[10][11]

Social issues

Discrimination
Democrats support Equal Opportunity for all Americans regardless of sex, age, race, sexual orientation, religion, creed, or national origin.

The Democratic Party mostly supports affirmative action as a way to redress past discrimination and ensure equitable employment regardless of ethnicity or gender, but opposes the use of quotas in hiring. Democrats also strongly support the Americans with Disabilities Act to prohibit discrimination against people on the basis of physical or mental disability.
Same-sex marriage and LGBT rights

The Democratic Party is divided on the subject of same-sex marriage. Some members favor civil unions for same-sex couples, others favor legalized marriage, and others are opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. The 2004 Democratic National Platform stated that marriage should be defined at the state level and repudiated the Federal Marriage Amendment.[12] Almost all agree, however, that discrimination against persons because of their sexual orientation is wrong.
Reproductive rights

The Democratic Party believes that all women should have access to birth control, and supports public funding of contraception for poor women. The Democratic Party, in its platform in 2000 and 2004, called for abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”-namely, keeping it legal by rejecting laws that allow governmental interference in abortion decisions, and reducing the number of abortions by promoting both knowledge of reproduction and contraception, and incentives for adoption.

The Democratic Party opposes attempts to reverse the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade which recognized abortion as a right. As a matter of the right to privacy and of gender equality, many Democrats believe all women should have the ability to choose without governmental interference. They believe that each woman, conferring with her conscience, has the right to choose for herself whether abortion is morally correct. Many Democrats also believe that poor women should have a right to publicly funded abortions.

A substantial number of other party members have been shifting to the center on this issue. Some believe in programs to make abortions less frequent as well as making sure the procedure is legal and available. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York said in early 2005 that the opposing sides should find “common ground” to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ultimately reduce abortions, which she called a “sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.”

Stem cell research
The Democratic Party has voiced overwhelming support for all stem cell research with federal funding. In his 2004 platform, John Kerry affirmed his support of federally funded stem-cell research “under the strictest ethical guidelines.” He explained, “We will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.”[12]

Foreign policy issues

Invasion of Afghanistan
Democrats in the House of Representatives and United States Senate near-unanimously voted for the authorization of military force against “those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States” in Afghanistan in 2001, supporting the NATO coalition invasion of the nation. Most elected Democrats continue in their support of the Afghanistan conflict, and some have voiced concerns that the Iraq War is shifting too many resources away from the occupation of Afghanistan.

Iraq War
In 2002, Democrats were divided as most in the Senate voted for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq while most Democrats in the House voted against it. Since then, many prominent Democrats have expressed regret about this decision, such as former Senator John Edwards, and have called it a mistake. Amongst lawmakers, Democrats constitute some of the most vocal critics of the Iraq War and the President’s management of the war.

Unilateralism
Democrats mostly oppose the doctrine of unilateralism, which dictates that the United States should use military force without any assistance from other nations whenever it believes there is a threat to its security or welfare. They believe the United States should act in the international arena in concert with strong alliances and broad international support. This was a major foreign policy issue of John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, and unilateralism has been blamed for the failures in Iraq.

In a general sense, the modern Democratic Party is more closely aligned with the international relations theories of liberalism and neoliberalism than realism and neorealism, though realism has some influence on the party.

Legal issues

Torture
Democrats are opposed to use of torture against individuals apprehended and held prisoner by the military of the United States, and deny that categorizing military prisoners as unlawful combatants excludes them from the rights granted under the Geneva Conventions. Democrats contend that torture is inhumane, decreases the United States’ moral standing in the world, and produces questionable results.

USA PATRIOT Act
All Democrats in the U.S. Senate except for Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold voted for the original USA PATRIOT Act legislation. After voicing concerns over the “invasion of privacy” and other civil liberty restrictions of the Act, the Democrats split on the renewal in 2006. Most Democratic Senators voted to renew it, while most Democratic Representatives voted against renewal. It should be noted renewal was only allowed after many of the most invasive clauses in the Act were removed or curbed.

Right to privacy
The Democratic Party believes that individuals should have a right to privacy, and generally supports laws which place restrictions on law-enforcement and intelligence agency monitoring of U.S. citizens. Some Democratic Party officeholders have championed consumer-protection laws that limit the sharing of consumer data between corporations.
Most Democrats believe that government should not regulate consensual non-commercial sexual conduct (among adults), as a matter of personal privacy.

Crime and gun control
Democrats often focus on methods of crime prevention, believing that preventive measures save taxpayers’ money in prison, policing and medical costs, and prevent crime and murder. They emphasize improved community policing and more on-duty police officers in order to help accomplish this goal. The party’s platform in 2000 and 2004 cited crackdowns on gangs and drug trafficking as preventive methods. The party’s platforms have also addressed the issue of domestic violence, calling for strict penalties for offenders and protection for victims.

With a stated goal of reducing crime and homicide, the Democratic Party has introduced various gun control measures, most notably the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Bill of 1993 and Crime Control Act of 1994. However, many Democrats, especially rural, Southern, and Western Democrats, favor fewer restrictions on firearm possession and warned the party was defeated in the 2000 presidential election in rural areas because of the issue.[14] In the national platform for 2004, the only statement explicitly favoring gun control was a plan calling for renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored “liberal” positions. (The term “liberal” in this sense dates from the New Deal era.) The party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid 1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The party had a pro-business wing, typified by Al Smith, that shrank in the 1930s. The Southern conservative wing shrank in the 1980s. The major influences for liberalism were the labor unions (which peaked in the 1936-1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s. Since the 1970s, environmentalism has been a major new component.

In recent decades, the party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (what economists call a mixed-economy). The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means a larger role for government and progressive taxation to pay for social services.

Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored “liberal” positions. (The term “liberal” in this sense dates from the New Deal era.) The party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid 1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The party had a pro-business wing, typified by Al Smith, that shrank in the 1930s. The Southern conservative wing shrank in the 1980s. The major influences for liberalism were the labor unions (which peaked in the 1936-1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s. Since the 1970s, environmentalism has been a major new component.

In recent decades, the party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (what economists call a mixed-economy). The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means a larger role for government and progressive taxation to pay for social services.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is responsible for promoting Democratic campaign activities. While the DNC is responsible for overseeing the process of writing the Democratic Platform, the DNC is more focused on campaign and organizational strategy than public policy. In presidential elections it supervises the Democratic National Convention and, during the primary season, raises funds, commissions polls, and coordinates campaign strategy. Following the selection of a party nominee, the public funding laws permit the national party to coordinate certain expenditures with the nominee, but additional funds are spent on general, party-building activities.[3] According to the Charter of the Democratic Party, the national convention is, subject to the charter, the ultimate authority within the Democratic Party when it is in session, with the DNC running the party’s organization at other times.

The chairman of the DNC (currently Howard Dean) is elected by vote of the members of the DNC for a four year term. When there is a sitting President who is a Democrat, the members generally elect the President’s candidate for DNC Chair. The DNC is composed of the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party Committee, two hundred members apportioned among the states based on population and generally elected either on the ballot by primary voters or by the State Democratic Party Committee, a number of elected officials serving in an ex-officio capacity, and a variety of representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) assists party candidates in House races; its current chairman (selected by the party caucus) is Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Similarly the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) raises large sums for Senate races. It is currently headed by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) is a smaller organization with much less funding that focuses on state legislative races. The DNC sponsors two youth-oriented organizations: the Young Democrats of America (YDA) and the College Democrats. The Democratic Governors Association (DGA) is an organization supporting the candidacies of Democratic gubernatorial nominees and incumbents; it is currently chaired by Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

Each state also has a state committee, made up of elected committee members as well as ex-officio committee members (usually elected officials and representatives of major constituencies), which in turn elects a chair. County, town, city and ward committees generally are comprised of individuals elected at the local level. State and local committees often coordinate campaign activities within their jurisdiction, oversee local conventions and in some cases primaries or caucuses, and may have a role in nominating candidates for elected office under state law. Rarely do they have much funding, but in 2005 DNC Chairman Dean began a program (called the “50 State Strategy”) of using DNC national funds to assist all state parties and paying for full time professional staffers.

The Democratic Party is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States, the other being the Republican Party.

Currently, during the 110th Congress, it is the majority party in the United States House of Representatives and the Democratic caucus constitutes a majority in the United States Senate. Democrats also hold a majority of governorships and a plurality of state legislatures.

Although the name “Democratic Party” was in common use by the party by the mid-1830s, Democrats trace their origins to the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792,[1] making it the oldest political party in the world.[2] Since William Jennings Bryan’s takeover of the party in 1896, it has positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party in economic matters. The pro-working class, activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, called “liberalism” in the U.S., has shaped much of the party’s agenda since 1932. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition usually controlled the national government through 1964. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party’s liberal principles. The Vietnam War in the 1960s opened a split on foreign military intervention that persists into the 21st century.

Since the 1990s and the shift towards third-way politics employed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party has become less ideologically driven and more centrist in the American political spectrum as it attempts to expand its appeal to independent voters.

Today I am announcing that I will form an exploratory committee to run for president.

And I want you to join me not just for the campaign but for a conversation about the future of our country — about the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures.

I am going to take this conversation directly to the people of America, and I’m starting by inviting all of you to join me in a series of web chats over the next few days.

The stakes will be high when America chooses a new president in 2008.

As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush’s mistakes and restore our hope and optimism.

Only a new president can renew the promise of America — the idea that if you work hard you can count on the health care, education, and retirement security that you need to raise your family. These are the basic values of America that are under attack from this administration every day.

And only a new president can regain America’s position as a respected leader in the world.

I believe that change is coming November 4, 2008. And I am forming my exploratory committee because I believe that together we can bring the leadership that this country needs. I’m going to start this campaign with a national conversation about how we can work to get our country back on track.

This is a big election with some very big questions. How do we bring the war in Iraq to the right end? How can we make sure every American has access to adequate health care? How will we ensure our children inherit a clean environment and energy independence? How can we reduce the deficits that threaten Social Security and Medicare?

No matter where you live, no matter what your political views, I want you to be a part of this important conversation right at the start. So to begin, I’m going to spend the next several days answering your questions in a series of live video web discussions. Starting Monday, January 22, at 7 p.m. EST for three nights in a row, I’ll sit down to answer your questions about how we can work together for a better future. And you can participate live at my website. Sign up to join the conversation here.

I grew up in a middle-class family in the middle of America, where I learned that we could overcome every obstacle we face if we work together and stay true to our values.

I have worked on issues critical to our country almost all my life. I’ve fought for children for more than 30 years. In Arkansas, I pushed for education reform. As First Lady, I helped to expand health care coverage to millions of children and to pass legislation that dramatically increased adoptions. I also traveled to China to affirm that women’s rights are human rights.

And in the Senate, I have worked across party lines to get billions more for children’s health care, to stop the president’s plan to privatize Social Security, and to make sure the victims and heroes of 9/11 and our men and women in uniform receive the fair treatment they deserve. In 2006, I led the successful fight to make Plan B contraception available to women without a prescription.

I have spent a lifetime opening opportunities for tens of millions who are working hard to raise a family: new immigrants, families living in poverty, people who have no health care or face an uncertain retirement.

The promise of America is that all of us will have access to opportunity, and I want to run a 2008 campaign that renews that promise, a campaign built on a lifetime record of results.

I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine. After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate, and how to beat them.

I need you to be a part of this campaign, and I hope you’ll start by joining me in this national conversation.

As we campaign to win the White House, we will make history and remake our future. We can only break barriers if we dare to confront them, and if we have the determined and committed support of others.

This campaign is our moment, our chance to stand up for the principles and values that we cherish; to bring new ideas, energy, and leadership to a uniquely challenging time. It’s our chance to say “we can” and “we will.”

Let’s go to work. America’s future is calling us.

Washington Post - Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid _ this time as a Republican. Paul filed papers in Texas to create a presidential exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money. In 1988, Paul was the Libertarian nominee for president and received more than 400,000 votes.

[Jan. 11, 2007]

Third Party News

Conservative
Constitution Party - Socially conservative, economically libertarian.

Moderate
Reform Party

Liberal
Green Party
Vermont Progressive Party - Progressive party that enjoys modest success on the local (mainly in Burlington) and state levels
Working Families Party - a “satellite” party of the Democrats in New York, where candidates can get a second ballot line.

Libertarian
Libertarian Party - Identifies as fiscally conservative and socially liberal

Other Minor Third Parties
Various other minor parties are given in the list of political parties in the United States.

Carole Keeton Strayhorn- Texas State Comptroller and ex-Republican. Originally intended to challenge Governor Rick Perry in the primary but has instead decided to run as an Independent. Most polls showed her in second behind the governor through much of the election, but she ended up in fifth after, behind Perry (who retained the governorship), Democrat Chris Bell, Libertarian James Werner, and fellow independent Kinky Friedman. See Texas gubernatorial election, 2006.

Russ Diamond- A business owner and founder of PACleanSweep, an organization created to protest The Pennsylvania General Assembly’s pay raise. He is a candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania

Bernie Sanders- Independent democratic socialist holds one of Vermont’s U.S. Senate seats,

Joe Lieberman- Connecticut for Lieberman. Did return to the Democrats once reelected.

Gail Parker Independent Greens of Virginia 2006 U.S. Senate candidate. Retired U.S. Air Force officer 2008 Presidential candidate

source www.VoteJoinRun.US

James B. Weaver - He ran as the Populist candidate for US President in the 1892 elections, receiving over a million votes and 22 electoral votes.

Eugene V. Debs - Running for US President as the Social Democratic Party candidate in the 1900 election, and the Socialist Party candidate in the 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920 elections.
Theodore Roosevelt - Ran as Bull Moose Candidate in 1912 and won 88 electoral votes.

Robert M. La Follette, Sr. - Running in the 1924 US Presidential election, “Fighting Bob” LaFollette won almost five million votes, 16.6% of the popular vote, and 13 electoral votes from his home state of Wisconsin.

John B. Anderson - Ran as an independent candidate in 1980 after dropping out of the Republican Primaries. He won 6.6% of the popular votes.

Ross Perot - Running for President in the 1992 elections, Ross Perot captured nearly 20 million votes - 18.9% of the popular vote. He ran again in 1996, winning just over 8 million votes.

Ralph Nader - His first major presidential campaign was the 2000 US election when as a Green, he won nearly 3 million votes. He is often credited with being the defining factor in the final results of the 2000 elections. He also ran as a Green in the 1996 election and as an independent in the 2004 election.

The most common argument against voting for a third party candidate has been that one’s vote is “wasted” in that one’s vote for a losing candidate won’t count for anything, whereas the same vote cast instead for a candidate who is the “lesser of two evils” and who has a chance of winning might help that candidate win the election. In 2000 and 2004, Democratic supporters commonly told potential voters for Ralph Nader that a vote for Ralph Nader was a vote for Republican George W. Bush.

There is a great deal of debate whether voters who didn’t vote for a third party candidate would have then voted for a major party candidate. It might be just as likely that the voter would not have voted at all if there had not been a third party candidate to vote for. Saying it is true, in this instance, such a vote could be viewed as wasted.

Typically, the more votes a third party receives, the more attention incumbent parties pay to the campaign issues being advocated by that third party. In 1992, Ross Perot’s main “gripe” (as he said) was the growing national debt and the budget deficit. After 1992, many political analysts say both incumbent parties paid special attention to this issue and the result was the temporary reduction in and then elimination of deficit spending and actual reductions in the national debt for a brief period. Such a vote for a third party is then viewed as an indictment of both incumbent parties that neither is doing a good job on certain issue(s) to the point where voters reject both and vote for a third party candidate. Given this, a vote for a third party can be viewed as a delayed vote for change, not affecting the immediate outcome of the current election but affecting the incumbent parties after that election as they try to address the reason why voters voted for a third party in the last election, attempting to garner the supporters of third party voters who see this issues being addressed in an attempt to influence these voters to return to or join the major party that did address those issues in the next election. A prominent historical example is the presidential election of 1892, during which the Populist Party (otherwise known as the People’s Party) achieved massive success by U.S. third party standards, picking up 22 electoral votes and 8.6 percent of the popular vote. After the 1892 election the Democratic Party adopted many of the Populist Party’s positions, so many in fact, that the Populist Party nominated the same candidate as the Democrats in the 1896 presidential election (essentially marking the end of the Populists as a separate party). The Populist Party was able to do this using the process of electoral fusion. In 1992, Ross Perot campaigned telling his supporters to “send a message” to the incumbent parties about the national debt and budget deficit, which apparently was heeded, at least temporarily. If the case for the “delayed vote” can be made to the public by third parties, third parties might be able to change their “spoiler of elections” image to a “force for change” image.
Finally, voters in a “safe state” for either major party are unlikely to influence that state’s electoral vote. These voters, if they choose to vote for a third party, will be drawing attention to that party, while if they vote for the major party they most closely agree with, they will not change the national contest. A preferential voting or instant run-off voting system could allow for more people to vote for a third party.