By scrolling to the bottom of the page we find it clearly stated that credit for the message and webpage are taken and paid for by the Forward Party. What's not clear is what the Forward Party stands for and what it's positions are on critical issues like the Southern border, education, crime and the economy.
That lack of clarity is intentional. One of the things that sets the Forward Party apart from the two major parties is the freedom it gives its candidates to adopt positions that reflect their constituent's views.
Here's how it's understood and described by a Forward Party activist (activist meaning a local volunteer who is working to build the party in his district):
"From my understanding, the party will have more of a set of principles and values than a specific policy platform. The obvious exceptions are things like election reform (open primaries, [ranked choice voting]). But what I’ve read is FWD will give a lot of leeway to candidates and a candidate in FL may look a lot different than a candidate in Oregon or Nebraska and even within FL a candidate in north and south florida won’t necessarily have a prescription. The focus is on a candidate not a party platform."
This is further described by this (former Republican) Forward Party leader here:
This week I helped launch a new political party for America — the Forward Party. I hear your skepticism. That’s fine. But let me say a…
joelsearby.medium.com
Excerpt:
"... we will not prescribe positions or a platform from the national party. Rather, we believe that, within a wide set of boundaries outside of which rest the extremes, candidates at the local, state and federal level will decide where they stand on issues and make their case to the voters."
-------------------
I only learned of the Forward Party a couple days ago, so I'm no expert. But it seems to be the case that the party will not have a platform per se. It will have some organizing principles under which people and candidate will come together. In that arrangement, it is entirely possible that a staunch, pro-gun candidate will be Forward endorsed in TX, an anti-gun candidate will be Forward-endorsed in New York, and both will have the party's blessing.
It seems to me the Forward approach is not about imposing litmus tests defined by the national party. It's about candidates actually representing the people whose votes they seek. Depending on the district, those people are the 30-50% of registered voters who belong to no party at all, but do vote.
Out of curiosity, I just checked. In Florida, 5.2 million voters are registered Republicans, 5.0 million are registered Democrats, and 3.9 million are registered NPA, or no party affiliation as they are known here.
It seems to me that if the Forward Party gains critical mass and fields credible candidates, it will have little trouble peeling one million voters from each of the other two parties. That would be about 20%, leaving 80% of died-in-the-wool Democrats and Republicans comfortably at home in their old parties, and old ways.
In this scenario, the count would be 4.2 million registered Republicans, 4.0 million registered Democrats and 5.9 million registered Forward Party or NPA voters sympathetic to the new party (NPAs have already rejected the Dems and Repubs for a reason).
www.forwardparty.com
fwdtogether.org
