Before we jump for joy that moderate Republicans are switching to the Dem Party...

[cui bono]

take into consideration that it is only going to water down the Dem Party and move it even more to the right.

The reason they're giving for switching is that they think the Tea Party is too crazy and has taken control of the party. It's not that they've had some epiphany and realize that what they believe is wrong and now they see that all the Dem Party stances are the right way to go. So I'm certainly not elated by it.

So we'll be adding a bunch of Dinos who may or may not actually vote with the party, and who will make the party more right wing. Not necessarily a good thing.

The one good thing I see is that it may get the moderates to really work to get their party back away from the extremists. But they've got a big fight since there are several conservative groups working to defeat moderate R's in the primaries and replace them with the crazies. Hopefully if the crazies win the primary, they don't go on to win the general election.

[cali]

1. how many are actually switching? I'm not convinced that it's enough to make any

significant impact.

[davidpdx]

22. Many others have said that

and I agree. On a national level it's very rare. On a state by state basis it would be hard to analyze without a lot more information.

[lostincalifornia]

2. As far as I can see those republicans are coming from blue dog states, and it would be a major

challenge to get a progressives elected today in those states.

Regardless, there is nothing to stop a progressive from challenging those republicans/now Democrats in the primaries.

I think many of us here wish that the Democratic party was more liberal. What has happened is the Democrats have turned mostly moderate, and the republicans have turned into an extremist right wing agenda. Until the country starts making a shift back to the middle and progressive, I suspect this will be the best we can hope for in those red states where this is occurring

[randome]

3. We cannot prevail without them. That's the hard reality of it.

More Democrats elected to Congress means we have more control over the agenda. More committee leaderships and appointments.

It works both ways. Being fearful of being pulled more to the right does not make that a given. Progressive ideas will win out in the end just as Capitalism overcame Communism in Russia. When you give people more freedom to make choices, they eventually come around to your way of thinking but it's a hard road for some.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Crist as Gov of Florida does nothing for our Congressional majority and you have to own

the fact that you are now claiming a 'Moderate' is a guy who said Palin was more qualified than Obama and stood on stage with her chanting 'drill here, drill now'. That is what you now call 'Moderate'.

[randome]

29. And you're talking about one case.

Look at Kaisch (as contemptible as he is in other ways) going against his party to help the poor.

It's not a black-and-white issue. We need help because clearly we can't go it alone if the last 30 years is any indication.

How many more decades are we going to waste insisting that everyone behave better?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[cui bono]

43. Exactly. What is now a moderate Republican used to be middle/right Republican.

Frankly I don't want them coming in and watering down our principles. It's hard enough to keep the Dems from cutting SS ffs!

[Le Taz Hot]

31. But that's the excuse the Republicans used

when, in 1980, they brought in the fundamentalist Christians. They didn't think they could beat a sitting president (Carter) without them. They were wrong, of course, because Carter got NO backing from Washington Establishment, but the damage had been done -- i.e., they let in the right-wing snake handlers and this country has been suffering the consequences ever since. Fast Forward to the 21st Century and they welcomed in the KKK/militia-types/Christofascists, using the same reasoning, and that became the Tea Party and aren't we having fun now?

Now you're suggesting that the Democrats welcome them with open arms because "we cannot prevail without them?" I think we need to learn from the Republicans' mistakes. We have enough Dinos too often voting with the Republicans and you want more? If recent history has taught us anything it'is that you can't control what these guys do. Clinton brought in the corporatists and here we are 20 years later talking Grand Bargain, TPP, torture and drones. There are consequences to opening your doors to these groups -- you lose your base and you lose your raison d'etre.

[randome]

33. I think the Democrats lost their moxie BECAUSE Republicans expanded so well.

If we can 'water down' that Republican power (and that's happening), what's left will be a stronger Democratic party.

Not always a good thing on its own but still important when it comes to setting the agenda.

I hear what you're saying but I maintain that "it's different when Democrats do it." A Progressive party that expands its base will more likely expand its horizons rather than become insular and self-defeating as the Republicans have become.

Look at the 2008 Democratic primaries compared to that of the Republicans. There is a clear difference.

My ex was moderately religious. She wanted our daughters to be more church-going and I went along with it for a while, knowing it would never 'stick'. Because my daughters learned to think for themselves and once you punch through that barrier, it's clear you can never go back.

I think the analogy of Capitalism versus Communism offers the same validation.

Show people what can be accomplished with more freedoms instead of less and they will inevitably drift closer to you, not farther away.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Chan790]

38. I'd rather tell them to fuck off.

We don't need them to win. Win nationally, if not everywhere or big...but we can win without them.

With them, we just alienate more and more of the left and the moderate-bulk that is actually already slightly left of the Democratic Party nationally that feels that they're being marginalized. Eventually, they either revolt a la tea party and impose death to moderation...or they leave. In either case, Democrats lose by refusing to impose bulwarks against conservative infiltration.

No conservative economics.
No conservative social values.
No entitlement cuts.
No adopting the conservative war on the poor.
No catfood commissions.
No anti-labor positions.
No "Free Trade"
No "sensible" pragmatism.

If they can't agree to that...they're not Democrats, they're assholes.

[randome]

50. Except for the last two, I agree with you.

Free trade has been abused, no doubt about that. But to put it out of consideration in all cases seems short-sighted.

I wouldn't mind a pseudo 'litmus test' along the lines of your other points, though. Trying to be all things to all people has not worked out well in the past.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[nomorenomore08]

65. +1

Great post! You said what I was trying to say.

[quaker bill]

4. when a party represents a majority

it will by definition include a diverse assemblage of opinions. When a party represents a special interest minority it can have more uniformity of opinion.

Majorities win elections, special interest minorities yell about things from the back bench, if and when they get anyone elected to a seat.

I would love to find a majority that agreed with me precisely, but I often cannot even craft that in my house.

[postulater]

5. I know what you mean.

I don't always even agree with myself.

[treestar]

11. Exactly.

Too many DUers do not recognize that reality.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Here is your 'Moderate' Charlie Crist on Palin's superiority to Obama.

When I think of the way some here have attacked good lifelong Democrats for say, opposing Larry Summers as Fed Chair, and then I see the same folks embracing Crist I have to assume there is something off kilter.

[DireStrike]

21. Short term thinking

Majorities are good for doing things NOW. Constantly chasing the majority by triangulating pushes the center further to the right, as we've seen these last 30 years.

[quaker bill]

56. Chicken or egg?

The center is always the center. When the majority moves right, the center moves with it, necessarily, simply to remain the center. It has nothing to do with the actions of politicians. The confusion arises when one actually considers them "leaders" as opposed to "products of the system".

WE do not mirror government, government mirrors us. If we move left, all of these less bright than average guys that one calls "politicians" will move left or lose their jobs. They have moved right because it gets them elected. They day that stops they will move differently or quickly retire.

[libdem4life]

83. Products of the System...of the Behemoth required to respond to 12 or 13 million voters. Yes.

It takes a long time to move The Center either way...kind of like the Grading Curve.

[Captain Stern]

39. Well said.

The more people you let into your big tent, the more fights you're going to have in your tent. At the same time, your chances of beating the guys in the little tent go way up.

[Scuba]

6. I'd rather they stay and pull their own party away from the edge than pull ours more to the right.

Thanks to DUer RC for this graphic ...

[treestar]

12. that graphic if true, would only prove there are no voters over there

on the left.

[Scuba]

13. The graphic represents our elected officials, not the voters.

[treestar]

14. You win the day for illogical statements.

Who elects the elected officials?

[Scuba]

16. The voters, who were offered a choice betwee a right-winger, and a far-right-winger.

[treestar]

17. How did that choice come about?

Voters who voted in the primaries. Besides you can vote for other candidates if you want to.

[Scuba]

18. C'mon, you're not really that naive, are you?

[rhett o rick]

54. If not naive, I'd hate to think of the alternative. nm

[treestar]

58. Do you not think voters in the primaries

by their votes, chose the actual candidate?

[BootinUp]

82. stop, just stop. lol

[nashville_brook]

28. in serious conversations with the serious people who write serious checks...

it's a well known fact that money elects candidates.

[treestar]

59. So whose fault is that?

Are voters compelled to choose the candidate with the most money?

No, they are not. If the would take responsibility ad thing aobu twho they vote for, it wouldn't matter.

[Chan790]

41. You're ignoring the known reality among political scientists...

that both parties are to the right of the electorate. This is just a fact.

The GOP because that's where they're home.

The Democrats because it's necessary to be to be competitive in the states that have the minority of the population and are more conservative than the nation as a whole because they hold 66 Senate seats and 45% of the House seats. You were aware that ~70% of the US population lives in just 17 states and those states are generally the ones people would identify as liberal? Yes. (TX is conservative. FL is moderate. The rest are liberal.)

We have two parties that are by-and-large are more divorced from the political leanings of the electorate than they've ever been in the post-Whig era.

I don't believe in a 50-state solution. I believe in a nationally-driven ideology. If it can't win in KS and MS, we concede KS and MS...we don't chase right to capture votes from conservatives. Conservative areas will only moderate by Democrats being resolute and them coming to us, especially as the GOP move further right and away from the electorate. We can't win anything for Democratic values by being inclusive.

[cui bono]

42. Yes, and I would add to that that as the Dem party's values get more centrist

the centrists seem to love to tell the left they don't need them or want them.

I was basically told outright on DU yesterday that liberals are not to be considered Democrats. WTF? But that's what's happening. Granted it's mostly by people who idolize Obama and hate liberals because we criticize him, and rightly so, because he is center. So because our elected officials move more center, their supporters who are playing a team sport rather than sticking to principles defend them and begin to despise liberals even though the reality is that liberals are the ones standing up for the same principles these people swear they hold dear.

[treestar]

60. Or that the voters chose was they did?

Face it, we are a republic. We don't HAVE to vote for he who spent the most $$ on slick commercials. That'a a freedom we have. We don't have to throw up our hands in defat and blame. We CAN try to et people to vote for their own best interests.

[rhett o rick]

53. You are wrong on this. I have to guess your point because you choose to

make your argument with questions in lieu of statements. That's a Faux News trick.

The graphic shows the balance of our elected officials which is not representative of the people.

We have a Democratic Party controlled by the conservatives in the Party. Why? Because big money likes that. It's hard to get a real progressive elected. Why? Because big money dont like progressives.

"You win the day for illogical statements." That kind of statement by you is not intended to provide facts of an argument only to be rude. "You win the rude post of the day."

[BootinUp]

77. You are making my brain hurt

Stop being logical I prefer the fantasy world. lol.

[truebluegreen]

36. + a zillion Tents can be TOO big.

[L0oniX]

80. ^^^^this^^^^

[RandiFan1290]

7. Don't worry

Within the next decade we will be asked to "moderate" with our new friends on the extreme right. While we get to vote for good "liberal" candidates like Jeb Bush or Charlie Crist lol

[treestar]

15. Not, they will be a tiny minority

They have disproportionate power now since they are part of a major party.

[SDjack]

8. If they will walk across the aisle now and give DEMs a majority in the House, then good.

Otherwise, why would we want these gutless wonders?

[global1]

9. It's Part Of Their Plan.......

they created the Tea Party so they could do this. Slowly infiltrate. Long range strategery. Take over the Dem Party.

[Oilwellian]

27. I would say they've already done that

and are now in leadership positions.

[CrispyQ]

87. I don't think the repubs planned it. I think they lost control of the baggers.

A classic Horsey.



They can't win without them, so they will defect to the dem party, which has been drifting to the right since Reagan poked fun at the word liberal & dem leadership backed away from it. Most of the democratic party is on the gravy train. They throw a few more crumbs our way than the repubs, but they have no intention of getting off the train or stopping it.

[ancianita]

10. Never trust these switchers until they've developed a progressive track record. Period.

It's not beyond the tactics of Republicans to have a network of DINO's in high places who can rig all kinds of voting apparatuses to fail.

[zeemike]

19. That was my thought too.

When I read that the former Republican Governor would be running as a Democrat...so Florida will have a choice between bat shit crazy tea bagger or a Republican is sheep clothing.

[cui bono]

44. And we're already way to close to that scenario in a presidential race for my comfort. n/t

[TBF]

20. Where have you been?

If you think this is something new you haven't been paying attention. Obama is not the most progressive man on earth despite teabaggerati "Marxist" assertions.

[jsr]

35. +1.

[cui bono]

46. Hell, Obama is barely a Democrat! I never said he was progressive.

He throws out some social issue bones but he's pretty darn cozy with corporate America. That's my point, why are people getting so happy when R's are switching parties because theirs has gotten crazy? They're not switching because they now believe in the Dem Party principles. I don't see that as a positive.

[heaven05]

23. per OP

I couldn't agree more. More 'bluedogs' to work against progressives in our Party. Stay where you are, reform your own fucked up party of liars, extremists, racists and cheat.

[Blanks]

26. Until there is some mechanism in place...

To keep the huge piles of money from accumulating in politicians' pockets - our interests won't be looked out for anyway.

They're just doing what they're paid to do. Which party they're a part of just tells you where they're getting their money. Of course they're gonna support the issues that they're paid to support - that's the system that needs adjusted.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. After the (R)s fall apart the (D)s will split too.

It seems inevitable.

Democrats are plenty conservative enough for many Americans. Once the Teabaggers split off and slowly die off, the Democratic party will go through something similar. Liberals will need to split off from a Democratic party that is not liberal enough for our tastes.

Hopefully, the new party of the left will have enough support to be viable in the long term. I think it will. Conservative policies fail constantly. I think we can reclaim the mantle of FDR, Kennedy and even Eisenhower (who is a liberal compared to most politicians who are now in office).

Absorbing some (R)s who are not conservative enough for the modern Republican party is simply one step in the process.

[wildeyed]

32. Why the two party system sucks.

It does not adequately represent the diversity of American's political views. I can get with moderate Republicans on many issues, but at the end of the day, our views will be too diverse to co-exist in the same party. Just as Tea Party is too far right for most sane Republicans.

[mucifer]

34. Yeah and since the Romney funders are backing dems against the teabaggers they will

want a return on their "investment".

It's reallllly scary.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. Well, we can have a majority in Congress (by way of a 50-state strategy)

or perfect ideological purity but it will be a LONG time before we can have both IMHO. Getting a Blue Dog Dem or DINO from a red state vote our way 60-70% of the time is better than having a FLAMING Republican bagger vote against us 100% of the time is better IMHO. A lot of people here complain about the abandonment of Dean's 50-State Strategy but they also have complained about some of the Democrats his strategy helped elect- that gave us majorities from 2007-2011. Until we turn some of those red states bluer, if we want to have a majority in Congress, we're probably going to have to settle for some less-than-progressive Dems whom will nonetheless vote with us more often than not.

[Zorra]

40. The first thing many of them do is try to get the Dem party to be more like the republican party.

We have seen way too much of that here at DU already.

If they would just vote progressive Dem and ask questions and study for several years about what it means to be a Democrat, instead of insisting on transforming the Dem party into their ideal of what they want the republican party to be, they'd be welcome with open arms.

[geek tragedy]

45. You're right, our massive majority in the House means we should stop reject

anyone who now wants to join. There are already so many more Democrats than we need, as shown by our control of all 50 state legislatures and governorships, as well as our 75 seats in the Senate.

In fact, we should try to shrink the party and lose a few more elections in order to achieve ideological conformity.

We should go for the 17 State Strategy.

[cui bono]

47. You had me at "you're right".

My position is clear in the OP and I stand by it.

[sabrina 1]

67. So it's about 'winning' but not about issues them? Here's what we will do

as Democrats. We will welcome into the party as VOTERS. If they were stupid enough to belong to the current Republican party for this long then they do not have the judgement to be in positions of power. Taking failed people into your business, people with extremely poor judgement, does not make your business a success.

I will never support a Republican in any election. Slapping a D onto the their names doesn't change their core beliefs no matter what they say.

In fact I have more respect for those who stay IN their party and try to change it, than those who get slapped down by the extremists and then run to OUR Party where they know they can influence policy, because some people care more about fake 'winning' than anything else.

No to Republicans, yes to Progressive Dems period. We are trying to get the ones already in the party OUT of it, not bring more in.

[geek tragedy]

68. What you overlook is that they are politicians and will move left after

becoming Democrats, because they will have to win primaries and donations on the Democratic side.

Arlen Specter was a reliable liberal vote after becoming a Democrat.

Phil Gramm and Richard Shelby became a lot more rightwing after becoming Republicans.

Charlie Crist is a political hack without a lot of hard principles. That's to our advantage when he becomes a Democrat. Lots of flip-flops in the right direction. Is it sincere? Not terribly relevant so long as he helps the right to vote, expands Medicaid, saves the Everglades, etc etc.

[sabrina 1]

69. Oh please, now I trust them even less, if that is true. Anyone

who can be so easily swayed from what they have claimed to be fighting for for so long, is totally UNTRUSTWORTHY. It is worse in many ways than holding onto one's core beliefs. It means they have NO principles they will not give up in order to maintain a position of power.

WE WANT PRINCIPLED PEOPLE in power. We've done it YOUR way for so long now the country is a mirror of those tactics.


Is there some reason why you are not in favor of supporting real Progressive Democrats over cowardly Republicans whose judgement was so poor they stayed in that party so long as they could hold onto their positions, then, as you say, will now throw away all that they said they believed in in order to still hold on to their powerful positions, at our expense?

Let them VOTE for Dems. I will never, ever support a Republican no matter which party s/he belongs to. From now only Progressive Dems will get the support of every Democrat I know.

Arguing FOR Republicans in the Dem Party?? I would love to see you argue FOR Progressive Dems in the Dem Party.

[geek tragedy]

70. I trust politicians to behave like politicians. Start from there and you'll predict

the future much better, and be less disappointed at the same time.

The Democrats already get just about every left/liberal vote that is available. There just aren't enough of such votes to win enough elections to get those policies enacted.

[sabrina 1]

71. I expect Politicians to be ethical and moral. Sorry you

don't. We got what we expect and that is why the country is in the mess it's in because of this kind of 'message' from those who care only about winning.

Well, those days are over now for the millions who reluctantly held their noses and 'gave it a chance' and now see the results of that very flawed thinking.

Aim for the sky and you might hit a tree. Your way, just aim for the tree, and we know what that got us.

Maybe for some what's under the tree is really what they want, and the highest they are aiming for is that.

But for most Progressive Dems, we've seen ENOUGH. Those tactics won't work anymore, I remember falling them during the Bush years, now I see the mistake that was.

I will be aiming for the sky until we drag this government out of the gutter it is currently in for most people.

You do as you wish.

[geek tragedy]

72. Politicians get people to vote for them. It's what they do for a living.

Aim for the sky, and whatever you send up winds up falling on your head.

If this was a majority left/liberal country, your approach would make absolute sense. But it isn't.

[sabrina 1]

73. This IS a majority left/liberal country. I am not going to continue to

argue for the election of Progressive Democrats rather than Republicans here on DU. I can't believe I'm actually having this discussion here. I've had it, with the same talking point 'this is not a left/liberal' country eg, with republicans, but never expected to have it on a Dem forum.

My approach hasn't been tried yet, due to all the Third Wayers who weaseled their way into the party.

But the young and independent vote and the Progressive Dem vote, sees things very differently now that we have had a chance to see how these OLD policies you are pushing, have worked.

We Progressives are left/liberals who ended up supporting Third Way candidates under the illusion that 'winning' would get us what we wanted. So you count US in that 'we are not a left leaning country' lie. It IS. In every poll on the issues the US is Overwhelmingly a 'left/liberal' country. Half the country doesn't vote because the Right has taken over the electoral system, and that suits the PTBs just fine because when a majority of the country DOES vote, Progressive Candidates or those who pretend to be, win.

I don't support Republicans. Nor do I believe in the old cynical view that we can't win without filling OUR Party with them. Sorry, that old tactic isn't going to work and if this is what happens in the next election, we will have another 2010. Maybe that's the goal of these tactics, to help Republicans win by turning away Independents and young people.

[geek tragedy]

74. If this was a majority liberal country, you'd have 40-50% saying Obama is not liberal

enough and about 10% saying he's too liberal.

Instead, it's the other way round.

This is a country that voted for George W Bush in 2004.

[sabrina 1]

75. Um, this is NOT a country that voted for Bush in 2004!

Bush was appointed twice to the WH and was not elected legitimately to the WH. I assumed every Democrat at least, was aware of that.

Think tanks, Corporate Media and all the other tools of the far right Corporate world that buys and sells politicians AND PERCEPTIONS with their well funded propaganda, does not represent the FACTS. It is from those well funded think tanks we get the message 'this is not a 'left/liberal' country. You can spread any lie if you have enough money.

This is a Left/Liberal country. But the 'left' has allowed the Corporate world to control the message, up to now.

The internet and the results of the policies of those who stole elections and lied about issues, are now obvious to a large number of Americans and the results are that our Government is less popular than Satan.

[IronLionZion]

48. Where exactly?

because it makes sense to have liberals run in liberal areas and moderates in moderate or conservative areas. It depends on their core planks of their platform and other things like their judgement and character. This is a big country with all sorts of people.

If you can find liberals to run in conservative areas and win, go for it. Tom Daschle and George Mcgovern existed in South Dakota for some time. And John Edwards in North Carolina.

But if this is about Charlie Crist in FloriDUH running to defeat that asshole Rick Scott, then I can't even begin to describe how much I don't care. I'd support a ham sandwich in that election. Rick Scott needs to go. Also Scott Walker in Wisconsin and most other tea party extremists just need to go.

[cui bono]

49. In general. It just seems like every day there's another Republican switching because of the crazies

[gopiscrap]

51. yup

the Democratic Party should not allow anyone who has held pubic office as a Republican to run for office on a Democratic ticket. You just can't ever trust republicans.

[beachbum bob]

52. just plain stupid to say this

moderate republican politicians have no other choice and why limit democrats? I'll take Charlie Crist as a democratic candidate any day over a republican candidate and so should every one else

[sabrina 1]

66. I'll take a Progressive Democrat over any Republican, moderate or

otherwise any day and so should ALL democrats. Let them start their own party. If their judgement was so bad as to go along with that party for this long, they are not qualified to be accepted in powerful positions in any party.

Let them become dems if they want to, but NOT in Congress. They are free to vote for Dems, but Dems should not be voting for Repubs and we won't.

[dflprincess]

55. Thank you. nt

[DJ13]

57. No kidding

Those who are saying its a good thing only need to look at what the GOP has become after absorbing the Southern Dems back in the late 60's through Reagan.

They have been taken over by the John Birch Society.

[scheming daemons]

61. i want enough to switch to take the speakers gavel away from Boehner

That's a good enough reason.

[sabrina 1]

62. They should stay in their own party and try to reign in the extremists.

We have enough Dinos in this party already. They approved of the policies of Bush and that makes them undesirable in this party UNLESS they have acknowledged how RIGHT we were.

We need PROGRESSIVES in this party, not Republicans who are still Republicans, just not as bad as the manufactured TP part of their party.

[cui bono]

64. Yep. Especially since we still have a ton of leftover Bush appointees in various positions

that this centrist president didn't replace.

And on top of that he appointed moderates to SCOTUS after Bush put in young extremists.

I'm not too optimistic I tell ya.

[brush]

63. Yeah, we don't need them

Let them start their own party.

[BootinUp]

76. Another way to look at it

its going to be the best chance for progressives to make their case in a long time. You want to turn back Reaganomics? Convince them while they are listening.

[INdemo]

78. What do you mean it going to? ,,,,,,

Hell except for a few members of congress we don't have a real Democratic Party. The party was watered down years ago and all we have to represent us is bunch of Republican lites.
Take a look at all the Democrats that are willing to put Social Security and Medicare on the table for budget negotiations.(and that's just one example). How many Democrats do you hear standing up to the Repukes over the ACA.Hell some are even joining in using the same lies the Repukes are to degrade it.
They aren't Democrats they are owned by the same corporate $$ that bought the Republican party out years ago.
We need a real progressive party...And this notion that real liberals cant win is BS.

[jwirr]

79. Farther to the right - get a move on.

[gulliver]

81. It's a good switch to make.

And it is a reason to jump for joy.

[brooklynite]

84. How many R to D converts could realistically be replaced with an acceptably progressive "real" D?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. I only vote for progressives.

[backscatter712]

86. Better to have them inside the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in.

...as LBJ said.