Should there be, could there be a Progressive Party in the near future?

[Burgman]

An honest question. As it seems that MOST politicians on all sides of the aisle have been bought and paid for, would politicians in this country who declared themselves other than R or D be any different?

Truth. Most people have a price.

Truth. There are "interests" in our country that have the ability and means to buy just about any fucking thing they want to.

Truth. The majority of people that get into politics today do so for financial profit.

Question. If there was a third party that at least paid lip service to those that hoped for justice and true equality, could they stand against the monied interests?

[TheWraith]

1. No, no, and fuck no.

The only thing third parties do is get Republicans elected. And anyone who still believes the massive tankard of bullshit that the two parties are somehow the same, or both responsible, needs to take a look at Nader 2000 and the Bush Administration.

[Frances]

3. Wraith, Great Post

The thing to do is elect progressived Democrats at every level, but especially at the local level and build up from there

[bluestate10]

16. I agree. Starting a party at the national level is a wrong move.

The national party move will set the causes progressives claim they fight for back at least a Presidential administration. President Obama is right, it will take his first term and his second term and likely the term of the President that follows him to undo the damage of that built up over the last 30 years, with most of it coming during the 8 years of Bush II.

The best option for those calling themselves progressives is to take over local democratic organizations and vet candidates that have progressive tendencies and who can win a general election. Also, develop strong, fact based arguments to defeat republican lies and other distortions.

[gateley]

66. My initial reaction was Yes! Thinking along the lines

of how the Democratic Party used to be. (Whenever I hear someone say "these aren't your grandfather's Republicans" I always think "they have nothing on us".)

But trying to make the change top-down is unreasonable and ultimately hurts us, as you guys have pointed out.

[WheelWalker]

100. Actually, I remember when a lot of Democrats were like George Wallace. Democrats weren't

always such homogeneous progressives/liberals.

[gateley]

109. Yeah, Biden mentioned that in his Esquire piece a week or so ago -- that the Dems used

to be a bunch of racist old men. Interesting -- I never knew that. My first recollection of a Presidential (or any) election was Kennedy. And since my parents were Irish Catholics from Boston, I grew up believing Democrats were the Good Guys!

[FarLeftFist]

21. Exactly, push the party Left through elections and public demand.

Edit: Which is the reason why I HATE when people say they're not voting.

[glinda]

37. No. But Progressive Dems should make themselves known by some preface like "Progressive"-Democrats.

[BlueMTexpat]

85. Exactly - but that isn't the point of posts like the OP.

They really aren't interested in the doing that hard work that is necessary at the grassroots level and that the RW evangelicals have been doing for years through their churches.

All they want is to confuse people.

[rhett o rick]

86. How exactly does the OP confuse people? nm

[BlueMTexpat]

88. They may think that voting for some so-called third-party progressive at the national level works.

All that does is to dilute Democratic votes.

The only way to change Democrats is to work for the election of progressives (I actually prefer the term "liberal&quot at the local levels and then elect them to state and national offices.

Either that or change our entire electoral system to a parliamentary system, which would require a Constitutional amendment and that's as likely to happen as the sky is to turn red. Even if, a parliamentary system doesn't always work as it should. The example is the UK, where "progressive" voters went for the Lib-Dems and then Clegg betrayed them, allied his party with the Tories and gave the UK the worst gov't it's had since the days of Maggie Thatcher.

[rhett o rick]

92. Many on the left see that they are being blackmailed into supporting a party that doesnt

support them. The problem with giving into blackmail is that the behavior will not change.

Besides it is probably moot anywayz. We dont have time to rebuild the Democratic Party. The strangle hold the overlords have is getting stronger by the day. OWS recognizes this. And like it or not, the Revolution has begun. It is a world wide revolution of the 99%.

Doesnt mean I am going to give up. I will fight to the end. But I will not give in to blackmail.

[BlueMTexpat]

96. I'm not sure why you feel that you are being "blackmailed."

That's a bit hysterical. The situation is what it is. It didn't get this way overnight. It will take a LOT of "overnights" to change it.

I saw this trend beginning in the 1960s, right after the JFK assassination, so it has definitely been a long time a-coming. People thought that I was "hysterical" then when I tried to tell my urban colleagues what was happening at the grassroots level because I came from rural roots and could see things first-hand. Finally, people like Howard Dean "got" it and in spite of taking a lot of flack from the DLC bunch, he began implementing changes at the grassroots level. It was his DNC strategy that won for us in 2006 and that helped Prez Obama get his majorities in 2008.

And yes, I am still thoroughly pissed that Dean, after everything that he had done, was shunted aside. But not so pissed not to realize that what he did was only the beginning of a long hard way back. It will take more than one election cycle to get things to where they should be. Dean and I are in the slog for the long-term. I suggest, in fact, that you check out DFA and you'll see exactly the kinds of things that need to be done - and that ARE being done. http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

[rhett o rick]

106. It is not hysterical. Instead of trying to win over the progressives with issues

like coming out against the pipeline or against arrest and detention w/o due process, the Democratic machine tells us that we better support Obama or we will be doomed with Newt. Win me with what you've done and are going to do, not threaten me with what will happen if I dont vote your way.

I support what you are doing and what DoA does.

[BlueMTexpat]

113. Thanks ... and hang in there!

There's a LOT of work to do -first, to get good liberals in at all levels. Then, once they're in there, to keep reminding them of what they are supposed to stand for - just in case they are tempted to forget about that once they find themselves Inside the Beltway.

But it is a lot like herding cats.

[ut oh]

102. +1

[BlueToTheBone]

111. Help us elect the most progressive Democrat to come along

in my lifetime
www.Aden4Arkansas.com
Please donate if you can!

[LaydeeBug]

6. While *we* got "Nader-ed" in 2000, *they* got "Perot-ed" in 1992. nt

[RC]

9. So, we are stuck with Republican and DINO (Republican Lite) then?

Something has to be done, 'cause what we are doing now sure ain't working.

[Old and In the Way]

36. If you have a Republican Rep or Senator in your district, work to get

a Progressive Democrat or
a Progressive Independent or
a Democrat or
a DINO

elected. If everyone did this, we'd have a dominant Progressive House and Senate and there'd be no roadblocks in seeing the most revolutionary changes imaginable starting in January 2013.

[bvar22]

72. The BIGGEST roadblock to getting Progressive Senators elected IS the White House.

SEE: Arkansas Democratic Party Primary, 2010
for just one example.

The White House gave its FULL endorsement, and directed Party assistance and funds to virulently Anti-LABOR Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln's failing primary campaign against a popular Pro-LABOR Democrat, Lt Gov Bill Halter.

Blanche Lincoln was publicly crowing about being personally responsible for derailing the Public Option and the Obama Agenda when the White House decided to send the Old Dog (Bill Clinton) back down to Arkansas to help rescue Blanche Lincoln!

Adding insult to injury, a "White House Spokesman" ridiculed Organized LABOR for "wasting $10 Million Dollars" by supporting a Pro-LABOR Candidate in a Democratic Primary!!!

I always knew we would have to fight Conservatives to get good Democrats elected at the local level.
I never fully realized how hard we would have to fight a Democratic President, and the Democratic Party Leadership to get good DEMOCRATS elected.

Arkansas was NOT the only state that had this problem with the White House in the 2010 Democratic Primaries.
Generally, Conservatives and Blue Dogs were supported,
and good Liberals like Feingold and Grayson were left twisting in the wind.

The only thing more nauseating than the White House performance in 2010
was the Democratic Party Leaderships Welcoming, Coddling, and restoring Power to Joe Lieberman after the 2008 season.

It is these things that make me say, "What's the fucking use"?
These people are way too entrenched.
I would rather dig in and start from scratch than HELP these people keep attacking MY Economic Interests.
At least I will die fighting evil.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Sheepshank]

77. no...you and this article are wrong

Some writers need take some fucking repsonsibility and realize they have a vote and they should be making sure that vote counts. The article does nothing except try to establish a "lets all fall on our swords" mentality and "no effort is worth the effort" in making their choices known. The WH doesn't take your vote away from you or anyone else....as the title suggests.

"I never fully realized how hard we would have to fight a Democratic President, and the Democratic Party Leadership to get good DEMOCRATS elected. " BULL BULL BULL

This is a cop out for not make a solid move as a united group to effect a change. A cop out, I tell ya!

[bvar22]

78. I was THERE. I SAW it in the Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010.

You can turn a blind eye, or Look Forward, or whatever,
but I was THERE.

I know that this is scary,
but go read up on the subject.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[rhett o rick]

87. bvar is right. The WH has not supported progressives. If you dont agree show

some evidence. It does no good to just yell BULL. The WH can help support in state elections. They seem to support conservatives over progressives. Can you spell Lieberman.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

91. In point of fact, you are wrong, and not the other poster.

The desire to be right doesn't tend to budge reality even an inch.

[Sheepshank]

112. WH does not dictate my personal choice...

WH doesn't stop me for casting a ballot the way I want. If your feel your vote is inhibited by WH rhetoric your are in a poor state of personal choice. You let someone/something stop you? reallly? Rather pathetic don't you think?

[rhett o rick]

90. You said it very well. But we must take back the Democratic Party.

They are entrenched but they have our infrastructure and I want it back. Maybe when Jeb Bush gets the nomination the WH will decide to move left. LOL.

Having said that, it is most likely a moot issue anywayz. We are seeing the capitalism end game which has tremendous momentum. I dont see stopping it by fixing the Democratic Party from the ground up. There isnt time. The power grab by the overlords cant be stopped.

[gateley]

68. As stated upthread, we need to build locally. It's not all or nothing. We can

turn this around.

[Old and In the Way]

10. I think you have captured the essence of the situation quite nicely.

I wonder if 50 people cutting and pasting your post on these kinds of threads would finally get the message?

Funny how all of these 3rd Party movements all start at the peak and never at the foundation of the political structure. If you've got no foundation, the house you build ain't worth a damn.

[eridani]

33. Like there's some deep significance to starting at the top

Only egotistical bullshit artists do thath. Every single progressive Dem (or independent) in Congress got there by running for very local office many years before.

[gateley]

70. Just a nudge to support Inslee for Gov (and I'm sure you didn't really

need the nudge )

I hate to lose him as my Rep, but I think he could do some good in Olympia.

[eridani]

79. Absolutely!

And McKenna is a disater on wheels.

[CakeGrrl]

14. Couldn't have said it better. -nt

[boston bean]

40. A third party candidacy helped bill clinton get elected. nt

[zipplewrath]

50. You might have a hard time proving that

Perot ran from the middle, which had the effect of pushing Clinton to the left. It also limited Bush I's ability to move toward the center, because Perot was standing there. It undermined Clinton's "third way/DLC" strategy (triangulation only works in a two party system). So it isn't clear whether it helped Clinton, or Bush, more. It may have been a huge nonfactor.

To the original point, third parties don't work in our system where it is effectively "winner takes all". Bernie Sanders has to make certain choices in the Senate if he wants to play along. So as "independent" as he is, he has to behave as a democrat. Trust me, there are many a GOP that'd like to have some ultra-conservative party so they didn't have to associate with the rest of the party. The Dixiecrats, or southern democrats, stayed in the democratic party up until about the '90s merely because they were in the majority party.

If there is anything for the progressives to do it is something similar to the moral majority/christian coalition/evangelicals, which is to establish a specific identity within an existing party that can influence them on a large range of issues. This is what the labor unions did for decades. It is what various ethnicities have been doing as well, from the cubans to latinos in general, as well as african americans. Truth is, the NRA has followed that perscription as well. IAPAC does this as well.

Progressives have relied for a long time on the labor unions for much of their organization. That's got to change. Move On, and several organizations started by various politicians (Feingold, Dean, etc.) have tried with very limited success. OWS had some potential. Someone needs to find an organizing identity that will be inclusive, without being oriented around a particular person or event. Some probably should have tried to organize mortgage holders.

[fascisthunter]

51. Well then, you better pay more heed to the progressives in your own party

instead of berrating them to prop up the democrtic leadership. Please send the message to the DC bubble world.

[amb123]

56. We Liberals/Progressives should heed the advice of Barry Goldwater

"This country in it's majesty is too great for any man, be he Conservative or Liberal, to stay home and not work just because he doesn't agree. Let's Grow Up Conservatives! If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let's get to work!"

Let's Re-Elect Barack Obama then build from the grassroots up in 2012, 2014 and 2016. It worked for the Conservatives, didn't it? Forming a third party is an admission of failure by us Liberals/Progressives.

Let's Grow Up Liberals!

[Bandit]

60. Did you forget about Ross Perot and a Democrat winning that election?

[jwirr]

64. You are correct. The only way to do this is the way the Tbaggers took over the rethug party. We

need to get active and influence the party. It took them a little while but they now run the rethug party. For the most part we progressives already have a good hold on our part of the party - now we need to increase it.

[Raffi Ella]

75. Thank You. So glad that is the first post under this trash OP.

I am a Democrat, thank you very much. I like my party, our history and am proud to call myself one.
It may be difficult at times and things change and people need reminding but I am a Democrat and always will be.

All the Ron Paul supporters and third party posts I've seen around here lately - frankly, I don't think they should be allowed to stand.

To me that is advocating against Our Party and I don't think you should be able to use Democratic Underground to spew such non sense.

[FarLeftFist]

2. There was one in the past. The Bull Moose Party. Teddy Roosevelt's progressive party.

EDIT: For wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_moose_party

[LaydeeBug]

4. I thought Bull Moose was Theo. Hmmmm, Thanks for that. :)

[FarLeftFist]

7. Edited.

[Frances]

5. And who was elected President when Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose Party ticket?

[Zalatix]

8. Teddy Roosevelt was originally a Republican

and far to the left of almost any Democrat we have today.

[FarLeftFist]

19. Yep. Teddy set the bar for Progressivism.

It was that year a giant fundamental shift between the 2 parties occurred. FDR continued his legacy. 2 best presidents in American history IMHO.

[quinnox]

11. I would love to have more choices

in the United Kingdom they have three major parties - the Tories, the Liberal Democrats, and Labor. It seems to work just fine there.

Four major parties would be ideal, besides the Republicans and the Democrats, maybe the Progressive party, and say, some kind of ultra conservative party to balance it out. The Constitution party or Libertarian party or something.

Instead of choosing between only two parties, having a choice between more philosophies would be awesome!

Editing to correct typos tonight, I'm all thumbs tonight.

[treestar]

15. They'd have to work together

and make compromises! That would result in widespread "disappointment" and cries of betrayal.

[bluestate10]

22. Clegg in Britain is a perfect example.

When Clegg was on course to eliminate labor as the head party in Britain, there was much joy and cheering on DU. Now Clegg is deputy PM and Britain has enacted some of the most regressive legislation since Thatcher reign.

[bvar22]

101. I don't mind "compromise".

But every time THIS White House "compromises",
the whole thing moves two more steps to The Right.
If it was "compromise",
then occasionally the Left would get something
to balance it out.

We aren't seeing "compromise".
We ARE seeing scripted Hostage Kabuki Theater
and outright capitulation.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[A Simple Game]

103. There are already more choices, at least in New York.

We have the Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Working Family, Right to Life parties, and many more. Most Democrats and Republicans run on at least two parties at the same time. A Democrat typically runs on the Democratic line and the Liberal line and sometimes on the Working Family line. Republicans run on the Republican line, Conservative line and the Right to Life line.

I rarely vote for the Democratic candidate on the Democratic line, that is what they expect, I vote for them on one of the third party lines. If they aren't selected to run on the Liberal or Working Family line they probably aren't worth voting for. Now if a Democratic party candidate get more votes on the Liberal line than they get on the Democratic line, do you think he/she would lean a little more to the left?

[liberal N proud]

12. A third party stands exactly zero chance in this current system.

Either party would crush any group that goes left or right of their current positions. And there is no chance of that changing in the corporate world which controls our nation.

[treestar]

13. Don't agree that they are "all bought and paid for."

There's no proof of that.

Why would the "progressive party" be any better?

[Burgman]

17. I think I kind of adressed that in the OP.

Until there is a monumental change in our election process I think we're fucked.

[treestar]

18. No reason to panic

We will make it just fine. We may even make progress.

More parties would just lead to a need for coalitions to form a government. Then there would be influence from the non-desired parties still.

[LoZoccolo]

24. You "think".

You better find out. And be able to tell us why.

[Burgman]

25. Yes, I think, I reason, I deduce

And if you feel that a large share of our politicians aren't bought off I have some land in South Florida I'd like to sell you.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

94. Is that so?

And why had the poster better do what you tell him or her to do? You'd better find out. And you'd better be able to tell me why.

[LoZoccolo]

95. I would assume it's better for him that people be convinced of what he's saying.

Right?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

97. I was addressing the tone you used with that poster, and not the poster's words. You know this.

[LoZoccolo]

98. And?

Welcome to DU3.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

99. So? And?

Thanks for the welcome, but I've been here a lot longer than you.

[LoZoccolo]

31. 0-6 with explicit jury nullification of third-party rules.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

At Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:50 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

I think I kind of adressed that in th…

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/? com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

This crosses the line between the speculation in the OP into advocacy.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:02 PM, and voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I disagree. If crossing the line from speculation into advocacy is against some DU rule, then you can call this an act of Jury Nullification.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Not different than the stuff you see from many longtime DUers. I suspect the poster is a troll, but this particular post is par for the course in GD.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't see anything disruptive here.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you.

[Burgman]

35. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.Were you "Juried?"

On this thread?

I feel you're a very bright person and hope you can enlighten me as to the above post as it seems to be way above my head.

[City Lights]

61. Yes, that is exactly what he's saying.

He alerted on your post and now he's sharing the results.

It's in poor taste, IMO, but not against the rules AFAIK.

[fascisthunter]

52. mind telling us why you posted this?

...and why should feel as if it is your job to monitor this website?

[LoZoccolo]

58. Mind telling me why you're asking.

Don't bother saying "you first".

[Burgman]

73. Are you trying to be obnoxious?

I'm no troll. I'm a life long Democrat and I really don't understand the reason for such ire on your part.

[LoZoccolo]

74. I don't care if you're a life-long Democrat.

You aren't a Democrat anymore if you'd like to form a third party with the intent to compete against it.

[dorksied]

80. When this country is reduced to a smoldering ruin, wrap yourself in your party pride...

will it keep you warm from the icy winds of fascism and destruction that will be ushered in as the democratic party is steadily pulled further and further right?

Every ideal that is allowed to be abandoned to achieve some compromise is a nail in the coffin of what progressives have been fighting for for the last century.

[bluestate10]

20. Most people here on DU don't appear to help fund campaigns.

What I am seeing is that some liberal democrats that have great chances to win are begging for $5 contributions. How can people that call themselves progressive allow such a situation to exists while they sit on the asses and parrot the "bought and paid for" Nader mantra?

[Zalatix]

30. Hmmmm, you do have a point there. n/t

.

[treestar]

44. In fact with the internet and the ability to spread out the message on an easier platform

They don't need to get themselves on television. Obama was noted for getting more small donations that added up.

So in fact there is a good chance that the "bought and paid for" by huge donors is going to have less effect.

And the chance to get people to talk about the issues too (rather than just vote for whoever has the best commercials and spends the most money).

[LoZoccolo]

23. No.

If you have enough people, you can nominate who you want in the Democratic Party.

If you don't have enough people, your third party won't work anyways.

[Burgman]

26. "Anyways?"

LOL

[LoZoccolo]

27. You won't convince anyone with these snarky replies.

Anyone can make them, regardless of whether or not they know what they're talking about. Arrogance can be a mask for incompetence.

[Burgman]

29. Yes, I am most likely incomptent. I may be snarky at times.

As to knowing what I'm taling about, I am only voicing an opinion which has come about through the reading of many news reports.

[TheKentuckian]

89. The influence might make some more people by applying a little leverage.

The biggest problem with most third party efforts is they draw too small an audience and often it know what the people attracted to the 3rd party want.

Now if a third went to a clearly less corporate friendly, more pro civil liberties, anti-imperialist, and strong on the general welfare platform there would be no bullshit about moving right to replace those voters and no plausible denialbility about what the voters want.
This would force "sensible centrists" and the like to shit out get off the pot.
No more hedging with the Turd Way.

[bhikkhu]

28. Not without a different voting system

In the one we have now, the three party problem has been pretty well documented. mathematically, it just doesn't work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/120.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_11_00.html

...for some material to look at, it you wanted to delve into just how badly it would work, and how inevitably it would work badly..

[Luminous Animal]

32. What do you think a "progressive"platform would be?

[eridani]

34. Sort of like what the Dems already have

You know, the one that our electeds except for the progressive caucus mostly ignore.

[stillwaiting]

41. Unfortunately they don't seem to ignore it so much as they actively work against it. nt

[joshcryer]

83. The progressive caucus is the largest caucus in congress.

Make it bigger?

[eridani]

114. Yes. We can't expect change at the presidential level unless we do that. n/t

[surfdog]

38. Wouldn't matter

Put Bernie Sanders in the White House , still wouldn't matter because the same Congress would be standing in his way

[AnOhioan]

39. We already have one....but I won't mention it here :)

[DeathToTheOil]

42. Isn't there already an American party by that Name?

Just askin'

[mmonk]

43. Our only hope for our lifetime is to either get the money out,

movement politics (which moves slowly), or a new political force such as a new political party or entity. At least that seems to be the forks in the road ahead if there are to be any.

[quaker bill]

45. No, however

there could ba a "reactionary party" in the making. Same concept, opposite direction. Neither would stand a serious chance, but a real "reactionary party" could pull 10 or more percent from the republican side. They could run on bringing back indentured servitude, child labor, stocks in the public square for offenders, the occasional witch trial, thumbscrews, prisons and workhouses for the poor.....

This would work.

[socialist_n_TN]

110. I would love that because that would make it easier

for a Progressive Worker's Party to form. And this would FORCE the Dems to account for it's progressive wing and not ignore it.

BUT it won't happen until the reactionary nuts form their own party.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. The last time a new major party emerged and stayed was in the 1850's as the country teetered on the

brink of civil war. I suppose if similar condidtions were to occur - it might be plausible. But as things stand now - we are locked into the two-party system.

[Marrah_G]

47. There should be a number of parties to choose from

There should also be shortened campaigns funded by tax dollars and no private money allowed.

Of course none of this will happen.

[Ferret Annica]

48. I feel that the more power Democrats get, the more they act like Republicans

I don't want to come back to the Democratic party, and I would like to see my party, the pacific Green one grow.

This is just my opinion, and it is up to the Democratic party to prove me wrong. I would have to see rules more open to expressing an opinion on this to say any more than this here. I always respect the rules of engagement in a venue like this one because it has earned my respect.

[rug]

49. If there isn't, or if the Democratic Party doesn't become it, there will be no electoral solution.

[comipinko]

53. A party that is not over-run with corporatists, would be nice.

With any luck, the corporatists can be run out of the Democratic party.

[Mosaic]

54. Yes Absolutely

You would need a libertarian party on the other side to balance each one out so each gets a potential 25% of the electorate. That would be fair for everyone, and give us a fighting chance to elect, at long last, powerful, bright, people loving Progressives!

[MineralMan]

55. Anyone may start up any political party he or she wishes.

Getting enough support for that party to make any difference in an election is another matter, altogether.

The Green Party has managed to put a few people in state offices. As far as I can tell, they're about the most successful third party on the left. Perhaps you should consider looking into that party. I'm sure they will field a Presidential candidate in 2012. For my part, I will continue working within the Democratic party, since I do care about the results of the election. Actually, the DFL Party, since I'm a Minnesotan. You can do as you please.

[NorthCarolina]

57. It is possible, and I for one would welcome it. nt

[Bandit]

59. Whether there should be or not, really isn't going to matter, there will be....

There is going to be a Right wing Party seperate from the Republican Party and there will also be a Liberal Party seperate from the Democratic Party. Isn't going to happen by the next Presidential election or maybe even the next one after that but within another Decade I would bet money two new Parties will be formed......And I think it is not a bad thing.....

[LynneSin]

62. You want a progressive party start from the ground and work up with the Democratic party

The local city council, mayors, county commissioners, state legislaturers that you elect could one day be your US Representative, Governor, US Senator or even President.

One of the biggest factor of winning one of the big 4 offices (US Rep, Governor, US Senate, Pres) is easy - name recognition.

Sure some mayor of a town in Utah wants to run as a progressive, guess what, he'll lose and lose big. How about running for US Representative or even US Senate - we all know Utah could use some progressives to help evolve that state.

Change starts with what you see around you. If we all picked 1 or 2 local offices and volunteer to campaign for them, we could make a difference in the type of government we'll see in DC in about 10 years or so.

[tavalon]

63. There must be

Unfortunately, until we make people understand that that most of them are liberal (as long as we don't label them), we will lose and lose and lose. But, if we can learn, as OWS has, how to frame the debate and get people talking about great liberal ideas like say WPA, Social Security and Single Payer insurance and unacceptable corporate greed and the horror of being unemployed, then, even if we lose and lose and lose, one day we will win and by we, I mean America and even the whole world.

Remember 2008? Some guy showed us that the little people could make their voices heard and that their small contributions could change the face of American politics. Unfortunately, that man hit his head and suffered amnesia, but remember the army of hopeful, ready for change Americans. We can tap into that again and this time, make sure we make good on our promises. There is untapped energy out there that needs to be harnessed for good.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Yes. Democracy is about the people having choices.

[saras]

67. Anyone supporting the spoiler effect is supporting, directly, the Repub's destruction of America

The two-party, winner-take-all, spoiler-infested system we have now is a miserable failure. If the Tea Party runs the Repubs into the ground, I could see them disappearing permanently as a party, the Democrats taking the conservative position, and a Progressive or Green party taking the place of the liberal Democrats.

But as long as the anti-democratic two-party stuff is wired into our system, we will continue to have Republicrats and Demublicans instead of legitimate choices.

But the first step is to fix the GODDAMNED spoiler effect. There is NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER in a nominal democracy that voting for a candidate should put the candidate with the most opposing views into office. No excuse at all. And I'm really sick and tired of nominal Democrats defending it as though it was anything other than corrupt.

It may be what's happening, but when you're being raped, a rape is what's happening. The only acceptance needed is the acceptance that THIS knife in THIS man's back will end THIS rape right now.

[MjolnirTime]

69. No.

[Better Believe It]

71. Should a radical mass socialist political party be supported by those who want to change the system?

[Sheepshank]

76. Personally...I think it would be as effective and popular as TEA group.

Anything smacking of extremism is generally a death knell. A majority of the general public floats in the middle and it's the talking points that gets the attention and the admiration. While there are sure to be very very loyal followers for any exteme, I don't think it is politically viable.

Although, I do suppose they could play a part in bleeding off votes which may become a determining factor in very close elections. Since Republicans tend to vote en masse, with the candidate decided for them, it would be more harmful to the Dems IMHO. I actually would love to see a third or even a 4th strong party that isn't an offshoot of existing parties...more of it's own platform and ideals shining through.

[joshcryer]

81. I predict that once the Republican party implodes, it if doesn't adapt...

...by 2020 or so we'll have another party seriously contending for the spot. Democrats too will have to adapt and it can go either way.

The Demographics are one way, whites will be a minority in a decade or so from now (projections are around 2020).

[T S Justly]

82. What's the potential for the Democratic Party becoming progressive? K&R (nt)

[karynnj]

84. It is silly to equate the Democrats and Republicans

Look at the votes on jobs bills, healthcare and other things. More than at any time in the past, there are two very different groups. In addition, the cynical statement that legislators are mostly "bought" is backed mostly by right wing "analyses".

You might want to look at what a REAL analysis of Congressmen's stock trades. Unlike Schweitzer, who is Sarah Palin's national security adviser, they looked at ALL the trades - and found that Congress did less well than passive index funds would have done. http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-14/bostonglobe/30516909_1_insider-suspicious-trades-portfolio

The fact is that most people elected to either the House or Senate were already successful at prior careers. Most of them could easily have made MORE money had they stayed in the private sector. This is more true the more powerful the legislator. (Consider that many are lawyers, who are also eloquent enough to have gotten themselves elected - had it been their choice they could have made millions as lawyers.)

[Martin Eden]

93. Only with INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING

There SHOULD be Third Parties.

The 2-Party system has not served us well.

But given what happened in 2000 in Florida, I will NOT vote 3rd Party unless Instant Runoff Voting is in place.

[Deep13]

104. Yes and no.

There really ought to be a non-capitalist alternative for people who don't want to be the wage slaves of an unsustainable economy.

It will not happen because the values it would espouse are antithetical to the present system of legalized bribery that gets people elected in this country.

[DirkGently]

105. Everyone loses when there are only two choices. See, e.g. "lesser of 2 evils" argument.

[Cleita]

107. Yes. We need to take the Democratic Party back to its liberal roots by

getting into the various power organizations behind it and changing the DLC policies which have become increasingly right wing. Thom Hartmann suggests it all the time, but we can't do it alone. It will take all of us to take back our party. It has been hijacked by the DLC and we need to change it back to the party of FDR and Kennedy.

[Hulk]

108. There should be.....

....not to replace the Democratic Party, but to nurture and support truly progressive candidates for office. If you leave it solely to the Democratic Party, we are going to end up with the mix of decent progressive politicians and old school repug-lites.

Like the Teabaggers, who support their candidates, WE need to be doing the same. We need to get organized. They are....we aren't.