Yup...the schism on DU is deepening

[MisterP]

63. there's also different structures of leverage between the parties: the GOP is

well-defined since 1978/80: right-libertarians, big business, the religious Right, and militarists: each of these is basically their own camp, with resources, alliances, threats to depart, control of party primary balloting or infrastructure; GOP leaders are fractious, their voters lockstep: the party is shaped like a square or diamond, with the candidates running around in the middle
the Dems are built more like a grid--lots of levels as the "rows," lots of constituencies as the "columns": it brings together unions, a preponderant chunk of minorities, consumer and environmental protection, gays, people who know what it's like to actually be shot, a lot of veterans, the elderly, Constitutional-rights, antimilitarists, etc., and sets itself as these groups' only possible representative--and indeed there are even Senators who do usually represent these interests. However, since these constituencies have nowhere else to go, since the GOPers typically mock the very existence of these groups and the likes of Amash and the Pauls champion their causes exactly once a year (I counted), they have NO leverage. If a Dem loses, the Pub enacts bad policy; if a Dem wins, they often share ideology and interest with the Republican party and are free to enact the same bad policy. Since Tip O'Neil's departure (and he himself often conceded the necessity of the Cold War and its attitudes) and the NAFTA vote (almost half the Dems and almost half the Pubs voting against) we've seen the formation of a new political class: the Republicans tried to bring Clinton down by every means possible and damned him as a Red, but all his policy initiatives resonate with the Contract On America (which I've seen praised on DU). This class fights with itself harder than the Capitol did in the 40s-80s, and yet ends up swimming in sync on policy.