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

[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.