What would convince the Democratic Party to move left, in your opinion?

[jpgray]

Setting aside the question of whether you believe it is wise or necessary to move to the left, what would serve to drive such a shift? I'm not speaking of anything major, just a gradual nudging away from the right.

It's interesting to remember some of the beliefs on this over the last ten years. There are two I remember in particular. One group believed the Democrats were complicit, corrupt and cowardly. The idea was that only an economic disaster that enraged the people could compel a leftward shift. Another group believed the Democrats simply lacked the resources. We first needed majorities and the White House--once we won convincing victories of this kind, it would be seen as the time to move left.

These beliefs don't appear to be very credible at this stage. So what will it take?

(One reason for hope--public polling continually shows support for center-left views that enjoy no partisan support or marketing effort. When I say this, I'm thinking of broad public favor for ending the war in Afghanistan, passing a public option, equal rights, punishing the banks, etc. Often there has been no public campaign for espousing these views by any party--the public has decided such policies are a good idea largely on its own.)

[Demeter]

1. Fear

It's the only thing that penetrates the bubble.

[villager]

11. Yup. Large angry crowds in the streets. In their *offices*

n/t

[Demeter]

15. Just Got a Brainwave From Another Poster

Third party forms--all the unemployed, start running for public office...

Does that make the goosebumps rise?

[mth44sc]

2. As always

the money to get elected and the votes to get elected. Simple as that.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. And to elect the right (left-leaning) people...

[lunamagica]

31. Exactly. Instead of a third party, leftists need to enter into the Democratic Party

in enough numbers to make a change.

[Uben]

3. USSC justices

Gotta have em.

[Uzybone]

8. not just USSC, but lower courts too

you are 100% right.

The RW has a firm grip on justice.

[elocs]

24. You're not going to get them without Democratic presidents.

Although we evidently have people who believe there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, that a President Al Gore would nominate exactly the same kind of justices as a President George Bush.

[DeSwiss]

5. Our unanimity.

- A thing we're not known for.......

[Lucky 13]

6. Nothing.

Just nothing. That's all I got.

[PufPuf23]

7. Several ideas

1. Media breakup

2. Election finance reform including no more Citizens United and ideally publically funded elections with mandatory voting and airtime and $ given based on candidate petitions.

3. Voting reform.

4. Education as reality has a liberal and scientific bias.

5. Reduction of the military and MIC (where C is Congress).

[jpgray]

12. That's similar to my magic wishing list

1. Strict media ownership rules

2. Public financing for campaigns

3. Some form of instant-runoff voting

4. Reform of the Senate's anti-democratic structure

[Exilednight]

9. They will have to move far enough right that those of us on the left get fed up ...............

with their bullshit and creates a third party. Once they start losing elections due to left leaning third party candidates, they will finally stand up and take notice and respect our issues.


Before anyone jumps on me, this is not an advocacy for a third party candidate. I am just answering the OPs question.

[Uzybone]

10. LOL

[sciencewins]

13. When a Minority Group (Latinos/Blacks/Asian) become the Majority.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. That's An Unlikely Demographic Shift

Twelve percent of Americans are African Americans. Five percent of Americans are Asian. Sixteen percent of Americans Are Hispanic. According to projections, by 2050 thirteen percent of Americans will be African American, eight percent of Americans will be Asian, and thirty percent will be Hispanic.

[randr]

14. The just may grow one large gonad on their left side

and fall over.

[Mister Ed]

16. Any way corporate interests can make gobs of money off a leftward shift?

If so, the leftward shift happens first thing tomorrow morning.

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. Puppets...

...huge puppets, with grotesque papier-mâché heads of prominent politicians.

It's the only thing that's worked in the past.

[boppers]

32. *snort*

Don't forget the drumming circles!

[Clio the Leo]

18. Actual COUNTRY moving left ...

.... but I think it will. Give it a generation.

[FrenchieCat]

19. A fair and honest non-partisan "just about the facts" Media......

which we don't have, and probably won't ever get.

[PufPuf23]

21. A would go for a fair and honest Democratic leadership which,

"which we don't have, and probably won't ever get" in my life time.

The comes before the media, the Democratic leadership has since Clinton been complicit.

The GOP is a lost cause.

[FrenchieCat]

23. It is the media that draws the narrative.

The only thing that happens when POTUS has bully pulpit is that
most of it ain't televised! and whatever words he uses are twisted
for somebody's sick agenda. The GOP being a lost cause and boosted
by the media is exactly the point......so a lost cause doesn't mean
they vanish.....cause they are still there stopping everything via
filibuster.

[BzaDem]

20. Your first mistake was to assume that a WH+simple majorities in both houses can do whatever it wants

Your second was to assume a Presidential candidate who campaigned on ESCALATING a war would violate his promise to do so.

So rather than act all surprised every time something doesn't happen that you thought would happen, maybe you should ask yourself why you had such strange expectations in the first place.

[jpgray]

22. Were you surprised Obama signed a bill without a public option?

Were you surprised he made a deal with Billy Tauzin? Were you surprised he supported mandating private insurance? Taxing union plans won in lieu of higher wages? That's on health care alone.

If ever a promise broken would benefit everyone in the entire world, fighting Afghanistan to the nonexistent finish would be it. Am I surprised he didn't end the war? Nope. Were you surprised at all of the above?

[elocs]

25. Simple: to have more left leaning Democrats commonly elected to public office.

Until that happens, why would the party move left? After all, politicians like to be elected and reelected and they will resist anything that might cause them to lose, such as moving to the left.

[JoePhilly]

40. Agree ... if you want to move the government to the left ...

You need to keep electing the most left leaning Dems to every level of government.

Importantly, that means you will still have some Dems who, on the whole, are not all that left leaning. But in their area, they are the most left leaning you can get.

I hate the blue dogs, but in many of the places where you find them, they are as left leaning as we are going to get, at least for now.

But the more left leaning dems we add, the LESS power available to the blue dogs. Currently, the blue dogs hold the power because there are not that many of them and they can swing a vote in either direction.

To make that stop, you don't get rid of the blue dogs, you surpass them. You make their individual votes less relevant, and they will fall in line more.

Its a slow process. But it is really the only way.

[elocs]

41. Yes, if Blue Dogs lose they are likely to be replaced by Republicans,

not more left leaning Democrats. So in their districts they are likely the best Democrat we can get and their number counts toward the Democrats maintaining or keeping power. The dirty little secret is that Blue Dogs actually vote with the Democratic Party most of the time and Republicans never routinely vote with the Democrats. They are not the party of "NO" for nothing.

That more moderate to conservative Democrats keep getting elected rather than Liberal or Progressive Democrats should tell people here something. The message is pretty clear but people just don't want to hear it or believe it.

[AnOhioan]

26. Ain't gonna happen

Money talks....and the influence of corporate money...even more now thanks to the Supremes, means we have two parties...right and far right.

[Aramchek]

27. it has been moving left for generations. and will continue to do so.

tolerance, in all its forms, takes time.

[TransitJohn]

28. Centrists going back to the GOP. n/t

n/t

[Juche]

29. primaries from the left. Fear of an organized base. More orgs like the democracy alliance

Primaries are about the only effective thing I know of to intimidate a politician. It worked well with the tea party this last election on the right.

Also better leadership can help. Leaders who use influence to encourage progressive causes could get more votes. Harry Reid threatening the chairmanships of senators who side with the GOP would change some votes.

But fundamentally the people who benefit from progressivism don't vote or get involved and I think politicians know that. The poor, non-whites, the unemployed, the homeless, struggling single parents, etc all benefit from liberal economic policy, and all tend to not get involved in politics. Liberals and unions are active in politics, but disenfranchised people do not really get involved. That is why the GOP went after ACORN so viciously, ACORN tried to get disenfranchised people involved in politics and educate them about using and getting power.

Plus big money (sadly). The right has corporate donors and billionaires. But the left has labor unions, the netroots and its own billionaires. If politicians fear not being progressive means unions, the netroots and wealthy liberals (celebrities, people who got wealthy in IT, etc) will not fund them and will fund primary opponents that will work too. A problem with that (at least with wealthy liberals) is that you end up supporting progressive social policy, but probably not so much liberal economic policy.

[doc03]

30. Winning an election, we won the election in 2008 and went too

far left for the general public's taste and got voted out in 2010.

[boppers]

33. Voters who wanted politicians on the left are needed.

Sure, they may have center-left (as it's defined in the US, anyways, which is a far-right state) opinions, but it's not who they vote for.

[jpgray]

34. There's no question that's true

Part of it I think has to do with campaign cost--it is easier to raise money from the center than the left. If you want to win, "Let's move left" is a difficult row to hoe. Another part has to do with candidate quality, speaking outside of stances. Of course people can argue forever: are the leftist candidates marginalized, or are the leftist candidates marginal?

[jtuck004]

35. Goldman Sachs stops donating, and Dems must live on donations from low-income voters. n/t

Suggested http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/">here...

[niceypoo]

36. That which is coming

Will move it back where it came from

[TheKentuckian]

37. Ninja, hippie, double agent CEOs????

[tomm2thumbs]

38. someone with emotion and passion leading them, who speaks their mind without fear

[old mark]

42. I doubt it will ever happen....nt