anyone here see the dems fracturing eventually

[freepcrusher]

On one hand you have dems like me - someone like Mark Warner, Brad Schneider, Andrew Cuomo, the Clintons, Obama to some extent, Hickenlooper, and Bloomberg (even if he's an indy). They are more what I call postmoderns. These people tend to have a more courtly demeanor and tend to get real legislation accomplished.

Then you have the ones who make me feel uncomfortable in the party. You have the Moveon.org, SEIU, ACCE, GoodjobsLA, Downwithtyranny! blogspot and various other rabble rousing organizations which I see as gaining some ground. I see them turning into a type of tea party of the left which could possibly hurt dems down the road. Two examples of this divide was the 2012 IL-10 primary and the NY Mayor primary this year.

[Flake]

I think it's just gonna be internet bloggers, nothing from them will fracture the Democratic Party.

[ElectionsGuy]

They'll go down to a low point eventually, but they won't fracture. No political party will just fracture.

[Flake]

I think it's just gonna be internet bloggers, nothing from them will fracture the Democratic Party.

What I mean by that, is that the Ron Paul activists were huge online saying "RON PAUL 2012!" and campaigning for him, even though he never won a statewide race (popular vote) in the 2012 primaries, though he did come exceptionally close in Maine.

I think internet bloggers are overestimating their strengths and I think that unless we all become either a West Virginia mayor or New York City mayor, with little in between, then we will see a huge split in the Democratic Party.

[IceSpear]

Unlike the Tea Party which dominates the GOP House caucus and has a strong presence in the Senate, there are very little if any Dem reps or senators that pander to the far left and constantly attack their colleagues for being DINOs. So no.

[opebo]

Haha, 'courtly demeanor'!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Obama realignment contributed to the uniting of the Democratic Party. Where Hispanics, not blacks, are given more preference. Having a Dem and governing is important, and governing, like Obama has done from center, is mainstream politics.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

A grassroots leftist movement wouldn't get the same ruling class bankrolling that the teafascists got, so sadly this is unlikely.

[Indy Texas]

A grassroots leftist movement wouldn't get the same ruling class bankrolling that the teafascists got, so sadly this is unlikely.

Basically this. Though you do occasionally find left-wing eccentrics among the very rich. In Texas, we had Bernie Rapoport, a somewhat eccentric Jewish financier who was a self-described socialist. But he mainly used his wealth to fund higher education and the arts; he gave relatively little money to political campaigns. If you're someone who believes wealthy people shouldn't use their wealth to tilt public laws and institutions in their favor, you're not going to flood political races with your money in an attempt to change the outcome. There was also J. R. Parten, a very liberal oilman who supported FDR and Lyndon Johnson; while his conservative peers like H. L. Hunt and Fred Koch helped build up a conservative infrastructure of think tanks and political organizations that persists to this day, Parten is more or less forgotten about.

[barfbag]

If Democrats were going to splinter, it would've been more likely during the Bush Administration. What splintering that might take place has probably already happened. During the Bush years there seemed to be a divide between the party. We had the Lieberman/Gephardt/Daschle/Graham wing of the party who supported labor, higher taxes to promote infrastructure and education, but also wanted people to have limited economic freedom while being somewhat strong on defense and understanding that not everyone is pro-abortion or wants gays to get married. Basically they were the moderate wing. Then there was the rising wing of the Democratic party consisting of Kucinich/Dean/Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Webb/Edwards/Biden/Sebelius who have the sole purpose of driving this country as far to the left as they can regardless of public opinion as we're seeing with the healthcare quagmire right now. They'll also say anything to get elected and re-elected and it doesn't matter what you think of them after the election. Some of them don't even care if you vote them out of office as we saw in 2010 because by the time you vote them out, they'll have made the government so big that they'll be given a job at one of the agencies they've created. The latter wing has won out. Where are the Liebermans and Gephardts now? Most are independents who lean Democrat but don't want to be affiliated with the party. Regardless of the these factions, there's one person who walks a fine line and her name is Hillary Clinton.

Interesting enough we're seeing the same thing happen a decade later in the Republican Party. We have the traditional Reagan Republican wing of the party consisting of McCain, McConnell, Huntsman, Christie, Rubio, Romney, Thune, Ryan, and the Bushes. They're being rivaled now by the tea party wing of Cruz, the Pauls, Bachmann, Perry, Barbour, Cheney, West, Beck, Palin, and Cain. Meanwhile Gingrich and Santorum walk a fine line. These people aren't the answer though. We'd be much better off following the lead of Huntsman and Christie. I predict that the tea party wing will win out and the McCains and Romneys will also retire or be voted out in primaries as happened to Gephardt, Lieberman, and Daschle.

This raises the question of whether or not we can see a large and strong Independent Party ranging from the likes of Chris Christie and Mitt Romney to the ideology of Gephardt and Daschle. I'd love to see a centrist part of that sort.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

. Then there was the rising wing of the Democratic party consisting of Kucinich/Dean/Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Webb/Edwards/Biden/Sebelius who have the sole purpose of driving this country as far to the left as they can regardless of public opinion as we're seeing with the healthcare quagmire right now.

LOL, is that supposed to be a list of liberals?

[barfbag]

. Then there was the rising wing of the Democratic party consisting of Kucinich/Dean/Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Webb/Edwards/Biden/Sebelius who have the sole purpose of driving this country as far to the left as they can regardless of public opinion as we're seeing with the healthcare quagmire right now.

LOL, is that supposed to be a list of liberals?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but did you read my general theory?

[Mister Mets]

There will probably be some fracturing. While enough minorities constitute a majority, there is a point when the many sub-groups want different things.

In recent decades, the descendants of various European Immigrants have shipped from the Democrats to the Republicans. So it's likely that something like that will happen in the future.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

If Democrats were going to splinter, it would've been more likely during the Bush Administration. What splintering that might take place has probably already happened. During the Bush years there seemed to be a divide between the party. We had the Lieberman/Gephardt/Daschle/Graham wing of the party who supported labor, higher taxes to promote infrastructure and education, but also wanted people to have limited economic freedom while being somewhat strong on defense and understanding that not everyone is pro-abortion or wants gays to get married. Basically they were the moderate wing. Then there was the rising wing of the Democratic party consisting of Kucinich/Dean/Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Webb/Edwards/Biden/Sebelius who have the sole purpose of driving this country as far to the left as they can regardless of public opinion as we're seeing with the healthcare quagmire right now. They'll also say anything to get elected and re-elected and it doesn't matter what you think of them after the election. Some of them don't even care if you vote them out of office as we saw in 2010 because by the time you vote them out, they'll have made the government so big that they'll be given a job at one of the agencies they've created. The latter wing has won out. Where are the Liebermans and Gephardts now? Most are independents who lean Democrat but don't want to be affiliated with the party. Regardless of the these factions, there's one person who walks a fine line and her name is Hillary Clinton.

Interesting enough we're seeing the same thing happen a decade later in the Republican Party. We have the Northeastern Moderate Establishment Republican wing of the party consisting of McCain, McConnell, Huntsman, Christie, Romney, Thune,Cheney, Barbour and the Bushes. They're being rivaled now by the Reagan Tea Party wing of Cruz, Ryan, the Pauls, Bachmann, Perry, Rubio, West, Beck, Palin, and Cain. Meanwhile Gingrich and Santorum walk a fine line. These people aren't the answer though. We'd be much better off following the lead of Huntsman and Christie. I predict that the tea party wing will win out and the McCains and Romneys will also retire or be voted out in primaries as happened to Gephardt, Lieberman, and Daschle.

This raises the question of whether or not we can see a large and strong Independent Party ranging from the likes of Chris Christie and Mitt Romney to the ideology of Gephardt and Daschle. I'd love to see a centrist part of that sort.

This is more like it. Notice I switch Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio with Barbour and Cheney because Barbour and Cheney fit more with the establishment wing and Rubio/Ryan fit with the Reaganite/Tea Party wing.

[stevekamp]

No, because after the 1888 adoption of the public Australian ballot, the two parties have statutory guaranteed ballot lines unless their vote falls below a very low threshhold.  In contrast, a third or fourth party has to qualify with a much larger number of signatures, and if they do, their candidate is the third or fourth versus the D and the R.  Duverger's Law says that in a three way race, number three is the tail wagging the dog.  Usually the tail is the third party, though Maine 2010 Governor was an exception (Independent 2, Dem 3).

[TNF]

No. You're more likely to see an independent, left-leaning third party rise up, I'd say. Maybe something building on the successes of the Sawant campaign in Seattle and the various left third parties with tacit support of the AFL-CIO if the Democrats continue to screw working people.

[Mechaman]

No. You're more likely to see an independent, left-leaning third party rise up, I'd say. Maybe something building on the successes of the Sawant campaign in Seattle and the various left third parties with tacit support of the AFL-CIO if the Democrats continue to screw working people.

With some Democrats now openly bragging about their "courtly demeanor" I can only hope so.

[CubanoTX]

I dont see them fracturing, but I do see them having lots of internal strife in the next few years.

Why do I say this, lets take a look dems do a good job of breaking people apart by issues abortion gay marriage immigration ect. Well right now no single issue is large enough where they cant come together, but eventually one group is going to get very large and it will cause them to shift focus to that group.

Example Texas Democrat party in 2006 Mexicans were 51% of the births so the dems focused on immigration reform things that the "hispanic" population would like thus vote for them. Well six years later white and mexican birthrate is with in 3 points dems back off now focus on womens health. Pissed off the mexicans now we see more becoming republican or not voting at all.

Long story short if the dems cant get all there single issue voters to come together there gonna have a rough time in the future