1. Liberals already realize that very liberal candidates generally can't win. That's why they support more moderate candidates like Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, and Paul Hackett. Of course some people confused "outspoken" with "liberal". Someone like Cindy Sheehan would probably not be a good candidate.
That's true but we (I'll use to refer to my wing of the Democratic party from here on) also have to make concessions. In a perfectly balanced electorate, a Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman may elicit a challenge from the left and throw an election to the Republicans. Instead, we compromise on types such as John Kerry or the ones listed above (although I probably wouldn't include Feingold).
2. Let's look at the Socialist party of the teens and '20s. They didn't exactly do well electorally. Now look at their platform. Funny, most of that has happened without the Socialist party ever winning. That's right, by running on those issues, they entered the political discourse, and were actually later implemented by their opponents.
That's a point but you realize forming a splinter party would probably give a minimum of 10-20 years of Republican control. Additionally, I don't think a majority of the country would ever come to support your ideology the way that it eventually did in the 1930s (I don't mean in an insulting way.
3. The Democratic party may be the big tent party, however lets look at Zell Miller. Hehas a 96 rating from the ACU, supports the worst President ever, and while NY is subsidizing his state said that New Yorkers don't deserve to have a commission looking into why 9/11 happened and how to prevent it in the future, because such a commission would "be encouraging the terrorists". Crazy right-wingers like George Allen and Bill Frist had more moderate ACU ratings. Clearly Zell Miller is no Democrat, and anyone who doesn't understand that isn't a Democrat either.
Agreed. Zell Miller is not a Democrat and doesn't even come close to our ideology.
4. Suppose the Democratic party does as some "Democrats" suggest and move halfway between the current Democratic party and the Republican party. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this would quickly move the country to the right, and encourage the Republican party to move even further right
I disagree. Let's take a look at Bill Clinton. I think you and I agree he's from my wing of the Democratic party. In the 2000 election, Bush campaigned as a moderate and won. The reason the Republican party has been able to move to the right and win elections is because of 9/11 not due to Clinton's rightward-Democratic leanings.
5. What would happen to the liberals if they were completely abandoned as opposed to the current mostly abandoned? They would stop voting Democrat, they would either stay home or vote 3rd party. They would stop giving money to, volunteering their time for, and arguing in support of the Democratic party.
But would that by counteracted by the 11% of Democrats who voted for Bush and the moderate independents more likely to vote Democratic?
6. What would be the message that swing voters get? If the Democratic party were to move to the right, and like many "Democrats" on this forum spend more time criticizing the powerless left than the hard-right that runs this country, people would notice that even the Democratic party seems to think that conservative ideas are better than liberal ideas. The Republican ideology would win. However, the Democratic party would still be chasing the Republican party, and people would realize this and vote for the Republican party over the Republican lite party.
Speaking as one of the "Democrats" you mention, I post about an even number of liberal and conservative ideas. My liberal posts generally go unnoticed while my conservative ones are blasted and made more public by the likes of yourself, Progress and opebo (not picking on you guys).
7. What is it that "centrists" have to offer America? They seemed to all be behind the Iraq war? Thanks to them, Bush was able to invade a country for no good reason, hurting the war against Al Qaeda, hurting our credibility worldwide, and blowing several hundred billion dollars. I, like most voters, want real leadership, not someone who just follows ideas of Bush.
I personally opposed the Iraq War from the onset unlike liberals Hillary Clinton, Byron Dorgan, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.
8. The Democratic party has the public on its side on quite a lot of issues. 88% support raising the federal minimum wage. 65% support Roe v. Wade, and so on. On health care, many Democrats don't even seem to be in the majority here:
The Democratic party's problems are not where they are on the issues, but on getting their message out through the hostile media controlled by the right-wingers. The media would rather talk about anything besides the important issues. Bush went down in flames both times amoung people who said that the issues were the most important.
The reason that minimum wage isn't an issue is that the Republicans have been able to adopt a more moderate platform and not call for the repeal of the minimum wage (the opposite of what you're proposing the Democrats do). On abortion, pro-life activists are much more vocal than pro-choice ones which helps the Republicans overcome that deficit.
9. I leave you with a poll. NBC March 31st to April 3rd, 2005.
"Which of the following roles would you like to see the Democrats in Congress play? (A) Work in a bipartisan way with Republicans to help pass President Bush's legislative priorities so that we do not have gridlock. OR, (B) Provide a balance to make sure that President Bush and the Republicans do not go too far in pushing their agenda."
63% choose option B, stand up for what is right. Only 30% choose option A, help pass Bush plan.
http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm
That question is a bit loaded. Of course no Democrat (except maybe Zell Miller) wants to see all of Bush's priorites passed, as option A replies, that's why we're not Republicans.
Well-thought out points though, jfern.
