Will Moderates of any stripe, have a political home in the future?

[Peacetrain]

I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately. The Republican Party has spent the last 28-30 years pushing all of its moderate members out of the party. Will the Democratic Party emulate that policy and try and push all of its moderates out.

If that happens will the moderates of both parties then form a third party?

I know the common thought is that the moderates of the Republican Party would move over to the Democratic Party. But I wonder if they would, or could for that matter.

Fifteen years from now, I can only imagine what the political playing field will look like.

[Deep13]

1. Democrats are the moderates.

We have no left party in this country. No one in power favors nationalized health care and no one in power has even suggested nationalizing the oil, gas, and coal industries, or the banks. No one anywhere has suggested that since productivity is doing well, then the reason so many are still poor is because we have outgrown a work-based distribution of resources. No one is critical of Israel. No one is willing to admit that Iran has damned good reason not to trust the USA.

[Peacetrain]

2. So you think the wings of the two parties will break away

and leave the middle of both parties.. will those middles the come together? I really think we are headed for a three or four party system in the future. I did not always feel like this, but the internet helps people find each other basically. So now I think multiple parties are much more feasible than they were say, 10 years ago

[truebluegreen]

4. Current Democrats--in leadership--are not the middle of their party,

they are the right wing of it.

And 3 or 4 viable parties will never happen in an electoral college "winner take all" system.

[Peacetrain]

6. Third parties have worked once?

Was that the Bull Moose party that elected Roosevelt and then he went back to the Republican party?

I really do not remember other successful third party's other than that. Money plays a huge factor. You are probably right. The two established parties would be hard to work against. Do most people then become independents and move the country hard right and hard left election cycle after election cycle?

[KharmaTrain]

12. Bull Moose Party Was 1912...

...Roosevelt was re-elected as a Republican in 1904 and in 1908 decided not to run again and supported Taft for the nomination. Taft won but over the next four year he and Roosevelt had a falling out. (Taft wasn't the trust buster TR was) The two fell out over the next 4 years leading Roosevelt to try to grab the Republican nomination from Taft...failing for that he formed the Bull Moose party. It finished second in that election behind Wilson. The Bull Moose Party would morph into the Progressive Party that nominated "Battling Bob" LaFollette in 1924 and 28 and later became part of the Democrats. IRC LaFollette's great grand son serves in the Wisconsin legislature as a Democrat.

The other day someone eloquently explained by third parties do fair well in this country. We have an adversarial system...you're either for or against...especially in this day in age. A third party, to have any effectiveness would have to find common ground with one or another of the parties and thus we're back to a two-party game. There is no third way...

Cheers...

[Peacetrain]

21. Thanks..

I have been reading everyone's posts.. my husband added that Ross Perot came the closest in 1992..for a third party challenge and he was still a distant third. Our third parties tend to be personality driven like a Perot.. and he fell apart in 96. I was responding to someone else that your system seems to let other voices have their day. Whereas we are at a stage that seemingly is working against itself not to. And the very people who usually bring our sides together are being tossed and tarred by both ends. Its a tough old row to hoe as we as we say in Iowa.

[KharmaTrain]

23. George Wallace In '68...

...he actually won states that are now solidly red. In '80 I supported Ted Kennedy's challenge to Jimmy Carter and briefly supported John Anderson but felt the threat of Raygun was too great and voted for Carter.

You are right...third parties are almost always personality driven with little infrastructure behind it. It's a romantic notion that some outsider can come sweeping in and turn the status quo inside out...it's another story about that actually happening. Any third party President would still have to deal with a Congress and Senate dominated by one party or the other and have to form coalitions if he/she were ever to get anything accomplished...they won't be able to rule by fiat...and then the "purists" will say he/she had sold out.

IRC Perot won 19% of the vote in '92...a large number and I'm certain he did more to help Bill Clinton win than Ralph Nader did to help dubya win in 2000...

Cheers...

[Peacetrain]

24. George Wallace.. that seems to be where the right

got that idea of embracing the racists in the Democratic Party as their own. I was not that old then, so my memory is a little foggy on that one..but that was huge shift. If I remember my history correct, Martin Luther King started out a republican. The Black community was very republican, and we did this switch. A shift.. that still stands today. Our Dixiecrats (I am a Democrat) went to the Republicans and the the A.A. community came solidly into the Democratic fold. You know if you just stop and think back to Theodore Roosevelt.. you would seem him as much more of a Democrat as we understand them today..and then Franklin shifting the party. It was quite the ride in the 20th century.

I need to dig out my history books.. and start doing some research.

[KharmaTrain]

25. The "Southern Strategy"...

...was Nixon's attempt to grab the "Dixiecrats" who had finally broken with the Democrats over the signing of the civil rights act in '65. The real shift of the racists to the republicans began with Strom Thurmond in '48...another third party candidate...who was pissed at the desegregation of the military...and then joined the republicans in the 50's. It all came together under Raygun in '80...the solid south that once voted Democrat was now solidly republican.

The irony is I bet 100 years ago many of us here would be more aligned with the republicans than Democrats. Woodrow Wilson was a racist (highly praised Birth of A Nation) and TR had ushered in the Progressive movement. African Americans were very loyal republican voters for almost a century as they viewed the GOP as the party that emancipated them and the Democrats as the ones who stood for supressing their voting rights. The pendulum began to shift under FDR and came full circle with Raygun.

Cheers and thank you for a delightful discussion...

[Peacetrain]

26. Have a good day

I am off to the gardens, great conversation.. Ahhh Strom Thurmond (so the third parties historically do not seem so much about change, as opposition to change.. hmmm never thought of it like that). Something to think about

[Drunken Irishman]

16. Teddy lost that election to Wilson (and it wasn't close).

Third parties can't work in the American system until you get rid of the electoral college. Since you need 270 electoral votes to claim the presidency, more parties would ultimately throw the election to the House far more often than not - since you'd have parties battling for the same base.

The 1912 presidential election is proof of this. Roosevelt left the Republican Party, formed the Bull Moose Party and then lost to Wilson 435-88 (Taft received 8 electoral votes). It wasn't close. It wasn't close because Democrats stuck with Wilson and the Republicans split their votes between Roosevelt and Taft.

Had Roosevelt never run, Taft stands a far better chance at beating Wilson than he eventually did. Imagine if Hillary decided to form her own party in 2012 and run as an independent - neither her or Obama would have likely won. Hello President Romney.

[Peacetrain]

17. I stand corrected DI.. but I knew he ran on a Bull Moose ticket

For some reason I thought he won on that ticket..but it was actually after he went back to the Republican Party..

So no 3rd party has ever had a successful run. Just have been ticket splitters.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. Pretty much. Really, that's what the Founding Fathers anticipated.

Even if people find quotes to suggest otherwise. The reality is, if they wanted multiple parties, they wouldn't have structured the electoral college in the way they did (needing a majority to win). When there are multiple parties, it becomes increasingly unlikely any candidate will reach a majority vote (either in popular or EV) because they're all vying for the same people. It's why some areas of the country have created a runoff election - you take a whole load of parties running, hold an election and if a candidate doesn't get a majority support, he/she is forced into a runoff with the candidate who came in second. I don't know if that could work at the presidential level, but again, you're right back down to two parties ultimately (and it almost certainly would remain a conservative/liberal faction - regardless if they called themselves Democrats or Republicans).

America was set up so that one or two parties would control the government - especially the presidency. At no time in its history has there ever been a viable three-party state (even during the era of the Founding Fathers). It is true, of course, they initially maybe didn't want parties - but even then, Adams, the second president in U.S. history, ran as a Federalist (so, the creation of political parties happened pretty quickly) and defeated Thomas Jefferson (who ran as a Democratic-Republican). In the early days, Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans were the two most influential parties in the country. Then Andrew Jackson won the presidency as a Democrat and for a time, it was the Democrats & Whigs who dominated the two-party system ... before the Whigs dissolved and the major branch of it became the Republican Party.

The two-party system is as old as our democracy. I'm sure they bitched about it then too. The only problem is that we don't have a government set up for third parties to succeed - especially at the national level.

[Deep13]

11. No, I think the capitalists will retain their grip on both parties. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. THe US electoral system heavily favours 2 dominant parties

In general, that's what simple "single candidate that gets the most votes in one election" systems do. In particular, a single round presidential vote favours that (as opposed to, say, the 2 round French system, where the top 2 of the 1st round are the only ones to stand in the next). That favours 2 parties near the centre who will try to do just enough to get 50% plus a bit of the votes (the electoral college does complicate that a little, admittedly).

With the presidency decided like that, that influences the voting for the Senate and House - it strengthens the 2 parties who have a realistic chance of winning the presidency (without that, there might be more likelihood of some regional variation in the 2 dominant parties, as you see in many parliamentary systems that still use the "single candidate that gets the most votes in one election" system for each seat). The dominance of money in the US system also massively favours the 2 established parties - they can direct central funds to regions to swamp any new movements.

The 'Tea Party' did look like it had the potential to break up the Republicans, but it seems to have been a short-term tactic by some party backers, rather than a movement that could genuinely establish itself. Perhaps the nature of Tea Partiers made it impossible for them to become a true organisation - since they hate government, they're pretty much against any formal organisation with long term goals.

[RKP5637]

27. I think we will eventually see 3 parties. I have no idea what the 3rd one will be, but

I talk with a lot of people that are fed up with everything, and just looking at the approval rating for congress, now 12% I believe, it's clear a lot of people are not very happy. To me, when it comes to $$$$$, many D's and R's are on similar turf. I wish the D party would get back to what it used to be.

[unedited]

3. not just the usa where moderates suffer

...in answer to the question, my opinion is that no - the way things are going moderates do not have a future.

Accelerating climate change, accelerating wealth inequality... these lead to extreme social conditions which in turn will lead to increasingly extreme social attitudes.

And the problem is that moderates are the ones who tend to want to negotiate, discuss, think... while the extremists not only have entrenched views which proclude even considering the possibility of any alternative opinions, because they're so fundamentally... I don't even know what the word is... convinced is not strong enough but it'll do for now... the fundamentalist extremists are so convinced they're right that they're prepared to do anything - lie, cheat, oppress, kill - to get their own way.

It's one of the things about the democratic movements and civil wars in North Africa and the Middle East right now that makes me want to F**KING SCREAM. There's massive sections of the people in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria who are tolerant, secular, moderate. And they're the ones who want to talk and discuss. It's the regimes ad the Islamists who don't want to talk, they want to control everyone else and kill anyone who opposes them.

It makes me MAD. We need the moderates to win, because they're our natural allies. But of course it suits our corporate-controlled states to have the extremists win, because it gives them the useful external threat which they use to keep their power in our societies.

A-a-a-a-a-a-r-g-h.

Moderates need to start kicking ass. It's gotta be time for 'be moderate, or get whupped'. The time for talking and being 'nice' and moderate with those who will only take advantage IS OVER.

(It's true but it also shows the trouble with the moderate position, we're too naturally opposed to 'behave or else' thinking. But it's time we woke up and got pragmatic about our moderation.)

[Peacetrain]

5. You make some really good points

"And the problem is that moderates are the ones who tend to want to negotiate, discuss"

If no one is willing to discuss, or reach across or try and negotiate, and everyone is entrenched in their positions, then if becomes a winner takes it all philosophy. That is what leads to violent confrontations The Republican Party are actually eating their own. They are being led farther and farther to the right with no way back.

If there is no one over there (on the right side) to reason or negotiate with, do we as Democrats or the Left then begin to devour our own and do the same.

I am not opposed to the extremes by any measure. They hold the soul of whatever party you belong to. I have often said they canaries in the mines, warning of dangers ahead.

But likewise, we cannot function with our moderates or middles.

Or as the other poster stated, do we basically redefine what the middle is and that middle is moving further to its extremes? (paraphrasing their post)

[unedited]

9. Extremely moderate? ;)

"They hold the soul of whatever party you belong to. I have often said they canaries in the mines, warning of dangers ahead."

This is true - the radicals, unsurprisingly lol, are the ones who find genuinely radical solutions to entrenched problems.

But those sorts of radicals are the people who genuinely believe in their philosophies as intellectual propositions, and genuinely want to acheive solutions. Those sort of radicals you can talk with, and learn from.

Part of what I see with US and UK (my own) mainstream politics, particularly although not exclusively the 'right' wing, is that there's developed an attitude of power for its own sake or power for underhand, unacknowledged motives. Large swathes of political society are now controlled by people like this. To these people, the extreme ideology is useful for doing things they aren't acknowledging is their purpose. The libertarianism of the 'ordinary person' is about freedom of the individual from state oppression. The libertarianism of the powerful is about freedom of the corporation from limits on their power to exploit the ordinary people. The two are subtley but significantly different.

But the op asks if the Democrats will follow the Republican route and become increasingly extreme. Funnily, that's how the Republicans try to paint Obama isn't it - as a dangerous socialist (man, socialism gets such a bad press - a 'bad press' being the reason... socialism isn't the opposite of capitalism, it's the opposite of selfism ffs).

But in mainstream politics the extreme left has lost, badly. Inevitably(?). Because the capital owns the means of communication.

So... to be fair... I think you're right in a way - it's not that the Democrats are more radical or less moderate than they were, but the centre-ground and moderate is now being presented as more radical.

In a way I guess my personal belief is not that there would be a 3rd 'moderate' party formed, but that it's more likely a genuinely 'extreme-left' party will be formed and the Democrats will become the centre - hoovering the centre-right and right-democrats.

In the UK (although I only just thought of this) ... hmmm ... we had the left and right - Labour and Conservative - and Thatcher (with the complicity of the press) whipped the rug from under the left wing's politics. The 'loony left' is now a stock phrase for anyone who opposes privatisation, or suggests redistribution of wealth is a principled idea. Labour, the left, became unelectable. It's not that their ideas were bad, but they opened themselves up to media ridicule with 'radical' left ideas, where 'radical' right ideas (privatise everything, deregulate banks, destroy workers' rights) were of course not ridiculed in the right-wing owned press.

So that's where Blair came in with a rebranding of Labour to 'New Labour'. He moved Labour to the centre (centre right in most people's views) and made them more appealing to the press. Shockingly(!) it was Blair who undid the rules about how much of the British media could be controlled by a single corporate body, which allowed Newscorp to expand massively here.

So the left-wing party moved to the centre, the right-wing party moved AWAY from the centre (as we're all finding out to our cost), the liberal-left minor party sold their soul for power... and the genuinely left-wing, the radicals and extreme left, they're PISSED at Blair because they've got no power any more - he sold them out big time.

...and the point of all that ramble is that we here are hopefully on the cusp of a new-left political body forming. So... yeah. I think maybe as the Republicans move to the extreme right, the Democrats will move to the centre-right, and that leaves space more a new-left body to cohese and form.

But the right wing own the media. And the internet. And that makes true left politics a VERY HARD sell to the population.

[Peacetrain]

19. Sorry I am so late in responding to your post unedited

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

I was giving it a lot of thought.. and rereading some of the responses from other posters in this op..
Even though we have the two different systems.. (and correct me if I am wrong on this, in the parliamentary system in the UK the party out of power is by its very nature will present the opposing view..and the views of the party out of power are given full review, and it goes from there )

Where as we "traditionally" have opposing philosophies in our two major parties, but try to work from common ground to pass any legislation (I put that traditionally in quotes because that is the source of so much angst here now..there is no working together on anything at anytime between the parties..even if a program the Republicans have proposed is brought up.. If it is brought up by the Democrats, the Republicans will vote it down.. hard to believe I know.. but my hand to God it is the new truth we live with)

While there are commonalities, it seems to me, that your system works better at this juncture at letting all sides have their say. We have gotten pretty darned dysfunctional

That was the original source of my op to begin with.. is have we in the US become so dysfunctional.. so unwilling to let the middle ground where ever it is at any given point in the debate have a voice.

And as some have so rightly pointed out in here..and you too..our middle ground has shifted. But the more I thought about that.. I think that would be true anytime. The middle is always shifting. It is not a static in place thing. So sometimes that middle has got to be very uncomfortable for either left or right.

But it has always been the place before this that we could start to actually work problems out. Now if everyone is so negative on those who are moderate..how do we start to work things out with the other side?

It is a mystery to me.

Again I apologize for being so late in answering you post..(It usually takes me a while to think something out..if I respond too quickly, it nearly always bites me in the butt.. )

[unedited]

38. lol no worries, thanks for replying at all!

Hey, thanks for the reply Peacetrain.

Politics is a weird old game huh. Our side of the pond is certainly less... I dunno... I mean we see the Republicans and the way they're behaving as... just plain rude. It's like they aren't entering into the spirit of 'the game'. If any of our opposition parties tried behaving like that - and technically they could, there's nothing in the rules to stop it, technically - but if they tried it the electorate would have them for toast. They'd be seen as childish idiots.

It really does mess with UK heads that your hardliners get away with being SO hardline. Nuts (no offense Republicans... but NUTS.)

[Peacetrain]

39. Your assessment of our opposition party

is right on target I have not got a clue what they will expect when eventually they do get back in power. All thing are circular here, and sooner or later, there will be another Republican President.

It is like like they have burned the crops and salted the earth on comprise unedited..

[Bluenorthwest]

7. What are the views that define a person as a 'moderate' in America?

nt

[Peacetrain]

20. I have thinking about this Blue

and it is a darned good question. I think the middle and moderates shift. They are in flux at all times. They are taking in all sides and redefining their point of view. So where they were 10 years ago, they are not going to be today, or will be 10 years from now

[Sunlei]

8. IMO President Obama has always been a moderate D

15 years from now I hope he's on the SC.

[DonCoquixote]

10. A very fitting quote:

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

[qualitybeatsquantity]

14. What is it they say about road kill and the middle of the road.......

Moderates are a major cause of the current problems we face today. The moderates are the ones who give validation and creditability to the ideas and laws from the RW.

If it were up to me and sadly it is not, the moderates would be out of the Democratic Party let them join the GOP because they seem to prefer their policies over traditional democratic policies, hell the moderates can’t even support the party platform.

Unfortunately we are stuck with moderates and others who are not really liberal or progressive and I will do everything I can to keep them out of office and replaced with Traditional Democrats.

[RKP5637]

28. Definitely, if we could get back to the "Traditional Democrats," it would be a

major step forward IMO. Today, I feel the D party is quite fragmented, just reading DU arguments it's quite clear ...

[SharonAnn]

35. Real moderates would never fit in the Republican party.

I think you're confusing the right-wing (conservative) or Blue Dog Democrats with moderates. They're not moderates! They're conservatives. The conservatives might be at home in the Republican party, but real moderates wouldn't be.

I'd would be satisfied with real moderates in the Democratic party. Though not as liberal as I might like, they could contribute a great deal.

And while it would be nice if our elected officials were all Liberals and "pure as the drive snow", that's now how politics works in reality. We do have to make compromises sometimes.

[unedited]

37. but what if...

...you're prepared to make compromises and the other side takes advantage and plays hardball?

That's what seems to happen with the Republicans and Democrats lately, at least how it gets presented in UK.

[leftynyc]

36. You want to ditch moderates?

Throw them out of the party? Would you like to invent some sort of test and have us all pass or fail it? And who will get to grade the test? You? You want to turn the Democratic party into a freeking sideshow that will never have any power to do anything except bitch from the sidelines. How very helpful.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. There would have to be PR

If there was proportional representation it might work.

[Peacetrain]

22. I think one man one vote is long past due

Direct elections would be messy for sure..but they would reflect more accurately where we stand as a nation

[millennialmax]

29. I hold many views that some consider moderate and some consider extreme.

I don't think left, right, or moderate is properly defined anymore.

[DevonRex]

30. It's not Democratic Party

that is pushing people out. It's people on sites like DU who fall for the bullshit of nutbags like Greenwald (who hates Democrats BTW). They are pushing people out who simply want to actually find out the facts before jumping on some bandwagon. The people they're pushing out aren't moderates at all. They just like to think before they leap.

It's really easy to join the madding crowd, the lynch mob. It's a lot harder to be contemplative and methodical in this climate. But that's my way. And I'm not going to change it for anyone. Even DU's madding crowd.

Who knows what the Republicans will do. They're stupid enough to elect people like Cruz who says he doesn't trust his own party.

[Peacetrain]

31. My husband and I had a long conversation about this last night

It seems to both of us, that we assume that moderates and the middle have the same defined agenda that either side's base would have. And that is where the bases maybe making their biggest mistakes by pushing out or not accepting the moderates. The moderates by their very nature will be fluid. Where they were 10 years ago is not where they are now.. and where they will be 10 years into the future will be a different place.

Moderates are in constant reevaluation. Its through them that we can have any conversation at all with the other sides base.

[DevonRex]

32. I guess. One of my Senators is moderate.

I knew it when I voted for him. But half the time I want to wring his neck. Kind of like I want to wring Harry Reid's neck, too. But they do manage to talk to the other side. Even though I often don't like the outcome, at least the logjam got broken up.

If moderates are pushed out, then blue dogs will certainly be out. And we're down to a third of the strength we have now. Unless they do one hell of a lot of work with education on the issues first. We're talking years of planning and preparation for each region, to change minds and hearts. Then massive GOTV effort. P

So far, I've not seen anything from those who want to get rid of the less liberal factions even mention what it would take to maintain a majority. They just believe that somehow, miraculously, conservative parts of the country will decide to vote for very liberal candidates. I have the feeling that they don't realize the backlash that will occur when their beloved incumbents are shown the door.

[Peacetrain]

33. I had this really great conversation with KarmaTrain

earlier in this op.. about third parties, .. just going back and forth sorting out the history of it. Well by the time we finished.. it sort of broke like the dawn that third parties..(when thinking about bases breaking away from their middles or moderates) seem to be more reactionary than revolutionary.. I had never looked at it that way before. People broke away and started third parties (not always.. looking at that bull moose party) but when you looked at Wallace and Strom Thurmond, Perot.. it was a run from their middle. They saw their moderates as moving too fast as it were.

edit for spelling

[Jamaal510]

42. +1

[Number23]

34. The loud, shrill fringe that squat in places like DU and FDL aren't scaring anyone away

Except maybe their families. The Repub fringe left and formed the Tea Party and only four years later have been much quieter and less influential.

Time will tell where the Dem fringe goes but I honestly don't think they will scare off any moderates. Look at how the left fringe gets treated at places like Netroots Nation. The reason they scream so loud to begin with is because they've neutralized themselves so effectively.

[Peacetrain]

43. It is almost nightmarish

to think of 15 % on either side, with bullhorns, trying to mow the 70% down. I don't know 23 I think the Republican Party is lost to its fringe. People are terrified on that side of the aisle to stand up to them.

[Number23]

45. Well, you make an excellent point

I think the Republican Party is lost to its fringe.

I agree that the Repub Party has been pulled even further to the right. To the exasperation and ridicule of the entire world. The more the Tea Party crows, the more furious the last few remaining moderate Repubs get and the happier Dems get.

The Dems still seem to be controlled by Moderates and on some issues they lean left and others, they lean right. Which hilariously, infuriates the fringers on both sides.

[Peacetrain]

46. You are right

Democrats tend to pick and choose among all points of view with a much stronger lean to the left.

I wonder if this next election cycle for the Presidency will be as entertaining as it was last time on the Republican side. I did not think people could be any off the edge or loonier in their views.. but they seem to have quite and interesting crop in the bull pen warming up..

[MineralMan]

40. Actually, it will not be the moderates who leave the Democratic Party.

Not a chance. In fact, the Democratic Party will grow in numbers through current moderate Republicans switching parties. The right wing of the GOP is pushing the moderates in its own party into the Democratic party, since we have a de facto two party system.

The leftmost edge of the Democratic party, nationally, will probably become even less influential. Many of them will leave the party and align themselves elsewhere or simply opt out of the process.

Right now, for example, Hillary Clinton is polling at about 73% preference among Democrats for the 2016 presidential nomination. Nobody else is even close. That may infuriate some, and apparently does here on DU. But being infuriated on Internet discussion forums does not influence the choice of candidates for office. Voters do that, and a 73% preference is fairly good evidence that if Hillary runs, she will be the candidate in 2016.

DU is simply not representative of national Democratic Party voters. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on whose opinion is being considered.

That's how things are, and I don't see any trends moving to change that on a national basis. While the Republican Party may be shifting further to the right, I'm not seeing evidence of any trend for the Democratic Party shifting leftward. Just the opposite, actually.

My opinion. The opinion of others might differ from mine.

[Peacetrain]

44. True that.. DU is not a Democratic Party Forum

The name can be confusing for people who drop in. Though I see a lot of impatience with moderates in this arena also. It is through that middle group that the edges can communicate with one another. It really is hard to govern with a group who refuse to even interact with you. I think what President Obama has been going through is a perfect example of that.

[cry baby]

41. Very thoughtful thread! Thanks, Peacetrain...and all other posters. nt