Do you think the sentiment to start a third party to the left of the Democrats is strong?

[Stinky The Clown]

I am espousing nothing.

What I am doing is reacting to a number of posts here on the DU and remarks I have heard from my more vocal liberal friends.

There's a fair degree of disenchantment out there. Health care is a serious issue. So are the never ending wars, Gitmo, bailouts, sellouts, this bipartisanship crap that will never work in this climate, and an apparent disdain by elected officials for them whut voted for 'em.

None of this adds up to rock solid, dependable support.

What are your feelings or observations? Is there a fertile ground for an actual, viable third party?

In all my years, I've seen and heard lots of third party talk from both sides. Perot was the most successful, but none of them were really viable, apart from being spoilers. My own view is that I'll never see a new political party in the white house or controlling congress. It will always be either a Democrat or a Repubican.

But what do you think? How do you see it? Is a more left third party viable?

[stray cat]

1. It depends on what their platform would be - they have to have independents vote for them

otherwise they just throw the election to the repubs.

[Ineeda]

13. a good platform and articulate leaders, otherwise

a 3rd party will just present opportunities for ridicule and yes, undermine the Dems.

[Frances]

35. Do you remember when Anderson ran?

I go back that far. Back then I thought a third party might work. But it didn't work then or when Perot ran (although Perot definitely helped Clinton win) and it didn't work when Nader ran.

I think it's best to try and have more influence in one of the major parties. Of course, I prefer the Dems to the Repubs.

[DaLittle Kitty]

57. Please When Youi Begin To Acknowledge That YOU/I Have NO INFLUENCE Over The Major Parties

Then you will have seen "The Light!" The major parties are ENTIRELY corrupt! Witness Health Care! That is the ONLY thing you need to "acknowledge... You will then no longer be naive.:)

[Frances]

95. There is a difference in the parties

Many of the Dems are trying to get a public option. None of the Republicans is trying to do so. Only Olympia Snowe is willing to consider it and she wants a trigger.

If McCain were President now and if the Repubs controlled Congress, we wouldn't even be discussing health care. We'd be bombing Iran and nuking Afghanistan and in a Depression as well.

[TheBigotBasher]

83. The real worrying thing is

Perot could have won except when he decided to play hokey pokey with the election.

His running and not running cost him support, but helped Clinton.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. 10% of the voting public? Depends on your definition of strong.

Ineffective and empowering to the 28% idiots, but arguably strong.

[Auggie]

3. A third party is viable, but not necessarily one that is more left

How about "more honest, more moral?" One that shuns special interest and corporate influence and works for people. That's viable, IMO.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. I guess I'm so in the tank that, to me, when I read "more honest and more moral" .......

..... I tend to equate that to more liberal! :)

But your point is well taken.

[Auggie]

16. That single-payer is not a viable option in a Congress controlled by Democrats

tells one a lot.

[Sebastian Doyle]

44. Maybe because the "Democrats" in control

Are not truly DEMOCRATS at all?

[go west young man]

39. Progressive is the word.

[Common Sense Party]

87. As my name suggests, I keep hoping for a party that has and shows

some common sense and tries to actually solve problems in a more centrist way...

But it ain't gonna happen.

[cali]

4. no. not even close.

[Orsino]

69. Nowhere close to close. n/t

[AllentownJake]

5. Both political parties will probably collapse in the next 8 years

If things don't improve in the country as far as unemployment. Running around saying a jobless recovery is a dangerous thing. A jobless recovery ensures a Republican comeback. After they fail, expect to see a populist movement.

If things improve we will go back to fighting about Gay rights, abortion, family values, or other nonsense social issues.

Whether that is a stable or good thing :shrug:

[elleng]

7. I doubt it, Stinky,

but it might depend on the reactions we hear to Michael Moore's movie. He's fishing for a populist 'revolution,' and if he can't encourage one, I don't think any can.

[AllentownJake]

11. Things aren't bad enough yet for a populist movement

People forget that FDR took office almost 4 years after the crash

[NNN0LHI]

8. About a half a million dip shits voted for Nader last election

They all post at DU.

Don

[elleng]

14. Nader has been correct about many things for much of his public lifetime.

Calling those who recognize this 'dip shits' is NO WAY to encourage a movement toward a better party.

[anonymous171]

42. In America, national 3rd parties are useless and ineffective

Nader should have run for a seat in Congress instead. That way he could actually help the American people out.

[elleng]

73. You may have missed this:

Nader's first consumer safety articles appeared in the Harvard Law Record, a student publication of Harvard Law School, but he first criticized the automobile industry in an article he wrote for The Nation in 1959 called "The Safe Car You Can't Buy."<6> In 1965, Nader wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, a study that revealed that many American automobiles were unsafe, especially the Chevrolet Corvair manufactured by General Motors. The Corvair had been involved in accidents involving spins and rollovers, and there were over 100 lawsuits pending against GM in connection to accidents involving the popular compact car. These lawsuits provided the initial material for Nader's investigations into the safety of the car.<7>

A 1972 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety commission report conducted by Texas A&M University concluded that the 1960-1963 Corvair possessed no greater potential for loss of control than its contemporaries in extreme situations.<8> GM executive John DeLorean, asserts in On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors (1979) that Nader's criticisms were valid.

In early March 1966, several media outlets, including The New Republic and the New York Times, alleged that GM had tried to discredit Nader, hiring private detectives to tap his phones and investigate his past, and hiring prostitutes to trap him in compromising situations.<9><10> Nader sued the company for invasion of privacy and settled the case for $284,000. Nader's lawsuit against GM was ultimately decided by the New York Court of Appeals, whose opinion in the case expanded tort law to cover "overzealous surveillance."<11>

Nader's advocacy of automobile safety and the publicity generated by the publication of Unsafe at Any Speed, along with concern over escalating nationwide traffic fatalities, contributed to the unanimous passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The act established the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and marked a historic shift in responsibility for automobile safety from the consumer to the manufacturer. The legislation mandated a series of safety features for automobiles, beginning with safety belts and stronger windshields.<12><13><14>

Activism
Hundreds of young activists, inspired by Nader's work, came to DC to help him with other projects. They came to be known as "Nader's Raiders" who, under Nader, investigated government corruption, publishing dozens of books with their results:

Nader's Raiders (Federal Trade Commission)
Vanishing Air (National Air Pollution Control Administration)
The Chemical Feast (Food and Drug Administration)
The Interstate Commerce Omission (Interstate Commerce Commission)
Old Age (nursing homes)
The Water Lords (water pollution)
Who Runs Congress? (Congress)
Whistle Blowing (punishment of whistle blowers)
The Big Boys (corporate executives)
Collision Course (Federal Aviation Administration)
No Contest (corporate lawyers)
Destroy the Forest (Destruction of ecosystems worldwide)
Operation: Nuclear (Making of a nuclear missile)

Nader speaks out against the Iraq War at a September 15, 2007 anti-war protest.In 1971, Nader co-founded the non-governmental organization (NGO) Public Citizen with fellow public interest lawyer Alan Morrison as an umbrella organization for these projects. Today, Public Citizen has over 140,000 members and investigates Congressional, health, environmental, economic and other issues. Nader wrote, "The consumer must be protected at times from his own indiscretion and vanity."<15>

In the 1970s and 1980s Nader was a key leader in the anti-nuclear power movement. "By 1976, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who later became allied with the environmental movement 'stood as the titular head of opposition to nuclear energy'"<16><17> He advocates the complete elimination of nuclear energy in favor of solar, tidal, wind and geothermal, citing environmental, worker safety, migrant labor, national security, disaster preparedness, foreign policy, government accountability and democratic governance issues to bolster his position.<18>

Ecology
Nader spent much of 1970 on his campaign to educate the public about ecology. Nader said that the rivers and lakes in America were extremely contaminated. He said that "Lake Erie is now so contaminated you're advised to have a typhoid inoculation before you set sail on some parts of the Lake."<19>

He also added that river contaminations affect humans because many residents get their water supply from these contaminated rivers and lakes. "Cleveland, takes its Water Supply from deep in the center of Lake Erie. How much longer is it going to get away with that?"<19>

Nader told how some rivers are contanimated so badly that they can be lit on fire. "The Buffalo River is so full of petroleum residuals, it's been classified an official fire hazard by the City of Buffalo. We have the phenomena now known of flammable water. The Cuyahoga River outside of Cleveland did catch fire last June, burning a base and some bridges. I often wonder what was in the minds of the firemen as they rushed to the scene of the action and pondered how to put—put this fire out. But we're heading in river after river: Connecticut River, Hudson River, Mississippi River, you name it. There's some rivers right outside of Boston, New Hampshire and Maine where if a person fell into 'em, I think he would dissolve before he drowned."<19>

Non-profit organizations
Throughout his career, Nader has started or inspired a variety of non-profit organizations, most of which he has maintained close associations:

Citizen Advocacy Center
Citizens Utility Boards
Congress Accountability Project
Consumer Task Force For Automotive Issues
Corporate Accountability Research Project
Disability Rights Center
Equal Justice Foundation
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Georgia Legal Watch
National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
Pension Rights Center
PROD (truck safety)
Retired Professionals Action Group
The Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
1969: Center for the Study of Responsive Law
1970s: Public Interest Research Groups
1970: Center for Auto Safety
1970: Connecticut Citizen Action Group
1971: Aviation Consumer Action Project
1972: Clean Water Action Project
1972: Center for Women's Policy Studies
1973: Capitol Hill News Service
1980: Multinational Monitor (magazine covering multinational corporations)
1982: Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
1982: Essential Information (encourage citizen activism and do investigative journalism)
1983: Telecommunications Research and Action Center
1983: National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
1988: Taxpayer Assets Project
1989: Princeton Project 55 (alumni public service)
1993: Appleseed Foundation (local change)
1994: Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees)
1995: Center for Insurance Research
1995: Consumer Project on Technology
1997?: Government Purchasing Project (encourage purchase of safe products)
1998: Center for Justice and Democracy
1998: Organization for Competitive Markets
1998: American Antitrust Institute (ensure fair competition)
1999?: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
1999?: Commercial Alert (protect family, community, and democracy from corporations)
2000: Congressional Accountability Project (fight corruption in Congress)
2001: Citizen Works (promote NGO cooperation, build grassroots support, and start new groups)
2001: Democracy Rising (hold rallies to educate and empower citizens)


In 1980, Nader resigned as director of Public Citizen to work on other projects, forcefully campaigning against what he believed to be the dangers of large multinational corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

[Blue_In_AK]

66. I am a proud dipshit.

I voted for Nader in 2000 because I knew Bush was going to win Alaska anyway (which he did by a wide majority) and "old" Al Gore didn't impress me at all.

I make no apologies for my Nader vote.

[elleng]

74. And you shouldn't, Blue!

:hug:

[dipsydoodle]

9. Yep

Steve Earle for President.

[lillypaddle]

10. I think it would be a mistake

at this point in time. I see a third party just splintering both parties, but mostly the dems. Maybe at some point waaaaay down the line. Your basic republican is going to vote repug, the hard core "base" is gonna vote Palin or Bachman.

[cliffordu]

12. I think it's a GREAT idea.

The I can join THAT party and feel more marginalized than I already do.

[cherish44]

15. Funny how they can twist a Olympic committee rejecting a bid from the city of Chicago

to EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD rejecting OBAMA! He really needs to lay off the bad shit, it's totally killing what little he has in the logic centers of his brain.

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. We already have one...

..we have four or five parties already -- the shortage is a shortage of labels.

Electoral politics as practiced in this country is the reverse of how it's practiced in Europe. In Europe you fight the election, then form the coalition. Here you form the coalition, then fight the election.

[enlightenment]

23. Exactly.

I would love to see more representation in Congress from the many parties we currently have, rather than the winner-take-all system that results in the ridiculous two-party politics that achieves virtually nothing and fails to represent most voters in a meaningful way.

The founders' wanted a system that worked slowly. They sure as hell got it . . .

[napi21]

18. Forming a third party now would guarantee a Pub win!

Hate them & their tactics as much as you want, the one thing they have going for them is that they're united! They stick together on every issue. If you dilute the Dem Party by creating a third party, all you'd be doing is giving strength to what is now a minority party.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. You're arguing strategy, whereas I was asking about sentiment

I'm not saying you're wrong (actually, I agree with you). But that wasn't the question.

[Toasterlad]

46. And As Long As People Wave the Republican Boogeyman, Nothing Progressive Will EVER Happen In the US.

Congratulations on being part of the problem.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. Without some major changes to the structure of our government and election system, we will never

see a third party come to power in this country. Too hard to break the stranglehold the other two already have on it.

As to whether people want multiple parties, I think yes a lot of people probably would go for it if there was a system in place to make it feasible.

[evenso]

21. I think the sentiment is out there...

but sentiment has to translate into an organization that can win election. To say progressives are disenchanted with the Dems is putting it mildly. The trouble is that the right has successfully muddied the waters of debate. They've sown in the minds of too many that "socialism" and "liberalism" are bad words, forbidden un-American ideas. They claim those on the left are "Marxist", the worst of all labels. At the same time, more and more people realize the right is out of touch with the issues that matter.

Progressives have to go on the offense and define the terms of the argument. Republicans are reading Mark Levin's "Conservative Manifesto", liberal Dems need a Progressive Manifesto. Liberals need the fairness doctrine too.

[CrispyQ]

22. Here's what I see in my crystal ball.

The few reasonable repubs will, at some point, come to their senses & realize that the zealots & racists are bringing them down & they will switch to the dem party. And why shouldn't they? Our party already has a good number of repubs in it! After that, I'm not sure. It would be nice if the true liberals of the democratic party splintered off & formed a new progressive/populist party - one that truly represents We the People. I'm dreaming of course. Our electoral process is so corrupted by big money that even if the liberals did splinter off, it's unlikely they would ever gain many seats. So we could end up with a DINO party, a zealot/haters party & a liberal party, with the DINOs taking the biggest share of the votes. Not exactly the kind of change I would like to see.

I'm almost convinced that we're going to have experience a complete & total collapse before we see significant change. And even then, there's no guarantee that that change will be one for the better. It could just as easily be worse.

[madokie]

24. I'm for strengthening our party first

such as Democrats being democrats and not repuke lite as I see many who are.

[WeDidIt]

25. A third party to the left of the Democratic Party would become the left's version of

Birthers, 912ers, Teabaggers, and other assorted nuts from the right.

[rucky]

27. I don't know how you can spend time on this board and come to that conclusion.

[WeDidIt]

28. I don't know how you can spend time on this board and NOT come to that conclusion

[rucky]

29. oh, I just read your sigline.

nevermind. call us what you want.

[Fearless]

31. Do you have examples or are you venting?

Is this about the Palin pregnancy? We were right, she was pregnant. Is this about HRC and the Democratic National Committee? She lost. It's over. Is it about atheism? Is Ben Nelson right then? Or something else? Help me out here.

[WeDidIt]

33. Both sides have their batshit insane conspiracy theorists and wild eyed ranters

The conservatives have Orly Taitz, the birthers, the teabaggers and such.

The left has Sibel Edmonds, 9/11 Truthers, Code Pink and such.

[Fearless]

50. Those aren't examples...

They are vague people and groups. They don't particularly espouse a view. Is there a point of view held by Sybel Edmonds, the 9/11 "Truthers", or Code Pink that you take issue with or is it just "the whole thing" and so on?

[WeDidIt]

68. They are examples of the extremes on both sides

and it is the extreme of either side that generally demand third parties.

[omega minimo]

36. Being on the wrong board?

:eyes:

[rucky]

26. Maybe we should make a deal with the wing nuts.

And create a third and fourth party simultaneously?

[DerekG]

32. A Conservative and Progressive party?

To replace the Batshit Insane and We're Not Batshit Insane Just Thoroughly Corrupt parties?

[LeFleur1]

34. Third Party?

If something isn't done to fix the party we have, a viable third party may appear. What happens if we just keep on supporting the one we have? Yeah, there are some good Democrats in Congress who mean well, and there are some who are bought off, the same as the Republicans are. The good ones are going to have to stand up and do more than just support the Democratic Party Label. The label should mean something. It should mean THE PEOPLE COME FIRST. I think people voting for the label is the way these bad Senators and Reps got elected.
We must be selective. If they don't work for the people they must be exposed. I'm more disgusted with Democrats who are obstructionists than I am with Republicans. We expect it from the Republicans of today. I didn't expect it from those wearing the Democratic Party label. It's a betrayal. I, and many others, expect more from the Democrats, and if they don't start producing, they will lose a whole bunch of voters who might not vote Republican, but they just won't vote at all. It's our Senators and Representatives works that count, not the label they wear.
And why the hell are they asking for money to pass a bill? It's their job and they get paid very well for it. No bonuses for production...except, maybe re-election.

[Fearless]

30. The idea is sound in theory however...

It would create a more parlimentary system in a non-parlimentary nation. In short, we would be less likely to get things passed the further left we go because we would still need to compromise in Congress with Democrats and Republicans alike. We do not have the kind of majority we need. Unfortunately, this is still a very center-right nation. Maybe in 50 years we'll get something better. But not now. Not with the reactionary Reaganites still lurking.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. I completely do not buy the "center-right" argument

The people are center-left. It is the government and elected officials who are center right.

And that gets us back to the question in the OP.

[Fearless]

49. Those with power are center-right. That is, sadly, all that matters in the end.

[freddie mertz]

38. We should at least consider it and debate it.

Obviously the party as it is presently constituted in Washington is not our side.

Some INDIVIDUALS are. But so far as the Senate and the White House are concerned, we have been ill-served at best.

They need to know they can't take our votes for granted.

The question is, how to do it?

A third party may be one way.

We also need a new movement AGAINST the corporate Democrats (including, possibly, the President), in the streets and from within the party itself.

[OHdem10]

40. Actually we could just be the Democratic Party and the DLC could

be a Party.

We would not have to go farther left. Just be Democrats
and work to find Democratic Candidates.

[anonymous171]

41. National 3rd Parties are a joke. A Local/Regional 3rd party would not be a bad idea though

It would have to start somewhere where a majority of the people supported progressive ideals and candidates. Maybe Vermont?

[dysfunctional press]

43. only among republicans.

it would ensure many electoral victories for them.

[Toasterlad]

45. It's Strong In ME. But It Is Not Strong In the Rest of the Country.

The vast majority of Americans are too apathetic and/or cowed by their corporate masters to grab the power away from the assholes currently running things.

[newspeak]

47. approximately 100 years ago

The Repugs and Democrats were in bed together. Nepotism and corruption was rampant and more and more people in this country realized that both parties were greasing each other's palms. The progressive populist movement was created. Places like Wisconsin and California, populism flourished. Giving a "heads up" to both parties that they better start listening to their constituency. And since that time, those things won by the PP have been disintegrating-like access to affordable education, labor rights, safety policies.

We need to take back our party-bring back progressivism. Instead of supporting the DNC, support the PDA for funding progressive democrats. I've always believed that when something is stagnant, it dies. And, that is what these politicians want to maintain. But, by maintaining this greedy, unregulated status quo, they assure stagnation of our nation. Pro-corporate policies have been continually maintained by politicians over the well being of the American public, be it repugs or Democrats. It doesn't matter who has the majority or who is president. It's always pro-corporate over the welfare of the people-we have had de-regulation, pro-business under Clinton, both *'s, and Reagan. Some of the worst harmful, predatory, deregulatory acts happened under Reagan. American Corporations that were in the black were ruthlessly taken over by the most corrupt, greedy sociopaths-these corporations were gutted, their employees laid off and then sold, some to foreign entities. During Reagan's presidency, there were many businesses that suffered bankruptcy. Remember, there was the junk bond debacle, and greedheads, instead of using their own assets to acquire companies, could use junk bonds; hence, they sacrificed very little or nothing.

I say, start focusing and donating to progressive Democratic candidates and elevating support to the PDA. Promote companies that promote healthy labor practices, safety and consumer policies. Businesses that participate and support their communities. Also, we need a broader public forum to monitor and call the MSM on their BS. There will be no progressive Democrats elected, when you have a very biased, pro-corporate MSM to shoot them down. Unless there is a sweeping grassroots movement. To me, the medias influence in "choosing" our leaders is disturbing. For they choose who gets highlighted and who is swept under the rug. They choose what little minute item they can exploit, and what big, corrupt story they can sweep under the rug. With the help of PR firms, they can create a character out of nothing but staged opportunities and bring down some who are more worthy or even heroic. Don't underestimate the power of the MSM. They have served their own business interests well.

[saracat]

48. Maybe, this is the first time I can recall BOTH parties are calling for it!

I am hearning more and more from both GOPers and the Dems as well as Indies.

[Bucky]

51. The old choice--should I do the laundry tonight or start sewing a whole new outfit?

Should I wash my glasses or start taking glass-blowing lessons at the local community college and in the meantime get by on drinking water straight out of the tap?

Not a tough choice.

[kenny blankenship]

53. How many nights of staring at a broken washing machine does it take

to convince you to get a NEW washing machine or to start sewing?

Sometimes a stupid snappy answer is just that.

[Bucky]

58. "Sometimes a stupid snappy answer is just that"

:)

[Junkdrawer]

63. Doesn't that depend on how thread-bare the clothes?

How leaky the glass?

:shrug:

[Bucky]

77. Absolutely. My point is, starting a 3rd party is takes a pretty high threshold

Progressives tried a 3rd party thing nine years ago. It didn't turn out so good for us. I think we're far far away from reaching the point where you give up on the Democrats.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. But somebody had to make those glasses in the first place

And sew that outfit. Washing it up does not create anything. Not everyone can take that tack or we sit in place for all time.

[woofless]

52. I do not think the senitment is strong enough

to start a third party that could succeed in advancing toward lefty progressive goals. I think the wish is there and that wish should be directed to taking back the Democratic Party. We need to pump up Labor. We need to take the little local seats. We need to build like the Pukes did. Workers so need to be awakened.

[shimmergal]

54. Alas, a party "to the left" of Democrats

will go nowhere. The language and too many people's thinking have been corrupted, so that if you say "liberal" OR "progressive" they think "socialistic" and then bad images.

A "radical center" party with real populist policies and rhetoric, "for the people first" would have a real chance.

Probably not in a presidential election first, but that's the best way to get publicity and build a movement. Meanwhile, try to elect some candidates regionally, up to and including, maybe, to congress.

The Perot movement in 1992 has some good lessons. anybody trying to bring about change with a 3rd party movement should study it, NOT the Greens or Nader.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. We already have a "left" party. The Greens. But, what the hell, the more the better.

[tritsofme]

56. I have always thought that a truly viable third party would have to start by electing members to

Congress.

Start by effecting legislation, then maybe after several election cycles you have enough members that a major party requires a coalition with you in order to form a majority.

That is the sort of model that we see in many other modern democracies, and I don't see why it couldn't work in America.

But to answer your main question, I doubt that any meaningful third party will emerge to the left of the Dems any time soon.

[flying rabbit]

59. I think if the repubs fracture first

along the lines of: down the road fucking whacko neo cons vs more old school conservatives, a fourth party may emerge from the Dems. Will this happen? I don't think that things have gotten bad enough yet to upset the status quo.

[Krakowiak]

60. Only with Instant Runoff Voting in place (nt)

[kentuck]

61. Without cutting off our noses to spite our face....

I would say a better solution may be to change a few Democrats. It won't take many for them to get the message. For many years, we have voted for Blue Dogs and conservative Dems under the excuse that they are better than Republicans. In fact, they are worse. Just look at our present majority in the Senate. Somebody will need to pay for their betrayal of Party principles. We don't need more Republicans in the Democratic Party and that is what they are. They need to be defeated. We don't need to start a new Party. We only need to clean up our present a little.

[grahamhgreen]

62. Green party

[mgcgulfcoast]

64. i doubt this will happen

mayber nader will run yet again and get .2% of the vote.

[Blue_In_AK]

65. If there were a VIABLE third-party option to the left of the Democrats

I'd join in a heartbeat. I would hope that some of my favorite Democrats in the Senate and Congress -- i.e., Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, and several others -- would make the switch, as well. I've been taken for granted as a left-leaning Democratic voter for 40 years, and I'm pretty tired of it. You put your faith in these jokers, and they shut you down every time.

[bvar22]

67. Third Party?

I would be happy is someone started a 2nd Party.

If the Democrats are successful at fucking up Health Care Reform, then another Party will have MY support.
ANY party whose Platform is Economic Justice for Working Americans will get my vote.

Economic Justice would include:

*Single Payer Health Care

*Pre-Nixon Tax Rates

*Broad and comprehensive Trust Busting (goodbye WalMart etc.)

*Fair Competition Legislation that would allow Mom & Pop (locally owned small business) to compete with the Big Boxes on a level playing field.

*Regulated Trade (no more "Free Trade).

*EFCA/ Pro-LABOR

* Reduction in Military spending by AT LEAST 50%

* End to Foreign Wars of Occupation

* Equal Rights, Equal Protections, and Equal Liability (NO EXCEPTIONS for rich, white War/Corporate Criminals)

[old mark]

70. Probably would only give the GOP victory in whatever elections the 3rd party

was in - it would take votes only from the Dems- they would still have their large center, but would lose more close elections. We are enough to get the Dems over the top in the close races, but not enough to run our own candidates, and evidently not enough to get much notice or respect from the "real" Democrats.

They will continue to use us when they need us and screw us when they don't.
3rd parties in the modern US are a joke.

mark

[emulatorloo]

71. Would most likely result in Republican control of everything. LIke when we had Bushco n'/t

[Jennicut]

72. Technically Teddy Roosevelt was the most successful 3rd party candidate.

He came in second to Woodrow Wilson.

[Bucky]

78. John Fremont did okay in 1856.

Within four years, his party wasn't even a "third" party anymore. But neither of the two parties today are likely to implode as the Whigs did.

[glinda]

75. Third Party is how we got Bush in the first place. Progressive Dem electing better.

[alsame]

94. Agree. I'd rather purge the conservatives out of the Democratic Party. nt

[LWolf]

76. Sentiment? Yes. Possibility? Not until

there is strong enough election reform to allow an equal playing field.

[Jim Lane]

79. More than 70 replies and no one mentions the key word: "Primaries"

If you have the votes to elect someone as the candidate of the Progressive Party or the Green Party or the Real True-Blue Democratic Party, then you have enough votes to win the Democratic primary and make that person the Democratic nominee. That way you don't fragment the vote and let a Republican win with less than a majority (see: Florida 2000).

We in New York got Al D'Amato as our Senator because of such a situation. Liz Holtzman would've been a great Senator, but D'Amato won with a plurality because of all the votes drawn off by Jacob Javits on the Liberal Party line.

Yes, winning a primary from the left can be hard. That's because huge sections of the electorate do NOT read DU and do not agree with a lot of what's written here. The obstacles to success in a primary, however, apply far more strongly to a third-party campaign.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. In theory yes, and not just on the left by the way

this is the best time for a third party to emerge in the US since the 1880s.

Now my gut feeling tells me that the GOP might be on its last gasp. At that point, as much anger as there is in the left, another party will emerge to replace the GOP... like it happened with the WHIGS, and at that point I suspect the DNC will actually split between their more liberal members and their less liberal.

My personal preference, not that this will ever happen... is for Proportional Representation to become the law of the land. At that point you'd have more than just two parties in the US.

[mzmolly]

81. No,

I don't stinky. I think Dems complain, it's in our idealist nature. But most of us are pragmatic in the end, thankfully.

[mmonk]

82. Yes. Circumstance prevents it. So the alternative is to take

the party by progressive interests. Maybe it can be done. Maybe not.

[waiting for hope]

84. Are you not referring to a second party?

As long as corporations have the ability to throw ungodly amounts of money at either party, there will never be a party for the people.

[eridani]

85. Been there, done that

I was a Green until 2004, when Kucinich asked me to join my local Dem party organization and talk to my neighbors. The process of voter canvassing cured me of the common left delusion that people are paying attention.

I have never known a third party candidate who bothered to buy the current list of registered voteds from the county auditor, let alone a third party who had precinct committee officers or a continously upgraded database of voters with ratings indicating probable degree of support for the third party. Hell, that stuff is hard enough as a Dem.

[saltpoint]

86. There ain't no critical mass.

Any third party effort would have to recruit and then field 9 folks for the starting line-up. Less than that minimum number leaves huge gaps in the field.

The next third party in the U.S., IMO, will be a new second party after the Republicans finally implode under the stress of having to placate the fundie nutbags.

[bridgit]

88. Oh sure there's the 'sentiment', but the game at that level seems played by point shavers...

I'm sure they'd love a wild card tossed in. That leaves the onus on any 3rd party; whether to the left of the left or the right of the right to be cohesive, resolute, communicative, pre-cognizant, and serious as a heart attack. Whoever wants it will need be grounded or prepared to wrestle it down there

[quaker bill]

89. The sentiment may stong

but few possess it.

[timtom]

90. Excellent debate

throughout this whole thread (with the exception of a very predictable nay-sayer. It wasn't the "nay" that they said, it was the way that they said "nay.")

I think that a safer approach is to try to effect election reform and take away corporate personhood.

Government subsidy of campaigns needs strong consideration, too.

[Le Taz Hot]

92. The momentum is definitely building.

As people become increasingly aware that Washington has been bought and sold with average Americans picking up the tab and getting nothing in return but job loss, insurance loss, and foreclosures, I think people are FINALLY going to get a clue that we've been had and the current system is hopelessly broken.

My dream is that Howard Dean will finally throw up his hands in despair, pull out of the Democratic Party (which has COMPLETELY ignored him) and run a third-party candidacy. He won't of course, but that's my dream.

[BillDU]

93. Probably not

The NSA will render you downsized.