But not going to happen .. the Democrats ...  know for a fact no matter how much they water down bills .. they will always attain the majority of the Liberal Vote ....

There are 3x more Liberals who are Democratic Loyalist ... than there are who are not ....

Even though the Democrats split ..... the majority of Liberals will still vote for the former/old party .... they will chastise/criticize them in blogs & other mediums ... but when they go to the polls the majority will still give the Democrats their vote ....

If you don't believe me just look at the pseudo 3rd party called the ... "Libertarian Party" .. those who claim to be part of these movement/party ... chastise/criticize Republicans ... but in the Polling Booth .. the majority vote for these same folks .. even though one of their own is on the ballot .....

A Proud Progressive!!!

by teron678 on 09/01/2009 05:25:57 PM EST

Even if*

A Proud Progressive!!!

by teron678 on 09/01/2009 05:31:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

But I wasn't talking about the mainstream of the Democratic party that waters down the bills,  I was talking specifically about the Libs revolting against the mainstream.

And the Progressives may still vote with the Dems on most bills, but they can make sure in committee and for passage consencus that thier concerns will not be arbitrarily dismissed by a broad Democratic party that "knows" they will vote with them anyway.  Libertarian is a joke and a very very small minority.  That's the main reason I titled a "TRUE" 3rd party.  However 60  Libs who signed plus the up to 105 is 13% to 25% of the entire representation of the House of Representatives, which is  a significant amount.  And they wouldn't have to cowtow to Democratic leadership, which might mean a lot to those representatives. 

 


by taotedali on 09/01/2009 05:50:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]

And also, trying to form a new party with fresh voices and faces would never work.  But since the incumbent has the advantage in their district and if they are performing the will of their constituents, that would be the oportune time.  Rather than running as an independent Like Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader or Joe Lieberman.  Starting from scratch is one of the main reasons the Green Party has never taken off.  Big lib creds, but no representation/name recognition/ or bargaining power.

That's why a split might work,  Instant bargaining power/fund raising ability,  and instant votes.  But a large contigency of Representatives would need to switch in order for it to be effective.   But the Progressives could run in the Blue Dog districts against the democratic party to keep them honest or at least expose their blatant corporatism.

by taotedali on 09/01/2009 05:57:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You make some excellent & convincing points I must admit ..

A Proud Progressive!!!

by teron678 on 09/01/2009 06:06:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"The Election Reform Party", has a good ring to it, it's self explanatory. All left leaning, the majority of the country, voters would at least take notice.  Of course  you could only use the name once...

by gbasin on 09/01/2009 11:42:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Didn't Rush Perot run on this platform in 1992 & 1996 ...... he did get lots of votes ... but didn't win any Electoral Votes ... anyways no one today has a chance of getting the amount of votes he got if they run on the same platform ... more people are way too partisan than they were in the  90's

A Proud Progressive!!!

by teron678 on 09/02/2009 03:04:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ross* .. had the fat slob in my head when i was writing this

A Proud Progressive!!!

by teron678 on 09/02/2009 03:06:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]