If republicans all became liberal and Democrats conservative would you switch parties?

[Joe the Liberal]

If one day you woke up and found out that overnight the republicans have all become liberal and the Democrats have all become conservatives would you switch parties?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. umm yes

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. That would be yes.

The name of the party isn't the thing that determines my membership...

But how they view the world, and how they take care of it.

[givemebackmycountry]

3. Joe, Let me ask you a question.

How high do you have to be to ask a question like that?

But, you are Joe the Liberal, so I love ya anyway.

[Bicoastal]

8. And hey man, what if women had penises and men had vaginas?

Would you, like, try to switch to dudes? Or would you stick with women despite their dicks getting in the way?*



*(Based on an actual stoned conversation I overheard in college.) :smoke:

[Hellataz]

4. I would go with the party that represented my interests no matter the name.

[LWolf]

5. Not if

Republicans became the faux "liberal" that the Democratic Party exhibits today.

[nakanishi oshi]

6. I would have voted for Lincoln, a liberal Republican, over Douglas, a conservative Democrat

and in fact liberal groups such as African Americans supported the Republicans when it was the more progressive/liberal party, sometime between the beginning of our nation until the early/mid 20th century. Then African Americans switched to the more liberal Democrats as the Republicans became bigots.

[Two Americas]

18. not quite

The Republican party was the liberal party starting with the time of the Lincoln administration up until the time of Teddy Roosevelt. The conservatives then gained control of the Republican party, just as they are today with the Democratic party. The Republican party between 1860 and 1910 gradually became more conservative, just as the Democratic party has over the last 40 years.

[karynnj]

29. I would suggest that the Democrats may right now be moving back

towards the left. Obama's budget has many things that are progressive and liberal.

As importantly, look at the nominees in the last two elections. In 2004, the initial front runner was Dean, then Kerry became the overwhelming favorite. Dean was perceived as a liberal, which is more significant than his record in VT in speaking of the direction Democrats were going. Kerry was in reality the most liberal with Dean had the most progressive platforms of the candidates who had a chance.

In 2008, the real choice was Clinton or Obama. The perception was that Obama was the more progressive and liberal of the two. The Clintons did not argue they were to the left - they argued there was not much difference. You can also look at the issues - in 2004, Edwards attacked Kerry in a late February debate for having a healthcare plan that was near universal - saying it was unaffordable. (His covered just kids) In 2008 all candidates including Edwards, who a very strong plan, all were proposing universal healthcare plans. In 2004, Kerry had a very strong alternative energy/environment plan but it was not as big an issue for anyone else. In 2008, every candidate sounded like Kerry did in 2004. The median position on all these issues moved to the left.

This pattern was not the case in 1992 or 2000, where Tsongus, Brown, and Harkin were all more liberal and progressive than Clinton or in 2000 when Bradley was far more liberal and progressive than Gore.

[TBF]

35. People may view Obama as more liberal than Hillary Clinton, but that does not

mean he is moving the party to the left.

[karynnj]

36. My point was that party itself (defined as the people who

say they are Democrats and vote in the primaries) have already shifted in the last 8 years or so to the left. My point was that they have picked the possible candidates they THINK are to the left in the last two years. In addition, the candidates' messages moved to the left - which had to reflect their perception that that was the party had moved in that direction.

As to what Obama will do - that is still to be seen, but the move to put money for healthcare in the budget and the call for a cap and trade carbon system are more to the left than any President since LBJ.

[TBF]

40. If they think the candidates they have picked hold positions that are more

left than George Bush, yes you are correct. If you would say most of those positions are left of center I big to differ.

[karynnj]

41. Left of center of what?

Dean, Obama and Kerry are to the left of Carter and Clinton - the last two Democratic Presidents. Are they to the left of Al Sharpton - no. My point was that both of these positions are NOW pretty dominant positions while in 2004 there were candidates with neither of these positions and there was FAR less public demand for them.

To say Dean, Kerry and Obama were merely "to the left of Bush" is rather an understatement and rather insulting.

[TBF]

44. Perhaps you consider it an understatement & certainly you are

entitled to your opinion. All these people are very status quo. Here is an interesting site where you can look at one objective analysis of where the candidates sit politically: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

You will like that they do have Obama to the left of many others.

[karynnj]

45. I've seen these - and I really have a problem with their metrics

In the first place, even the Democrats are not correctly positioned here. Chris Dodd generally votes with Kennedy, his closest friend in the Senate - yet he is placed more to the right than Biden, Obama and Edwards. He is actually to their left. Edwards was among the most conservative Democrats in the Senate and both he and Biden voted for the Bankruptcy bill. It is clear from the paragraph, that they cherry picked the comments and votes on Obama. Their explanation of their methodology seems pretty weak.

You might want to consider their bias and their motive - likely captured in the comment that Nader could capture enough Democratic votes to let McCain win. Their agenda is creating a third party.

Not to mention - as this is for 2008 - neither Kerry or Dean are there. Kerry was CONSIDERABLY more liberal than Edwards, Clinton, Biden etc

[TBF]

46. I consider everyone's bias and motive. My objective is to see people

elected who will do the most for ordinary folks (the 95%-99% of this country that is not elite). Of course people are going to advocate third parties if they feel their needs are not being met by the two main parties.

My concern after watching the past couple decades is that the Reagan "Revolution" set us back pretty far. I hope you are correct about people moving left, and I do think many "average" people are ready for some far-left ideas (universal health care, nationalization of certain industries etc...) but I don't think many politicians quite believe it yet, and similarly I'm not sure that the dem party is moving left. I'm still seeing too much compromise and rationalization of actions as "bi-partisan". It's not like republicans are bi-partisan when they approach us with their plans.

[WinkyDink]

7. Why did you bother? No, really?

[sufrommich]

9. What if Florida was cold in the winter and North Dakota

was balmy all year round?

[TexasObserver]

34. Then resort home values in North Dakota would be tanking!

If gravity made things float, would that change our opinion of Isaac Newton?

[sufrommich]

37. If gravity would allow us to float ,we could all air swim to

anywhere we wanted to go! I blame gravity for the mess we're in today.

[rpannier]

10. Yep

nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. No :^)

[RepublicanElephant]

12. if one day your spouse went nuts and started abusing you, then beating you...

...would you leave or stay?

[nevergiveup]

13. No way!

Once a Democrat, always a Democrat! If Ann Coulter becomes a Democrat then I want me some Ann Coulter. :rofl:

[Joe the Liberal]

15. Ah but remember we would be stuck with the Bush legacy........

and they would have Obama, would you switch now?

[Arkana]

14. NEVER!

Oh, wait. Yes. Yes I would.

[Catch22Dem]

16. If there's a joke here, I don't get it. Yes, I'd switch

Liberal first, Democrat second.

[w4rma]

17. Not if it was the definitions of conservative and liberal that switched.

Nonetheless, I vote in favor of progressive policy.

[nakanishi oshi]

19. Judging by the answers, ideology matters

I hear all this talk about "x candidate prefer pragmatism over ideology," but we all admit that we are liberals at heart.

I'm one who thinks ideology (progressivism) is key to achieving the goals that will put back this nation on the right track.

[leftstreet]

20. It's not happening overnight, but the Dems are becoming conservatives

The Repubs are lagging WAY behind though in going the other way. If anything 'overnight' happens look for it to be with the Repubs.

[harry_pothead]

21. Yes I would

Just like I would vote for Lincoln in 1860.

[hileeopnyn8d]

22. Joe the Liberal

Meets Jack Handy

[Juche]

23. Yes

[NatBurner]

24. in a heartbeat

[PurityOfEssence]

25. What, and order new embroidered bathroom hand towels?!

Are you daft, man?

[Ikonoklast]

26. Sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, too.

But I'll never find out.

Silliest OP ever.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. In fact, that used to be the case. Republicans used to be a progressive party

during Lincoln's time; on the other hand, it was the Jeffersonian Democrats who were like the Republican Party is today: intolerant, bigotted, hateful, divisive, authoritarian. To be sure, except for the slavery issue, I would step out on a limb to assert that today's Repukes are even worse than the Jeffersonian Democrats.

[rug]

28. If I woke up to find republicans have become liberal I would expect my cat to say Good Morning.

[sampsonblk]

30. Immediately (nt)

[karynnj]

31. Of course and, in the same vein, if

Brussels sprouts suddenly tasted like Chocolate and chocolate tasted like Brussels sprout - I would love Brussels sprouts.

I realize that parties change over time and that at one point we had the Dixiecrats - but the same people did NOT suddenly change. They stayed the same - and many even switched party, changing the Republican party for the worse.

[ccharles000]

32. yes

[TexasObserver]

33. If salt tasted like sugar and sugar tasted like salt ...

If salt tasted like sugar and sugar tasted like salt, would you still put salt on your popcorn and sugar on your cereal?

If we breathed water instead of air, would we live in the water instead of out of the water?



What is the point of playing your "what if" game? IF you have a point to make, make it.

[HughMoran]

38. Of course. It's the policies, not the politics

Since the Republicans are shifting back to the far-right again - I don't see this happening any time soon :D

[Pisces]

39. We are not "Star Belly Sneeches" the party that stands for my values gets my vote.

[Numba6]

42. 150 years ago I'da probably been a Republican... but not much since then

During the Civil War... when the Republicans stood for something good, for once (and possibly only) time

Probably through most of Reconstruction, until the North gave up on helping people

that's all I can think of

[LynnTheDem]

43. Of course.

It's the platform I believe in, not a Party name.