How much of our majority's weakness is due to its tiny size or fractured nature?

[jpgray]

We're not lockstep like the Republicans, and we have strong factions within our party that disagree with each other. In fact we are much more a coalition majority than was the GOP. The plus side is that the majority of any dissent to the worst policies will -always- come from Democrats. The negative side is that there are enough skittish or conservative Democrats the the GOP minority is more powerful than it should be. If we insisted on purity, however, the best people in our party (Feingold, Kucinich, Conyers, Waxman) would not have the ability to engage in even the half-hearted resistance we have today.

Is DU so frustrated that we would prefer no resistance to too little resistance? Would we prefer a Democratic -minority- that was consistent yet powerless over a Democratic majority that has the power to resist, but doesn't resist enough? Is this lack of unity a failure of leadership, or simply the drawback to having a majority that isn't in GOP-style lockstep? What do you think?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Parties Can Always Do So Much With 51% Majorities In Both Houses And An Opposition President

Not much...

[jpgray]

2. But would you say we are weaker than a GOP majority of similar size would be?

Just because our party is not as lock-step united? And what would be the costs of attempting that sort of unity? Would we see much more progress if our majority were larger, or would it be more of the same? I'd argue that we would see some improvement, but there seems to be a lot of disagreement on that point here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. That's An Interesting Question And It's Early ...

As the party became larger it would become more diverse as would any organization. There would be more competing interests. The beef at DU is that the Democratic party doesn't think like them and act like them. What they ignore is that Democratic representatives and senators represent diverse groups of people and electorates and are expected to vote in accordance with their wishes. Any party that has members as diverse as


Gene Taylor:


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



and Charlie Rangel:



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


has to be....

[Sadie4629]

4. I think what you are talking about

is true of a slim majority of either party. I remember after the '94 "Republican Revolution" :eyes: one of the Repubs bellyached that it was easier to be in the minority, or something like that. It's easier, or more fun, or whatever to obstruct. And the Democrats did it, too, when they were in the minority. Remember all the judicial nominations that were blocked? The only things the Dems had to do to get the Repubs to back down was to threaten to filibuster. Remember all the empty threats about the "nuclear option?" It never happened, and our judiciary is better for it.

[Carolina]

5. our fractiousness

is our undoing.

Just remember we Dems had the White House, the Senate and the House in 1993! We had it all.

Very briefly. The repuke perfect storm of 1994 swept in their congressional majorities in 1995. They knew how to stick together -- no matter what -- to get power and then wield it relentlessly.

Dems won't learn. The old maxims hold true:
- divided we fall
- a house divided against itself cannot stand ...