There is no point to a third party on the left - is there any place for the very left in US politics

[old mark]

I see that there are 2 Senators who are not of either major party, Lieberman and Sanders, both Independants.
Most leftist third parties are insignificant,the Green Party it probably the most realistic option of all of them - they field actual candidates in over 30 states, actually get some delegates in Presidential elections. The Democrats use the left for votes because ther is nowhere else for the left to go, but they totally ignore real liberals and beyond when it comes to actual policy. We get some talk and that's about it.

Is there any real option for the very left in the US or are we just leftovers from an older time?

Personally, I see nothing that looks very good for us at all...


mark

[Syrinx]

1. I'm not very optimistic about the future

The recent Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate spending in our elections was another nail.

I've got a feeling that most of the tea partiers aren't really going to like the dystopia that they will be confronted with, but they've devoted themselves to achieving it. Congratulations, 'baggers.

We've got to take money out of politics, but it seems virtually impossible, from my vantage point.

[H2O Man]

2. I think that

an option with potential involves coalition efforts. The liberal-progressive wing of the Democratic Party coordinating efforts with the Progressive Left. In order to access political power, beyond being able to elect the "least rotten" choice between two very similar candidates, we need to be able to motivate and register significant numbers of people who are currently non-participants in the political process.

[OHdem10]

3. Since one-half (50%) of the people do not vote and these are for

the most part lower income citizens you are probably
correct.

With the formation of the DLC (focusing on appealing
to Business and upper income citizens) the Democratic
Party like the GOP has left a huge number of people
by the wayside.

It appears unless you have Wall Street and Business
Backing you can do nothing in this country.

I predict this Great Recession will leave a mark and
some type of people's party will develop. I do not
know if it will be a result of the Democratic Party
imploding or if it will be a third party separate and
apart. This globalixation crisis--responsible for
much of the job loss-- has not ended.

Just a thought.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

4. The kids' table is on the left

it's noisy, and fun.

But all the folks sitting at the grown-ups' table wish we would just STFU and eat what we're given. And be grateful for it.

Liberals are leftovers from an older time? Effective liberalism was a little before my time. Maybe FDR gave it a good run.

[old mark]

5. FDR and Truman were the last really effective liberal presidents, IMO...

don't see any like them waiting in line for the future.


mark

[Captain Hilts]

11. The prosperity they created killed progressivism. nt

[old mark]

28. I deliberately left LBJ out of this because he was IMO a part liberal;

he started a great many social programs that we rely on today, but I think mush of that was the legacy of the JFK assasination and the radical temperment of the times due to the draft.

mark

[mmonk]

6. There is a point or reason for one, just too many roadblocks thrown up.

[PinkFloyd]

7. Bill Maher said it best when he said this...

The Democratic Party has now become the moderate Republican Party of yesteryear. There is no real liberal Democratic party anymore.

[Lorien]

69. Or, "The Democratic Party has moved to the Right while the Republicans have

moved into an insane asylum."

[Warren Stupidity]

8. A democratic-socialist-green caucus within the Democratic Party

makes a lot of sense and would be the path to real change.

[Selatius]

15. I thought the Progressive Caucus was supposed to serve that purpose. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

45. it is. But we are unwilling to lose elections pushing our

candidates, so we have no clout within the party.

[KamaAina]

58. And the Progressive Democrats of America

http://pdamerica.org/about/what-is-pda.php

Progressive Democrats of America was founded in 2004 to transform the Democratic Party and our country. We seek to build a party and government controlled by citizens, not corporate elites—with policies that serve the broad public interest, not just private interests. As a grassroots PAC operating inside the Democratic Party, and outside in movements for peace and justice, PDA played a key role in the stunning electoral victories of November 2006 and 2008. Our inside/outside strategy is guided by the belief that a lasting majority will require a revitalized Democratic Party built on firm progressive principles.

For over two decades, the party declined as its leadership listened more to the voices of corporations than those of Americans. PDA strives to rebuild the Democratic Party from the bottom up—from every congressional district to statewide party structures to the corridors of power in Washington, where we work arm in arm with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. In just five years, PDA and its allies have shaken up the political status quo—on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Medicare for all, voter rights, accountability, and economic and environmental justice.

[Scuba]

9. Here's the platform for changing this mess...

1. America has been highjacked by special interests, corporations having "free speech" rights, etc.

2. We can take America back, without bloodshed or great human suffering simply by applying the Constitution.

3. Our candidates will take an Oath that a) we'll ban "corporate free speech" and b) we'll pass term limit and other anti-corruption legislation to hold future elected officials accountable.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Where's the Left in the US? In front of their computers reading The Guardian. nt

[Echo In Light]

12. The overall social conditions will have to deteriorate more before a lib/lefty party ...

Will have a broader appeal

A matter of when, not if

[Selatius]

14. The last time the US was in that state, it was called the Great Depression.

And when FDR finally did enter office, the oligarchs who crashed the stock market tried to have FDR overthrown and replaced with a pro-Hitler corporate dictatorship.

[stray cat]

13. One person one vote

[NorthCarolina]

26. However, that vote can be "corrected" by Diebold should that one person vote incorrectly. n/t

[WeDidIt]

16. The left comprises 1/5 of this nation, the right is 2/5

So the far left has to either be patient or just give up.

Sad, but the facts about the nation we live in must be taken into account. The only way to progress policy is incrementally. It's far easier for the right to move backwards than for the left to move forwards.

Bottom line, it's far more difficult to be on the left in this nation than to be on the right. On the right, you don't have to think, you show up and scream once in a while, and it pretty much goes your way. On the left, you work your ass off push for legislation, make thousands of calls, send hundreds of letters and in the end you get about a fifth of what you were working for.

[zipplewrath]

19. Not always so

Truth is, I'm not sure where you get your numbers. Most surveys indicate that it is a VERY left leaning country. Single payer polled very well. "Don't touch my medicare" is a given. Social Security is the "third rail". Leftist ideas are very popular. Leftists, on the other hand, have been demonized.

When there was the "democratic machine" in politics, there was a very strong (albeit corrupt) connection between who you voted for and how your personal life went. Even later with the rise of the labor unions, people understood that who they voted for was important to their own, personal, lives.

We've lost that. Between the demise of the machine, and the undermining of the labor unions, people have been disconnected from their politics. We've converted it into more about "the other guy's" personal life. The left is responsible to some extent for that. Between the establishment of labor laws that codified into law many aspects of labor that formerly demanded unions, to the acceptance and advancement of civil rights that forced many folks to think as much about "the other guy" as themselves. The right has take up that concept and made it about "the other guys" marriage, family values, medical procedures, etc.

I suspect that the rise of the left could be re-orchestrated if we could reconstruct the machine, only free of the corruption. Have a leftist in every precinct who is the "go to guy" when you have a problem in your neighborhood. Less connected with a politician, they'd help anyone of any political bent. But in the end, by their very actions, they would be the personal connection to the community and the government. They could demonstrate that by coming together, and working together, often using the instrument of government, they can address their own personal problems and concerns.

Got a problem with a water bill? Call the leftist, he knows where to get is straightened out. Problem with your unemployment check? Call the leftist, he knows how to get it fixed. Unemployed? Call the leftist, he knows all the job training programs, not to mention he knows several labor unions in town that will review how the job was lost, and whether it was legal.

Why couldn't the right do it too? They'd have to admit that it was about more than "personal responsibility" and that the government CAN help.

[WeDidIt]

22. Gallup says you're wrong

Conservative - 40%
Moderate - 36%
Liberal - 21%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideological-Group.aspx#

[zipplewrath]

27. Now remove the labels

When you put the labels on, you get these results. Now remove the labels, and just go ask folks questions about a particular issue. Single payer polled very well, when polled outside of party/ideological labels. Many other issues do as well, including worker protections. It's when you put the labels to them, that things shift.

It's a variation of the old stunt repeated by comedians and sociology masters candidates alike. Take a typed up copy of the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill or Rights, or some other similar document, and go out on the street and try to get folks to sign them (as part of a referendum, petition or something). Folks will not only turn you away (which can happen for many reasons) but those that actually read it can often launch into diatriabes about how you're a communist or facist or some other silliness. If you can get people actually down to content, they will often agree with the leftists. It's only when they believe (or suspect) that the idea is[/b[ a leftist idea, will they object.

[WeDidIt]

29. You cannot remove the labels

The labels are entrenched within the debate and it affects every debate.

I have no doubt that an incredible super majority of people would have supported single payer if you could remove the "liberal" label and let the idea stand on its own merits. Unfortunately, the media likes simple labels so everything gets labeled by them. I would also note that conservatism is the only political ideology that benefits from the labels.

[zipplewrath]

34. And from the current state of the media

"I would also note that conservatism is the only political ideology that benefits from the labels."

And from ignorance.

[WeDidIt]

36. I would contend that your addition to my statement

is the very reason WHY the media affixes the labels to every debate.

[zipplewrath]

37. Yup

Dumbing down, for the dumb.

[kctim]

33. Everything sounds great

until people are asked to pay for it. Single payer polls well until people are asked to pay for it. Hell, a public-option polled well but less than half of those supporting it were willing to pay for it.

[zipplewrath]

35. It was cheaper than this

They refused to even "score" single payer. And a robust public option was "scored" to show it was cheaper than what they ultimately did end up with.

[WeDidIt]

40. Yep, the math is too simple

There is only one way for the United States to bring health care costs in line with what's paid in the rest of the world and that's single payer.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about that fact.

[kctim]

42. A smaller paycheck

is not cheaper to anyone and history shows that Americans are not very trusting when it comes to how such programs are "scored." Perhaps the administration could have done a better PR job or maybe its just that the people are not ready for such a program, I do not know. What I do know is that the majority of people are not in the mood to bring home a smaller paycheck.

[zipplewrath]

43. It was to be paid by the top 5%

The primary funding in the long term was based in a great degree on removing the Bush Tax Breaks for the top 5%. Obama didn't want to fight for that.

[kctim]

49. Sorry

but there is no way they were going to be the only ones paying for it and President Obama knows that. You combine that with people not wanting government running their healthcare and you get the backlash.

Look, I agree with depa that it could have been presented better, but it wasn't. The people rejected the liberal position on healthcare this time and liberals should work harder, not quit the party.

[zipplewrath]

51. Obama rejected it

He rejected it (and bragged about it on Fox News) from the outset when he excluded single payer AT ALL, and negotiated in secret with Big Pharma. It wasn't a case of poor presentation, he abandoned it very early. He's a conservative democrat and it's time we all start admitting it.

[kctim]

52. He rejected it

because government run healthcare is something the majority do not yet want. Now, if some people believe it would be "great healthcare" and all these "savings" would materialize, then it could be said that the majority do not know all the facts because they have not been presented with them.

I will admit that President Obama is a moderate Democrat. That is why I voted for him afterall.

[zipplewrath]

53. Believe what you will

But the point is that it wasn't a case of "not presenting it well". He rejected single payer right up front, and bailed on a public option by July at the LATEST. Some reports had it being done in April. And claim what you will, but single payer polled very well.

[depakid]

38. It's all in how you present it

FACT is that Americans pay more- by far- both individually AND as a society at large than any other nation for worse coverage and often for poorer outcomes.

If a campaign compared the bills (and the bankruptcy risk- which is largely non-existent in other western nations) side by side with single payer- do you really think a majority would be against spending tons more of their money- and risk losing their homes to boot?

[kctim]

46. I don't totally disagree

but you cannot just ignore the other side of the "how you present it" argument.

Fact is that most Americans are willing to pay more for insurance because they do not want government running their healthcare. That number probably decreases with every premium increase and will eventually lead to the majority wanting government healthcare, but I do not believe we are there quite yet.

Yes, a good campaign would greatly help.

[zipplewrath]

54. Public option

The entire reason that many on the left were willing to accept a public option instead of single payer was because it was perceived that it basically couldn't fail (if given a chance). It was seen as the pathway to single payer, because it would be so successful that ultimately it would be the "singular" payer. It's why the insurance companies feared it more than anything else. It's why Lieberman oppposed it.

And again, single payer polled very well, and medicare is very popular, as is veteran's care. But keep up that "it's not popular" line.

[kctim]

59. Show me

an unbiased single payer 'poll' that says the majority of people are willing to actually pay for it and the "its not popular" line is no longer valid.

Until then, single payer is just like medicare and social security: popular until people are asked to pay for it. So popular that people cannot be given the choice to participate or not.

[zipplewrath]

61. Um, SS and medicare are WILDLY popular

I'm not sure what you are getting at because you just named two "third rail" programs that neither party wants to be accused of even "modifying" much less eliminating.

[depakid]

56. So they want EVEN WORSE and unaccountable insurance parasites running things

and charging them double?

I don't think so. But again, it's all how it's presented. Obama make them into pals- "not bad people" -when there are tens of thousands of horror stories out there that could have been mustered (which told me he wasn't serious about either bona fide reform- or anything like a public option).

He could have contrasted that with medicare and Medicaid stories- which by in large find people quite satisfied.

Less money, better coverage and care- and better service. Presented properly, what's mot to like?

[kctim]

60. I agree

whats not to like?

But, way too many people consider a government run program to be worse. That is why I agreed with you that it needed to be presented properly.

[depakid]

32. The vast majority of the evidence beyond shallow self labelling shows that's absolutely incorrect

by leaps and bounds.

As has been posted here countless times before

Here's how it breaks down on the sets attitudes, beliefs and values- reflected in positions on issues which makes up a progressive or "conservative" ("moderate" is meaningless here- as it is in real life).

And it's largely derived from credible data- as opposed to agenda driven corporations like Gallup- who are out to influence public opinion not reflect it.

The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth.

www.weourselves.org/reports/20070612_theprogressivemajority_report.pdf

Summary:

Conventional wisdom says that the American public is fundamentally conservative - hostile to government, in favor of unregulated markets, at peace with inequality, wanting a foreign policy based on the projection of military power, and traditional in its social values.

But as this report demonstrates, that picture is fundamentally false. Media perceptions and past Republican electoral successes notwithstanding, Americans are progressive across a wide range of controversial issues, and they're growing more progressive all the time.

This report gathers together years of public opinion data from unimpeachably nonpartisan sources to show that on issue after issue, the majority of Americans hold progressive positions. And this is true not only of specific policy proposals, but of the fundamental perspectives and approaches that Americans bring to bear on issues.

Nor is the progressive majority merely a product of the current political moment. On a broad array of issues, particularly social issues, American opinion has grown more and more progressive over the past few decades. In contrast, it is difficult to find an issue on which the public has grown steadily more conservative over the last 10, 20, or 30 years.

The issues covered in this report include the following ... The role of government ... The economy ... Social issues ... Security ... The environment ... Energy ... Health care...

In short, a look across the scope of American public opinion reveals a public that holds progressive positions and supports progressive solutions on economic issues, on social issues, on security issues - indeed, on nearly all the key issues confronting the country. For years, the conventional wisdom has maintained just the opposite, but the facts are impossible to ignore.

And there's more:

Pew: Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007.
Political Landscape More Favorable To Democrats

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf

Summary: http://people-press.org/report/?reportid=312

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Most Americans claim to be religious

But the polls in which people identify as being 'of faith' show far larger numbers than the reality, the actual numbers who are involved and active. So sure, lots of people pick a word they like to wear as a badge, but are they really what their promotion says they are? Do we see the results of all of this deeply held faith, in attendance, in the actions of the nation, in the way we treat the poor? No. We see all of that strong faith of the majority only in their words. Empty words of self service.
This is why polls that ask people to self identify like that are meaningless. The ones that show anything true speak in terms of policy, not labels.

[WeDidIt]

48. The problem is, policy ALWAYS gets labeled

That why the GOP drags shit out, They know that the policies in question will get labeled by a lazy MSM and that will always work in their favor.

I agree, on issues strictly related to policy, disregarding the labels and looking only at the policy questions will always show those policies that eventually get labeled "liberal" will be more popular. As the labeling sticks you will notice a marked decline in the popularity of the policy. We saw this through the health care debate. The public option was wildly popular. As the GOP drug out the debate, the labels got applied and the popularity declined. It was still majority opinion, but popularity did decline as a result of the labeling.

Dragging out the debates only works for the GOP because they get labels to stick. It's their entire strategy.

[Lorien]

68. Gallup-own by the GOP

check census figures.

[Lorien]

67. BULLSHIT straight from Faux.

As of 2007:

'An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be
eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered. Of
these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million
registered Democrats.
About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other
minor party or with a "No Party" designation.'

'An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be
eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered. Of
these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million
registered Democrats.
About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other
minor party or with a "No Party" designation.'

Since then the GOP has lost about 35% in new registrations while the Democratic Party has gained over 20%.

[KharmaTrain]

17. Sure And Get 10% Of The Vote...Maybe...More Like 5

Good luck in getting anyone elected in suburban and rural areas. While I won't go and cite the meme that this country is a "center-right" country, it's not "center-left" either...it vascilates between the two with the major political parties being the conduit for the majority that are in the middle. Since the rushpublicans have abdicated their role in reaching toward the middle, it's the Democratic party that fills that role...including with blue dogs and "moderates"...the people who give the party a majority.

Can a "very left" party exist and survive? Sure...but will it be able to win elections?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. I think about this a lot

I am very upset and angry with what I see as a complete sell-out of the Democratic Party to become the new version of the Republican Party. I want healthcare reform and I get Romney care, even though it was a completely Democratic bill without ONE Republican vote? Why didn't I just save myself time and aggravation and vote for Mitt Romney in the first place?

So I vacillate between: I will vote Democratic as always top to bottom and continue to get screwed
I will sit out to send a message that I can't be taken for granted and continue to get screwed
I will vote Third Party or write in and continue to get screwed

As mad as I am, I am starting to see that the Republican Party is starting to be taken over by certifiably insane people who could do serious damage to the country and individuals for decades to come. So, I think that for the next couple of election cycles at least I will to continue with option number one. BUT, still believe that nature abhors a vacuum and that as things continue to worsen for average middle and lower class Americans whose numbers will be swelling with the Nouveau Impoverished that a new party and leader(s) will arise. I expect this to come from Labor and I am very heartened to see the SEIU's efforts in North Carolina to get the ball rolling. I hope they give it a shot in some other states. Living Wages, Universal Single Payer Health.

Healthcare will CONTINUE to be an issue, because the "reform" that was just passed was little in the way of real reform.

[depakid]

20. The third party left is now the kingmaker in Great Britain

No one would have predicted that 8 months ago.

Also- one should consider that the progressive caucus is larger than the Blue Dog coalition. And it'll be proportionately larger still after the next election.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

21. It's my impression that the DCCC and the DSCC are doing everything

in their power to fund DLC types at the expense of progressive types, so it's interesting that you think the Progressive caucus will grow - how so?

[depakid]

23. The blue dogs are in the seats with the smallest swings- and thanks to their efforts

they'll lose several percentage points from people who won't turn out. POOF- they're gone.

Same with people like Blanche Lincoln- and likely Harry Reid.

The progressive caucus members are in seats with much wider swings. They'll still be there next year.

[dionysus]

24. third parties could be viable if we had european style IRV, but until then,

they just peel votes away from the party they are closer to in ideology.

[old mark]

25. In many states-such as here in PA-the law restricts the chances

of ANY third party making any impact - independents and third parties MUST present petitions of more than 67,000 valid signatures in order to get on the ballot, something even the Greens have a tough time doing...the GOPers and Dems have long standing political machines here, and don't want any newcomers on their turf.
So we get shitty choices for state elections, like we have for governor right now.


mark

[tranche]

57. That's what I wish we could do. You just cannot vote 3rd party in this country.

It's a death sentence and until we change to instant runoff or ranked choice or whatever, then I don't see it happening. Someone made a case against it one day however, and it was a bit persuasive. Can't remember what it was though.

[fascisthunter]

30. those on the right within our own party hope we give up

there aint no way in hell I'm doing that, and it's why I remain I democrat. They will have to kick me out if there were such a thing. So, I'll be a thorn in their sides.

[branders seine]

31. If you are left of right-of-center in America,

you have no place in either party.

The corporations will ensure that the two-party system maintains its stranglehold on actual democracy, and both parties are far right of center.

[kctim]

41. Why must we weaken the party?

Not getting the liberal solution in its totality is NOT being totally ignored.
Splitting the party will make it irrelevent for a very long time.

[depakid]

44. You should be asking that question of the blue dogs- since they've been the ones

enabling, legitimizing and voting with Republicans- all the while making the party look weak and ineffectual.

[kctim]

47. Well

that apparently does show the main difference between liberals and Democrats:
Democrats see themselves AND liberals as the Democratic Party whereas liberals see only themselves as the Democratic Party.

[depakid]

55. You're the one who expressed concern about the party and seem to hold a dear spot for those

thwarting its values and agenda.

Seems to me you ought to be glad that they're on the way out this November- as they weaken the party and its causes.

[kctim]

70. True

I really do hold a dear spot for liberals. We share many of the same goals and really only disagree on the government involvement and individual rights that need to be stripped in order to implement such government involvement. Having come from generations of Dem farmers, I simply cannot approve of that much government involvement.

I will not be glad at all IF Dems lose this November because I know it all could have been avoided if only people respected the differences between urban/rural, liberals/Democrats etc...
Instead of having a moderate Dem rep who votes with the party 90+% of the time, many of us will have a Republican rep who doesn't vote with the Dem party at all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone,....

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[Cleita]

62. We need to take back the Democratic Party from the DLCers who are

using us for our votes. The DNC, DSCC and DCCC are being controlled by the DLC. I don't contribute to them directly because they back up centrist candidates for the most part. I send my contributions directly to the candidate. Also, maybe we need a fund raising organization that identifies progressive candidates that need funding and collects money to do that. We can call ourselves the Democratic Progressive Campaign Committee or DPCC. Is anybody up to the challenge who knows anything about creating these and running these types of committees?

Edited to fix links.

[MicaelS]

63. There's a place BUT.....

IMO the problem with the LEFT is too many Leftists these days appear to be too arrogant and condescending toward the blue collar working people in America. What we have these days, is an attitude on both the Left and the Right, that if you don't have a college education, work with your hands and get them truly dirty, you are stupid, or ignorant, or both. You are a lesser human being, simply because "you turn a wrench".

Those who have an college education and work in an white collar environment are superior because THEY are engaged in the "work of the mind", whereas the blue collar folks are engaged in the "work of the body", and of course the mind is always superior to the body. :sarcasm:

The Left has forgotten how to speak plainly, and bluntly, in a manner that can connect to the hearts and minds of the blue collar. You ask a Leftist a question and they will ramble on for 5 minutes with an answer. The idea that complex questions do not have simple answers is a meme propagated by those who have a vested interest in complexity.

The Right comes back with a short, direct answer in a couple of sentences. This is why the Right has been so successful. It might not be the "correct" answer by gawd, you can understand it. Of course the Right believes anyone who isn't a capitalist, and / or rich is an ignorant peasant, who is wholly at fault for "being poor."

There's also an attitude from the Left, that if you don't live in one of large urban areas, and relish the hustle and bustle therein, you're a ignorant peasant. It's no surprise that the Left is concentrated in the large urban areas in the Northeast, Great Lakes, and within 100 miles of the West aka "Left" coast.

The Left as an organized force lost in 1968, when the threw the blue collar working people under the bus, in preference to the educated elites in the large urban areas, and the antiwar college crowd. They triumph of the antiwar crowd just reinforced the contempt for the blue collar in McGovern's campaign in 1972.

For the Left to rise again, it'll have to quite worrying so much about what those people with degrees want, and start worrying more about what those people with only a high school education want. To quit worrying so much about NYC, Chicago, LA, SF and Boston, and realize the rest of America isn't just "flyover country". To quit thinking the "work of the mind", is always superior to the "work of the body".

The nomination of Kagan to SCOTUS just proves what I'm saying. Everyone of the court will be from the Northeast / Ivy League. No one west of the Mississippi. What does that communicate to the average person? It says, if you didn't attend the Ivy League, you can forget about high office in this country.

And there are plenty of arrogant people right here on DU with all the above attitudes I describe. Not all attitudes in once package, but plenty of each.

[Cleita]

64. Excuse me but the blue collar are the leftists.

This is another right wing propaganda point that is being spread by the right to discourage workers from joining unions. Don't fall into their trap. The centrists are DLC not liberals.

[blindpig]

66. Um, I think you are talking about liberals.

Your description fits to a 't'.

[blindpig]

65. The place for the Left is on the streets.

The 'political process' is designed to marginalize.

Organize.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Third parties, duet to the way the system

is structured at the Constitutional level, help to move things. At times, few, they take over. Mostly on the right historically.

Tories were replaced by whigs, whigs by GOP and I am seeing the end of the GOP, which means a RIGHT wing party will replace them.

But until major changes are done... I'd like to see Proportional Representation for example... we are pretty much stuck in rut.

[Jennicut]

72. What would a 3rd party be? I see 4 parties, not 2 or 3 in the future.

Liberals, centrists, moderate Repubs, teabag type Repubs.

[old mark]

73. Several states have stacked the deck against new parties - if you are not a

Republican or a Dem, you have a very hard time getting on the ballot. the big shots have the power and want to keep it all themselves - people come last to them.

mark

[Jennicut]

74. True. I just see the public splitting into 4 groups.

The Dem and Repubs have been around an awfully long time now. To me, a 3rd party doesn't really work because it draws voters from only one side to it. The 3rd party is either liberal or conservative, it cannot be both. Eventually, we could have two parties break away from the Dems and the Repubs. Of course, this may not happen in the next few years but it could happen down the line.

[old mark]

75. Actually we may be seeing the start of this - certainly on the right and

given the total disregard of the left by the Dems, possibly on our side as well.
If the 'baggers can do it, we should be able to also...I am sure we will have better signs, too...


mark