Why can't Greens take the place of the now practically defunct Dem Party?

[MoonRiver]

IF the Green Party gets enough support by grabbing the outraged and disenfranchised Dem base, plus picks up support from disgusted middle of the road Dems and Repubs who care about the environment and women's rights, WHY can't it be done? The Democratic Party has left we liberals swinging slowly in the wind. If a major internet financial drive can be forged by Howard Dean, putting him practically on a par with bush, why can't the Greens do the same thing. I for one would be ready to switch my alliances, if I believed the Greens were viable. I might do it anyway, because the Dem Party has definitely proved itself to be NONviable We'd still have a 2 party system, one of them would just be called Green instead of Democratic.

[Skidmore]

1. Two words

Ralph. Nader. Keep him out and I will consider it myself.

[MoonRiver]

2. Agreed. That man is a traitor to everything I hold dear.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Odd, I feel that way about Clinton. *shrugging*

-----------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[Doohickie]

3. While I think there are some good planks to Green

If given the chance to vote Green or GOP, I wouldn't necessarily vote Green. I am not comfortable with the idea of a party founded on a single plank.

[TexasSissy]

12. Environmentalism? I read their platform & couldn't tell exactly

what it stood for. It didn't mention environmentalism at all. Just some general, vague statements. Unless they've changed it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. *lol* We are NOT a one plank party. See this page:

http://gpus.org/tenkey.html

-----------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[Doohickie]

21. GPV...

I didn't say Green was a one-plank party; I said it was founded on one plank. There is a difference. A plank is a cause, a driving theme. And a party that is named for a specific plank is, well, kind of stuck to that plank, ain't it? As the world changes, it could become irrelevant (like, for instance, if we really do adopt an environmentally-friendly lifestyle as a country).

You might was well name a party the ABB party. Once you get rid of Bush, what would be the mission of the party?

The Democratic Party name contains the essense of the party: The party that espouses rule by the people. A very broad, general idea that can be applied to everything from the environment to foreign policy.

I realize it is kind of shallow to reject a party based on name alone, but I just don't think naming something based on a single issue will really draw in many from the mainstream. It is named as if it were a Third Party and has no aspirations of being anything more than that.

I will admit that this is a largely uninformed opinion, but based on what I know today, that is my perception.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. because I have a brain I couldn't vote Green...

they had an amendment on the Florida ballot to raise the minimum wage to $6.15...


It passed by a 63-37 margin....


The Greens want a $10.00 minimum wage....


That would have failed by a corresponding margin...

A $10.00 minimum wage would mean cause an inflationary spiral and massive layoffs...

[Sterling]

27. Thats a myth.

Work would still need to be done, people would be hired, profits for the bosses a little smaller. Plus the Greens would not allow outsourcing.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

4. Because Greens are about 5% of the population...

...While Democrats are at least 50%.

Next question?

[MoonRiver]

6. You didn't read my post.

I said IF they can grab the Dem base and moderate Dems + some Repubs. IF they do that their numbers would be a lot more than 5%.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. A Third Party Always Sinks The One Closest To It...

In this case the Dems...


The Green party is way to the left of the Democratic party....


Which red state would we have won by moving further left?

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

19. They won't.

There is a very basic reason they're only 5% now (And I am being VERY generous in saying 5%). 95 plus percent of the people don't agree with them. And never will.

Ever hear of Union Democrats who actually LIKE hunting? (Just to name one simple, basic group of Dems).

In other words...

Forget it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. It's the election system that is keeping smaller parties out of

the national level of politics right now. Switching parties, forming new ones, revamping old one... none of it will make a bit of difference until we fix the election system.

-----------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[MoonRiver]

7. I just bookmarked your site. Thanks!

[GreenPartyVoter]

No prob :)

[Skinner]

8. Um, we got 48% nationally.

So far, in the electoral college, we picked up one state and we haven't lost any (still waiting for final results from IA and NM).

In presidential races, our current losing streak is one in a row.

Let's not write the obituary of the Democratic Party just yet. We've been in much worse shape before.

[Sterling]

29. I don't know Skinner, we could not beat the worst president ever

with the most money we have ever raised and a lot of effort from people who were never involved before.

Personally I had a hard time supporting Kerry but I did so and volunteered a lot of time energy and money to the cause. Yet I feel very short changed by the fact no one wants to fight the BBV and Kerry gave up so quick.

Now there are people here advising we try to be even more like the RW. I can't see a lot of people getting excited again about supporting the party if this is their reward for that support.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Nobody Is Saying To Be Like The Pugs...

We need a candidate who can talk to ordinary folks in a language that they understand...


We need a candidate who is as comfortable campaigning in Louisiana as in Los Angeles....


Zell Miller is as crazy as a looney tune but he's right that the Democratic party is a national party no more.....

We are essentislly a bicoastal party...


This needs to be remedied...

[demwing]

9. The Dem Party is viable

Our candidate just received a record amount of votes. Unfortunately, their candidate received (or stole) more. Thats hardly non viable.

The problem is that the party bosses are the walking dead. Their idea of agressive leadership is to walk at you slowly, moaning, and hope you let them suck out your brains.

Not. Good. Enough.

The Dem party can be rebuilt, we don't need the Green party and the baggage of Nader the Traitor. Go Green now, and you are telling the world that Ralph Nader was right.

I'll never support that.

[Cats Against Frist]

14. Uh

Wasn't "moderate dems," "liberals" and "disgruntled Republicans" the same coalition we just tried?

Anyone who thinks this is going to be solved by a "name change" or going "just a little farther left" or "a little farther right" is crazy.

Don't forget what we're dealing with, here.

[MoonRiver]

15. The thing is, I'm starting to feel like there's nothing left to lose.

I would love to be proven wrong, but every election cycle is just keeps getting worse.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. which red states would have gone blue if kerry was green?

i'll wait for an answer...

[MoonRiver]

32. I have a feeling that the Greens would have fought like hell had they

been in the same position of power as Dems to keep paperless bbvs out of our electoral systems.

[Julien Sorel]

16. Let me get this straight.

The Democrats got 48% of the vote; the Greens got what, 1/2 of a percent? Yet you consider the Democratic Party "practically defunct"?

[Mr_Spock]

17. Here, here!

lol

[Bush was AWOL]

22. The Green party is hundreds of years

away from doing anything significant. The Democrats need to adopt the Bill Clinton philosophy of governing from the middle. It's what I prefer, and what most Americans prefer as well.

[SmokingJacket]

23. We're SO not defunct.

I tend green myself, but I know that my organic-broccoli loving friends and I simply don't have the numbers to go up against the R's. Yes, if the Greens wanted to they could grow beyond 5%, but that would just divide up the opposition to the current regime. They got where they are by uniting (the born-again, the rich dudes, the bigots) in one big block. We must do the same.

This party should listen hard to progressive ideas, because I truly believe that's where the future lies. Meanwhile, everyone who stands AGAINST the asshole in the WH must stick together. TOGETHER. We're 49% + (depending how much we were defrauded).

If the R's broke up into five or ten different parties, then I'd consider your idea.

[Sterling]

24. If we take the worst advice ever of turning more RW that will happen

It's really up to the Dems. I will bail in a heatbeat if we get more of the same from the party leaders. And yes the Move On type money would follow the people who went green.

I would like to see DU do their part to help see this does not happen. I think we need to ban users who advocate a shift to the right or a comprimise of our values. This is a very serious issue right now if we even care to see this party survive.

It's fine to let the consevatives here bully people in the past but now it's time to set a solid agenda and get on with it. Not listen to a bunch of defeatist "can't beat em join em" crap.

[Obviousman]

25. i've thought about this

I think a strong green delegation in congress would be good for the country and the democrats. If they were forced to form a coalition with the greens it would keep democrats as progressive. It's a real shame there aren't any nationally elected greens. As far as president we need to rally around one candidate and not split our vote

[Obviousman]

26. i've thought about this

I think a strong green delegation in congress would be good for the country and the democrats. If they were forced to form a coalition with the greens it would keep democrats as progressive. It's a real shame there aren't any nationally elected greens. As far as president we need to rally around one candidate and not split our vote

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. wouldn't work...

Congressional races are winner take all.... The Dem and the Greens would split the left vote while the Pugs got all of the right wing vote

[Obviousman]

31. it wouldn't be nation wide

it would never work nation wide, but if the greens were smart and targeted a few seats in states like califorinia it might work. The san fransisco mayoral election was between a democrat and a green, and the green almost won. its a slow process, but one that might just start working

[DinahMoeHum]

33. The Greens themselves cannot take over the Dems. . .

For starters, they are essentially a one-issue (environment) party which is predominantly white. Right now, they can't relate to minority communities - the latter is more into hip-hop politics.

However, the Greens should seriously consider forming alliances with groups like
Democracy For America (Howard Dean's outfit)
www.democracyforamerica.com
The League of Pissed-Off Voters (hip-hop/minority oriented)
www.indyvoter.org
21st Century Democrats (another progressive-oriented group)
www.21stcenturydems.org

Etc., etc.

Put these groups together as one big coalition, and we could sweep the corporate DNC-DLC axis out of business and take over.

Wanna go for it?

:kick: