I think that any splinter group off of the Democrats would self-destruct after noot too long.

[LoZoccolo]

Think about it: the beginnings of a splinter group would consiste of certain very angry people, who would not see that their anger was causing them to work in a counterproductive way and cause the Republicans to win. Or maybe, they would be so angry that they would get distructive and think of themselves as unleashing the Republican policies on the populace in order to punish them, that is how angry they are.

But eventually you have a group of angry people whose anger causes them to act counterproductive. What happens to such a group after not too long? My prediction would be that they would start fighting with each other, things would get out of hand and conflicts would rise until there was chaos and backbiting. The leadership might try to impose temporary emergency rules but this would just provoke the angry membership even further who would complain about being controlled and they would possibly splinter more, and be so angry at each other that they would never come back.

[Number23]

1. Great theory, LoZo.

Got any case studies you can provide to back it up?? :)

[depakid]

13. "Got any case studies you can provide to back it up?"

How about August 21, 2010 and major swings to the Australian Green Party?

:)

[BlueCaliDem]

2. I believe you hit the nail on the head.

There's a reason why, no matter how good his ideas are for American, DK could never win a primary.

People need to understand, it's us against the Repubs and corporate lackeys in both parties. United we stand, divided we fall.

Corporations understand the divide and conquer strategy well. And it works in their favor each and every time. A united people are a dangerous people. Who said that again?

[Ken Burch]

10. It's not progressives who are to blame for lack of unity in this party

You can't put it ALL on the left.

[BlueCaliDem]

43. True. Not all. eom

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[napi21]

4. That's what I expect to hapen to the teabaggers. nt

[Ken Burch]

5. "...you have a group of angry people whose anger causes them to act counterproductive..."

Pot...kettle, kettle...pot.

I'm sure you two have a LOT to talk about.

[LoZoccolo]

7. In just seven years and change I have become the Dick Clark of DU.

I think that's an accomplishment, and not counterproductive.

[Ken Burch]

8. What does that even MEAN, "the Dick Clark of DU"?

And what qualifies YOU to be the arbiter of who does and who doesn't belong here?

Calls for purges are always right-wing...and DU has never benefited from any in the past.

[LoZoccolo]

12. Where do I say anything about who doesn't belong here?

I'm not even talking about DU, but the Democratic Party, and I'm talking about people leaving on their own. Have you been waiting all day to talk to me about this?

[Ken Burch]

14. You keep demanding a purge of DU, and you've done so for years.

And you keep acting as if you know exactly who should be kicked out.

1)How WOULD you know who "deserved" to be purged?

2)Why should anybody consider you to be anymore "loyal" to the party or DU than anyone else who posts here?

[LoZoccolo]

15. Yeah but did I do that in this thread?

And if I do it so often, couldn't you have waited until I posted about it again?

But to humor you:

1. If they broke the rule about working against the Democrats in elections, the rule they agreed to follow.
2. Because I do not break that rule.

I don't advocate changing the rules, I just think that this would be a more useful place for Democrats if that particular rule was more strictly enforced.

[Electric Monk]

19. Never goes away, despite being near senile and decades behind the times?

Just a guess...

[Ken Burch]

21. Makes everybody lip-synch?

n/t.

[donheld]

6. Noot?

[Ken Burch]

9. You know...Noot...he used to be Speakor of the Hoose?

n/t.

[depakid]

11. Democrats manage to self destruct well enough on their own

Who needs splinter groups as long as we have Republicrats and their ilk to ensure that the party fails to deliver?

[G_j]

16. whatever you are smoking

you might consider a break

[LoZoccolo]

17. Which left-wing splinter group had been successful breaking from the Democrats? n/t

[G_j]

20. what "splinter groups"?

I'm registered as a Dem., & have been voting for 40+ yrs, including many of the Democratic primaries. Still, I don't call myself a Democrat, I'm a leftie. Voting is a matter of the lesser of two evils most of the time. In the real world I'll fight for the causes I believe in. It's always been that way.
There are a lot of people like me, we've always been splinters I suppose.

The whole "angry" angle is a complete crock BTW. It's like saying women are "hysterical".

[LoZoccolo]

23. So you said I was smoking drugs without knowing what I was talking about to begin with? n/t

[G_j]

25. what makes you think I don't know what you are talking about?

and, as you know, that was just a figure of speech, but maybe we should just pass a spliff and chill...

Look, if you and I are both humanitarians, and really want what is best for the planet, then we should acknowledge we are on the same side.

[LoZoccolo]

28. Because you asked a question about it? n/t

[metapunditedgy]

18. And yet the "pragmatists" seem hell-bent on splintering away from the progressives

that turned out in droves to vote for Obama. I agree that it seems just crazy... what is driving them to do this?

I would hope that the progressives are smart enough not to enact "temporary emergency rules." That kind of stuff has no place in the Democratic party.

My worry is that the pragmatists will stubbornly insist on splintering... separated from the liberal base, they'll basically become dependent on cash from corporations. And even a lot of right-wingers have no respect for politicians who become addicted to lobbyists (though god knows there are enough of those politicians in the Republican party).

[Obamanaut]

22. This needs a poll. nt

[jobycom]

24. Part true, but part simplistic.

The real reason splinter groups don't last long in our system is because the entire party shifts to absorb them. We have a system a lot closer to the parliementary systems of other nations than we acknowledge. Whereas they elect many small parties who are forced to form alliances into bigger parties to govern, we form our alliances in the primaries.

So a splinter group splits off, and it causes its party to lose. Even if that group self-destructs (more likely, it will just be ineffective since it won't be able to earn any power for itself), the party it split from will fail to take power in the next election. Then, it will shift towards the center, no longer encumbered by having to cater to the fringe. Then it will win. Then it will rule happily for a short while. Then the other party will shift to the center, and they will win again because they have the center, plus they haven't pissed off their fringe.

So the party will have to slide back over away from the center in the direction of its fringe--it does this by running a candidate in the primaries who campaigns to the fringe, then shifts back to the center for the general election, hopefully carrying the fringe with it.

That's how Reagan united the Republicans, that's how Clinton united the Dems, and it's how Obama united the Dems.

Now, one way that cycle doesn't work is if both parties splinter at the same time, so that you wind up with four groups with somewhat equal chances to win. Happened in 1860, happened in Texas four years ago, when four candidates ran for governor. Usually it's caused when neither party really represents reality anymore. Both parties have made so many compromises and have allied so tightly with special interest factions that neither can full adjust to the needs of all its voters. Then new parties form to try to give voice and vote to new groups. Usually that's taken care of in the primaries, but sometimes the detachment of the old parties is too entrenched, and one or more of the new parties winds up taking their places. That's how the Republicans formed in the mid 19th Century.

We're at one of those junctures. Partisanship is so extreme that it no longer represents the majority of people, and yet the parties are so self-contained that they won't change. The Tea Party movement was originally a gimmick--an echo of Gingrich's mid 90s movement--but now it's taking on a life of its own. The Democrats, who are never that united in the first place, are split--I'll leave it to the imagination to define the splits, because any description would start arguments. All we need is some major upheaval or controversy--like, the coming recession--that neither party adequately responds to, and we could see a shift again. Probably it would only last a short while, and then the parties would reunite, maybe with the new groups taking more power, and the old alignments changing some. But who knows? The times they are a festering.

[SidDithers]

26. K&R...

in the beginning, it's all holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but eventually it descends into some sort of Mad Max dystopian nightmare.

Sid

[Ken Burch]

29. "Kumbaya 3-I STILL know which verses you sang last summer!"

"Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the campfire..."

[SoxFan]

30. A veritable Thunderdome, as it were...

[TBF]

27. Depends upon the type of group -

third parties are next to useless in this country. A movement outside of the electoral realm, though, including workers of all parties (united by economics of course) could be very, very effective in promoting actual change.

[Drale]

31. Eventally

I see this happening to the tea baggers, once companies start hiring and they accually have to work and not use the governments money to fund their misspelling B's anymore.

[kentuck]

32. Sometimes you have to weed your garden...

or the weeds will overtake it...

[LoZoccolo]

38. Did it work in 2000?

If so, why are people still complaining?

[grantcart]

33. The reason is that they are united only in opposition

This is the problems that the Republicans always have - economic conservatives and social conservatives actually share little beyond their basic opposition.

The Tea Party has taken this to a new level and we see that when they get a little political success they have to start defining themselves for something they start splitting apart as is shown Nevada.

Democrats share a broader positive goal and have less antagonisms between the group. The fact that we argue so aggressively is misunderstood by outsiders. It is a reflection that we share so much on the positive side that we can argue like hell and stay united.

Now there are situations where disparate and contradictory groups make common cause but are only united by their hatred. Called "Hegel Conflict Displacement Syndrome" these groups that really reflect "X" and "Anti X" will paper over their own differences until some fundamental existential question (like giving haven to Holocaust Deniers for example) exposes the contradiction and the relationship becomes 'clunky'. In such cases further recrimination and splintering follows.

[MadHound]

34. History has proven you wrong,

Read up on the Whigs and Republicans.

[LoZoccolo]

36. "I think that any splinter group off of the Democrats..." n/t

[MadHound]

39. And you assume that a splinter group from the Democratic party would, politically,

Act any different from a splinter group of any other major party?

I provided you an historical example that directly contradicts your contention, yet you assume somehow that a group of leftists would somehow be more angry or what have you.

Whatever.

[LoZoccolo]

45. It doesn't directly contradict my contention because my contention was about the Democrats.

Besides, Green Party lol.

[Boojatta]

35. What if the splinter group consists of people who respect some principle ...

... that not all supporters of the Democratic Party respect?

You started with the assumption that what sets them apart is anger. If you don't start with that assumption, then how can you conclude that they will self-destruct?

[LoZoccolo]

37. If they're not angry then why would they split?

We're talking about people who are willing to get none of what they want and to try to make sure that the rest of the Democratic Party doesn't either.

[Boojatta]

40. What if one of the things they want is to belong to a party consisting

of people who respect some specific principle? You're right that they risk failure, but they might consider the principle important enough to be worth the risk. Also, they might motivate people who rarely participated in elections in the past to participate and vote for the new splinter group.

Of course, if people who already have a position of authority within the party enunciate a principle and explain precedents for the principle, then you could say that they are simply being good leaders, and that people who oppose the principle are trying to splinter the party. When it comes to policies and principles, isn't innovation part of leadership?

Aren't there are always some individuals joining the party and some leaving the party? Wouldn't it be surprising if there were never a time when two people simultaneously left the party for similar reasons?

[girl gone mad]

41. Liberals who are "willing to get none of what they want"..

will just keep voting for DLC Dems.

[Odin2005]

42. Hell yes, I AM ANGRY!

Anyone who isn't ANGRY isn't PAYING ATTENTION.

[mikekohr]

44. 18% of Americans self identify as liberal, 36% as conservative

the rest are somewhere in the great American middle. Nation-wide I believe the Republican base plus leaners is around 46%, the Democratic base plus leaners is around 49%. Only about 5% remain up for grabs. Republicans turn out higher percentages of their base and play a losing hand into a winning one for them and a losing hand for America. They have unity and discipline. We have the plurality and something less than unity and discipline. And that's why Republicans have won the White House 7 of the last 11 times.

"You do not have to be smart to be in politics, but you do need to know how to count." -Robert F. Kennedy-

mike kohr
Bureau County Democrats