are there enough liberals out there to make a third party viable?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

Like the old Socialist parties of the late 19th--early 20th century.
Even up to the days of FDR stealing Norman Thomas' ideas and implementing them.

Since the Democrats aren't listening, and are bought off by corporations, when do you think the people will wake up? Will SICKO help?

As far as I'm concerned, because of my age (52), the middle class is gone. There is no way I can get a job with all my education. America has become a mediocracy.

[westerebus]

1. Liberals?

Look at the moderates. The independents. Formally known as regan Dem's. The longer the liberal branch of the Dem party frets itself into inaction, the longer this congress sits on its' ass, the longer the economy slips downward, the closer the time for the third party.
Let's not overlook the disaffected re pubs. Kansas can't vote against itself forever. The middle of the middle class is seeing a bleak future for their kids and grand kids and themselves. Many rinos are looking for someone,anyone,anybody,somebody.
Seventy percent of this country thinks we are screwed. What does that tell you?

[MGKrebs]

2. No, but so what.

It should be done anyway.

Stress community service, ballot access, education, open government, and equal justice. Maybe it will take 20 years to build enough momentum, but we'll be ready when the time comes.

I have the privilege of sometimes working with civil rights leaders who have been fighting for as much as 50 years. When I get discouraged, I think of them and how they have never given up.

[leftofthedial]

3. define "viable"

if it means win the presidency, no.

if it means control a house of congress, no.

neither of these has anything to do with the number of "liberals" in America. It has to do with a super-wealthy oligarchy having gamed the system to their advantage.

if it means consistently get 10 to 20% of the presidential popular vote and influence the outcome, yes.

if it means win 25 or more seats in the House and 4 or 5 seats in the Senate, thereby influencing the "democratic" agenda, yes.

[Totally Committed]

4. I've been thinking not so much about viability, but becoming a voting bloc

outside the normal Parties (there is, for example, a Liberal Party in NY). This way, we have to be courted if a candidate wants our vote. We would eventually have enough sway that we may even be able to endorse a candidate (The Liberal Party of NY endorsed JFK, for example). What we will need are numbers suitable to give us the visibility of a voting bloc. And, if there are enough Liberls out there who are as fed up with "working within the system" and are ready to break off from the Democrats as I am, we should have no trouble becoming the Liberal/Independent bloc that the Democrats will have to court if they want our vote. We could re-triangulate the Party back Leftward that way.

TC

[westerebus]

5. We're a block.

That may be part of the problem. The DLC is pleased to take our money, support and votes. Then look at us like we are all nuts. Liberals, moderates, anti war,anti corporate, and we get what for our efforts? A vote on a vote to see who's gonna vote about a vote. Take control of the money and see what happens? That is where the rubber meets the road. To do that you just might need a third party. IMHO.

[leftofthedial]

10. then yes

in fact, we are already viable

the enemy is the DLC, faux-democrats who drive the party relentlessly rightward

[Totally Committed]

12. I agree with you about the DLC/Third Way-ers...

I think this election will be our last chance to stop them from taking this Party so far to the Right that people like us won't be able to bear it.

TC

[Greyhound]

6. Yes and no. None of the "3rd" parties are ready for prime-time and are not likely to ever get there,

but we are getting closer to a situation where one of the established parties can/will be replaced. My money is on the Democratic Party being the one replaced.

As they continue to render themselves less and less relevant (I'm speaking of the party "establishment and leaders", not the members at large), the so-called moderates will move to the Republiks that better represent their views anyway and the "lefties" will splinter into various "issue parties" until some coalescing event occurs to unify them and to attract the largest contingent of all, the non-voters. Then we will once again see a new party form to replace the old Democratic Party, they may even keep the name depending on how the events play out, but it will be a new party nonetheless.

[westerebus]

7. Moderates to the right.

If your trying to make the case that moderates are republixs, your missing the message of moderates. Social justice and civil rights split this country in two in the sixties. The anti war movement pushed a lot of folks into the republix camp. Southern centrists and northern conservatives. It has taken years to find accommodation with the Dems. After rejecting the excesses of the republixs wasteful spending and bigotry the only place left was the Dems. The lesser of two evils. Regan Dem's were moderates and the non voters of the day. Tolerant on social issues. Supporting civil rights. Promoting environmentalism and education. Ending big government.Ending corruption. The fight continues.
There is more like than unlike in supporting Dem's. Many progressive moderates of the sixties and seventies left the party out of dissatisfaction. If this congress doesn't get its' act together, the same will happen. Moderates want change toward the center. Progress for the common man. Republixs are not in that business.
The third party comes closer all the time. IMHO.

[Greyhound]

8. Those calling themselves moderate Democrats today are the conservatives of

30 - 40 years ago. They are generally opposed to helping the poor and disadvantaged, they are reluctant to even acknowledge there is such a thing. Their support of civil rights, equal rights, education and environmentalism, extend just to the point where they would have to sacrifice, it's a great idea as long as they don't have to pay for it. What you're calling accommodation is nothing but capitulation.

In the election of 1980 voter turn out was yet another year of decline, over 10% from 1960, according to the Bureau of Census in the Congressional Quarterly weekly report, with much higher rates of decline in such Democratic strongholds as California (16%), Illinois/Pennsylvania (18% each), and New York (21%).

The Democratic Party hasn't been near the left of center since WWII, so the idea of moving toward it is entirely leftward, which ain't the "Third way" or whatever they are calling themselves now. If we are to believe the media representation, which you have dutifully repeated here, we only have a choice between conservative and totalitarian.

Tens of millions of Americans say "Thanks, but no thanks" to that crap.

[westerebus]

9. So then don't vote?

That's a real good solution. Sarcasm intended. So as long as Americans are not voting, they're sending the message the status quo needs to change? I guess that makes tens of millions of Americans confused in their choice between conservative views and totalitarian views. Must be that old media influence. Just can't decide. Then do nothing. That's the ticket. Come to think of it didn't HR Clinton work on Barry Goldwater's campaign back then. My, times do change.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

11. Too much of this country still sees socialism as "evil"

the propaganda of the cold war was effective...