If we lose in 2004, will the Democratic party become extinct?

I believe that it's a real possibility that we could become a one-party totalitarian nation. I haven't missed a vote since 1972 when I first became eligible to vote. Watched McGovern lose in a landslide. I believe that the only candidate with a ghost of chance in 2004 is Gen. Clark. I think the Reptilicans will sucessfully paint Dean as an Eastern liberal and it will stick like glue. I just don't think I can drag myself to the polls again after another loss, especially if the Democratic leadership forms the circular firing squad again. If a dedicated voter like me is actually thinking of bailing out of the system, somebody else out there must be thinking the same thing. I think it will be our last chance until the Reptilicans self-destruct, taking down the country with them. In that case, it will take a future Roosevelt and a 21st Century version of the New Deal to dig us out from the mess. Why can we ever learn from history?

We can all register Republican and support the next Teddy. I am seriously considering it.

… grassroots support.

Dean has taken McGovern's populism, Truman's firey straight-talking, Carter's ethics, Clinton's ability to connect and Gore's intellect and wisdom. Dean is the combination of some of the best qualities of many past Democratic candidates.

Dean Is the New McCain …
And the new Carter, and Goldwater, and McGovern, and Reagan …
By Julia Turner
Posted Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 3:48 PM PT
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086718/

Also, unlike McGovern's low budget campaign of an army of volunteers, Dean is well funded. In fact Dean is the best funded of any of the Democratic candidates.

Unlike McGovern, Dean neither served in the armed forces nor was a U.S. Senator.

Unlike McGovern, Dean is a centrist. McGovern was a liberal Goldwater, IMHO. Dean is a passionate centrist.

Thank you, and great job.

I'd say your question is too little too late.

We had the House and Senate at that time. However, The Republicans have two branches and if Bush is re-elected, they will have the entire puzzle set.

That means Democrats will officially be kaput.

I am still deciding whether to move to Canada.

This is really hard. I really don't know what to do.

Progressives will go green, independent, or Canuk... leaving what's left of the centrist-Dems to fight over their 20% swing vote with the Republican congress, White House, and Supreme Court.

but to split up the party and have coalitions like they do in Europe. That sounds about right. We will see the emergence of a 3rd political party in the US. I have no doubt about it.

Then some Republican Senators will ditch to the Democratic party.

Dean WILL win and all it takes is.....

A LIBERAL COALITION.

Just wait for the debates baby.

He is capitalizing on the internet.

ALL THE ANTI-BUSH INFORMATION AT HIS HANDS.

It will be a massacre.

I am a Dean supporter, but I think we have underestimated some candidates. Don't be so confident yet...

Clark could eat our lead away in New Hampshire and then we could be on par with Kerry. In fact, I think that's what Kerry is hoping.

Also, I think Edwards cannot be underestimated.

I woiuldn't worry too much about Gephardt.

they thought the republican party was about to go away under fdr, but did that ever happen?

I'm admittedly not an expert on the period, but I believe they retained a strong presence in Congress and fought bitterly against his economic programs and US involvement in Europe during the growth of fascism and the start of WWII. You know how it is with those people, if it's a question or diverting tax dollars to the benefit of working Americans or sending troops to fight a just war, they'll bare their teeth and wage war to the knife-hilt.

At any rate, I don't think FDR got nearly the amount of supine submission from Congressional Republicans during the Depression crisis that Bush has gotten from the Democrats.

Françoise

Hey, freedomfrog - I just began to notice you. You're very good! Please stick around & write more stuff. :hi:

n/t

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

to fight back against three or four parties...it's true.
It's like "hit and run" tactics....

There won't be any opposition parties by 2008,
never mind elections.

There are a few points worth making, and you know, I really feel we could all do a better job of using the numbers to prove that Democrats are still hangin' tough in America.

Democrats (yes, DINO's included) occupy 48 U.S. Senate seats, with Jeffords (I) most often voting with the Democratic majority. Republicans occupy 51 seats, with a handful of then voting with us often. Even with our slight deficit, we were able to derail the Estrada nomination, essentially dump Bush's plans to sell off the FCC, and stop the wholesale grab of ANWR more times than I can shake a stick at. Except for the war and that fuckin' Patriot Act, Bush has failed in many of his more important attempts to assert domination over liberals.

In the 2002 Senatorial Election, 20,470,371 Americans cast their votes for the Democratic candidate, while 22,198,747 chose the Republican. That's a difference of only 1,700,000 odd votes. That's no landslide, especially in a post-9/11 world, and represents no mandate. Factor in the 1,606,029 who chose a candidate who was neither Democrat nor Republican, and the current "Republican Revolution" appears even more hollow. America in 2002 was every bit as split and divided as it was in the 2000 Presidential Election.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2002/senparty.htm

And, going back to that election, don't forget that in the popular vote, Al Gore received 50,999,897, or 48.38%. Bush received 50,456,002, or 47.87%. 543,895 more voters chose the Democratic candidate. Add in the Nader votes (2,882,955, or 2.74%), and that means that in the 2000 election there were 3,426,850 more liberal voters than Republican, conservative ones. (Joe Conason does an excellent job of making this crucial poing in his newest book.) If we're going to win decisively in '04, we're going to need those 3,000,000 extra votes to go our way. And it wouldn't hurt us at all to pick up a few straggling Reagan democrats, either.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

It's too early to freak out, and besides, Democrats are going to win back the Presidency in 2004. I'm confident, feeling better by the minute, and energized by our candidates and the real kick-off to campaign season.

Bushies? Bring 'em on.

Without wishing to put words in the mouths of others I understood the thread starter to be an indictment of the democratic party, its leadership and the candidates it puts forth rather than any comment on the wishes of the people of the USA.

All the statistics you cite mean little without a focus for voters to rally behind.There has been, for three solid years now, no real opposition to Bush from the democrats, excepting of course those isolated and eloquent speeches of Senator Byrd and a few sporadic comments from a couple of other dems here and there.No organised and concerted effort to expose the machinations, lies and manipulations of this administration exists within the democratic party, so how do you expect voters to be attracted to a party that basically agrees with Bush, if only by its silence?

The current democratic leadership has abandoned the electorate in favor of attracting corporate funding. There seems to me to be increasing disatisfaction within BOTH parties from those to the left of an increasing rightward moving center which leads me to believe that some sort of radical change in the nature of our two party system is in the offing.

Bushler has been acting like he won 100 million votes, not 50,456,002.

Trust me: if this little nimrod is reinstalled, the full impact of his reprehensible self will emerge.

It helped cheer this New England pessimist up. I do think the Democrats have a chance, but nobody has really stepped forward to excite me among the candidates.

will become extinct, along with every other living species in the world.

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

I'm obsessed with anal sex. Does that make me a troll? Grrrdamnit...... :)

But I dunno ... are you a troll otherwise? :D

just every troll I see has to refer to some "erotic" act involving either the buttocks or anus (ass-licking is their favorite, I assume "shit-stabber" is a reference to anal sex, although, admittedly, I'm not fluent in pencildickese) and of course, the pervasive fascination with Clinton's penis. I think these people are repressing some serious shit.

I heard it has boils on it from overuse...so you might have to wait in line!

RC

...or haven't you noticed.

RC

So they have not known it first hand and must re-live it and re-learn. Things go in wavys. Who do you know that has worked in a sweat shop or lived in the great depression? We still have jobs even if they are not good paying. Look at the percent out of work in the 30's. No poor farms left.

If We Lose This Election... All Of The People That Never Cared Or Would Have Got Fired Up In The First Place Are Gone... I, Myself, Have Never Cared Too Much For Politics - 9/11 Made Me - And It Pissed Me Off - I Suspect Most New Political People Feel The Same... If We Lose They Will Lose Faith...

WE CANNOT LOSE

Or We Lose Everything

who is barely a declared Democrat, who can mouth all the proper positions but has no record of policy to stand on, then the prospects for the party's identity and future don't bode well.

It will be bad for the party if we don't have huge sweeping democratic winners. But it is going to take our hard work to make that happen. WE are the ones that need to volunteer for local candidates. WE need to get our asses off DU and volunteer for candidates. We need to do these things. Arguing ideology on DU is ok, but the bulk of your DU time should go to volunteering for demorats through the next year.

Oh yeah, and VOTE CLARK '04

years to come. After four years of bush, we'd have eight years of JEB! Think about it.

more times than I can remember. Forty years from now we'll still have Democrats, Republicans, and a bunch of minor parties.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Since the last two elections I have wondered what Democrats could possible have in comman to make them into a unified party. Repukes have plenty of issues to unite them..war, taxcuts, shrubby in 2004, Arnold in 2008, and giving new meaning to the word "life".

Why even have a party if our only comman interest is to get rid of shrub? If we just have this one thing in comman..why not just shake hands on a peaceful strategy for 2004, and then go our seperate ways?

Some Democrats would be more at home with repukes, others in third parties, and many in no party. Why be a member of the Democratic party, if the party leadership cannot support something as accepted and self-evident to the majority in America as democracy is?

I want a party that will bring democratic principles to our country, enact universal healthcare, and oppose attempts to destroy what little is left of the civilian branch in Federal Government. The idea of a government which contracts its data collection out to the same people who lobby in Washington, while having the Defense Department run our civilian and social programs...all in the name of "greater efficiency" is frightening. Finally I want a party which will not defend shrub's actions whether they be military attacks, parts of his taxcuts, or that we should tell a woman they must have the child....but don't expect help from the government!!! MORAL VALUES YA SEE>>>we will spend tax dollars to force a braindead woman who wants to die...to stay alive, but we can't use this money on people who want or even can still be helped!

though I'm not qualified to evaluate the probability of each:

1) The United States becomes a one-party state in the sense that only the Republicans retain the organization, numbers, money, and propaganda sufficient to secure the votes needed to excercise effective power in government;

2) A revolution from within the party rejects the "centrist" philosophy of the current leadership in favor of a more aggressive, radicalized approach, resulting in a smaller but more energetic Democratic party;

3) The Democratic party disintegrates into either a collection of small focus issue parties, or many of its members drift into a new party coalescing from disaffected elements across the middle of the political spectrum (e.g. genuine conservatives who despise the radicalism of the right wing, democrats who feel betrayed by the party leadership, former reform party members).

Historically, the US has already witnessed the death of a major political party. The once-powerful Whig party disintegrated in the 1850s after a particularly bad election year (1852) and its difficulty in coming to grips with the slavery crisis. As a general rule proslavery Whigs ended up going over to the Democrats (the conservative party of the day); freesoil Whigs to the dynamic new Republican party or the Know-Nothings.

Françoise

#1 is by far the most probable. Some of what you laid out as possibility #3 could happen at the same time (the general idea of disintegration).

My guess is that #1 happens - about 95% probability. The Democratic Party may continue as it is - which is to say, a totally toothless & subordinate force. Or, it may disintegrate. Of these two paths, actual disintegration would be more constructive, because it could open the way for a new party, vibrant & rejoined to the ranks of the living. However, from the viewpoint of the ruling class, the clearly preferable option would be continued 1-party Republican rule, with the comatose Dem Party kept alive strictly as window-dressing. (Their only function would be to maintain the useful fiction that "we have a democracy.") Thus, this is the highly probable outcome.

comatose Dem Party - 80%
Disintegration - 15%
Option #2 (revitalized Dem Party) - 5%

IMHO, of course.

There is too deep a division now between the true fiscal conservatives who also believe in some social spending, the fundamentalists who argue on the basis of morality, and the corporatists who consistently vote the big business line. They are in power now only because they have a big enemy in the form of the Democratic Party to unite against, but if that were to go away, we'd get a split into smaller parties with more consistent issues.

It's already happening now, in both parties. We saw it with the Democrats in the big Green party turnout in 2000, and we're seeing it on the Republican side with Jeffords-style defections and GOP "mutiny" against Bush's more radical proposals.

though it may seem like it for a while. The predictions of the death of parties always happens...

However...new parties being forged in history do happen. When you think about it, all of the traditional issues of the Democratic Party of late have been "accomplished"...meaning they don't have the pull and the heat that they did.

Although, I heard several people saying in California last weekend...Arnold means you don't have to be anti-abortion or anti-civil rights to be a Republican anymore.

I still don't think so.

In 1928, Republicans held sway in Washington. When the Depression hit, they were swept from power. Although Ike, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush were elected, Republicans only once held Congress during that whole time. Did they become extinct?

we are the oldest political party in the US and have had lots of highs and tremendous lows. We were out of power for all but 8 years from 1861-1912--51 years!! and only one Dem president--Grover Clevland. Then from 1913-1933 we only had one Dem president--Woodrow Wilson.

How can we become extinct when we have won the popular vote in three consecutive presidential elections?

WOW! Must be that uniform. I don't think ill of the general ( although his supporters on DU seem to be a bit too rignt wing for my tastes) but I dont see what makes him stand out amongst the the other candidates EXCEPT for the uniform. If Clark is the ONLY hope for some of you then perhaps the party deserves to die..