Which Democrat do you favor?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by pinky lee

In brief, my opinion is the angry far lefties who control the primaries are going to drag the party to the left and ultimately break it up.

Or, perhaps mobilize an apathetic electorate that barely shows up at 50% for the presidential election...? If Dean can get all of the "typical" Dem. supporters, interest groups, unions, and on top of that garner the grassroots, far-left vote, he can create a base that can challenge Bush.

Both Dean and Kerry have dropped mentionings that Bob Graham would make a good runningmate. Is this because he's such a swell guy and a great senator? No. It's because he could possibly lock in Florida....learning from mistakes. Granted, recent polling data shows that Graham may not be a lock for Florida, but he is still fairly popular amongst the conservative Democrats in Florida. Dean can easily take NY, probably take California, probably home state Vermont, and probably other North Eastern bastions as well. This guy has a chance....

I know the Greens aren't viable. I suspect in the next generation we'll see a dominant majority Republican party with a shifting coalition of smaller parties of varying degrees of liberal/socialist slates, much like in Parlimentary countries.

This is unlikely, as I stated previously, because both parties have become too much of an institution with the electorate. The nation is far too stagnant, far too apathetic to truly will the demise of one of these parties.

And you give "Republican dominance" far too much credit. Republicans may have swept out the Federal level, but when you count win totals from the 2002 mid-cycle elections, AND include statewide offices, the Democrats did just peachy. Most places are still dominated by old machine and party boss style setups. I wouldn't anticipate any kind of sweeping "Republican revolution" any time soon...

The problem with the Dem party is, and has always been, its a competing group of special interests who are all chasing the same dime- the well has run dry so they have very little common interest, and each of their competing interests are going to make them tear at one another.

This has not always been the case, and probably only became really dominant during the New Left era of the 1970s. Prior to that, the Democratic Party (again) was moreparty machine based, like in Chicago, or like a lesser scenario in Albany, NY. People voted for the party that had intense, decentralized representation in their town. Granted, these systems were prone to corruption, so pick your poison.

However, this very same problem once burdened the Republican Party. "liberal Republicans," or "Rockefeller Republicans," or "Eisenhower Republicans" ran much of the 1st half of the century, while conservative ideologues and southern racists bounced around from party to party. Folks like Barry Goldwater helped shift the "solid South" though, and the Willie Buckley's of the party fought for more influence.

This again occurred in 1994, when guys like anti-semite Pat Robertson helped devise the "no enemies to the Right" policy. Oh, the conservative ideologues and populists are in the Republican Party, they just shut up when told to. You think guys like Pat Buchanan and Grover Norquist are happy with Medicare expansion and a sky rocketing deficit....? Both parties are considered "big tent" parties. Shouldn't internal debate, pulling-and-tugging, representation, etc. be encouraged with these broad parties, rather than stifled debate...?

On top of that is the real anger and impotence of the dying hippie left who bemoan the conservatism of today's youth.

More like the apathy......

Young people today are just as involved in community events, functions, aiding homeless shelters, etc. The thing they consistently do not do is vote. I don't know of any old leftists who "bemoan" the conservative youth, which is again a greatly overstated matter....

I think they are already a regional instead of a national party and the exodus of productive members of the blue states to the red states is going to exacerbate the situation.

Right, blue states which hold a predominant amount of the American voters. There certainly are more red states, but there are also lots of farms, trees, and dirt with no living, breathing voters. The Republican Party is JUST as regional, if not more so....

I'd link you to the article I read aobut that yesterday but I'm too busy.

I'd be glad to read it, and I apologize for biting your head off initially. I had mistake you for one of the many idiots who post garble and then move on, but you clearly have a solid interest and understanding of what you're talking about.