Would a permanent split in the Democratic Party be a good thing?

[Bob Hubbard]

Right now there is a fair chance that the party will split as voters are pretty evenly split behind the lead candidates. (Yes I know the delegate votes wider but I'm going on votes cast, not winner take all)

Here's my question.

If the party were to split into 2, is that a good or bad thing?

 

[elder999]

Right now there is a fair chance that the party will split as voters are pretty evenly split behind the lead candidates. (Yes I know the delegate votes wider but I'm going on votes cast, not winner take all)

Here's my question.

If the party were to split into 2, is that a good or bad thing?

First off, I don't think a split in the party is very likely, though it is possible. Right now, deals are being made, and Hillary will likely withdraw her candidacy-"for the good of the party"- and maybe a nice cabinet postion.....

If it were to happen though (a split in the party) it certainly wouldn't be a good thing for the Democratic party, and probably wouldn't be a good thing for the voters-to be offered two choices that were sooooo ideologically similar..

 

[Big Don]

If it would leave the Strong on defense democrats like former Senator Zell Miller in one and the kook fringe types like Dennis Kuchinich in the other it would be easier, if nothing else, to have somewhere to point and laugh.

But, then again, we could separate the Republican party too...
Put the true conservatives, Gingrich, Reagan, etc on one hand and the "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) McCain, Specter, Bloomberg, Schwarzeneggar,etc on the other...

 

[Empty Hands]

If it would leave the Strong on defense democrats like former Senator Zell Miller in one...

I like how those who argue for the troops to be put in harm's way in far flung continuous wars all around the world in pursuit of mostly economic objectives are now "strong on defense", while those who wish to avoid unnecessary war and keep the troops at home and more focused on self-defense now "hate the troops."

Only in political fantasy land.

 

[Big Don]

I like how those who argue for the troops to be put in harm's way in far flung continuous wars all around the world in pursuit of mostly economic objectives are now "strong on defense", while those who wish to avoid unnecessary war and keep the troops at home and more focused on self-defense now "hate the troops."

Only in political fantasy land.

Thanks for proving my point, now go sit over there with Kuchinich and learn how to origami yourself another tinfoil hat.

 

[Errant108]

Thanks for proving my point, now go sit over there with Kuchinich and learn how to origami yourself another tinfoil hat.

Ad hom attack.

Discussing this with you would be a waste of time.

 

[Twin Fist]

actually it wouldnt

Don made a pretty good, though blunt point.

Empty hands took what Don said and SPUN it into something totally different.

 

[Empty Hands]

Thanks for proving my point, now go sit over there with Kuchinich and learn how to origami yourself another tinfoil hat.

How does that post prove I am a conspiracy theorist?

 

[Empty Hands]

Empty hands took what Don said and SPUN it into something totally different.

I took off on one small part of his post, on a trick of language I have found particularly egregious over the past few years. You will notice I didn't accuse Don of this.

I am not sure how it qualifies as spin anyways. It seems to me that classifying the people that want soldiers to kill and die in foreign lands as "loving the troops" or "strong on defense" seems a whole lot like spin and language manipulation to me.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So, other than the personal differences and what not, what about the main question?

The Republican party grew in part out of the Whig party going kaboom back in the 1800's. Personally, I'd have to say the Democratic party has been trying to find itself for years. A split might be the best thing for it, and us. Where that line might be, I don't know, but given the current situation I can see part of the party following Hillary if she should choose to split off and run as an independant. It would also open the door for strong 3rd parties like the Libertarians and Greens to gain a deeper foothold.

 

[Grenadier]

Something similiar did happen back in 1994. The Clinton administration, along with the Democratic-controlled House and Senate, ended up alienating many a conservative Democrat.

This process allowed the GOP to get a very strong foothold in the South, and even added a couple of high profile folks to the GOP ranks. Senators Ben Nighthorse-Campbell (D-CO) and Richard Shelby (D-AL) ended up switching over to the GOP as a result of this split.

2006 was the first year in a while, that the Democratic Party actually reached out to many of those conservative Democrats that they essentially cast aside a dozen years before that. In doing so, they were able to pull off several victories that knocked off some high ranked players in the GOP.

For example, the conservative Robert Casey, who actually had the NRA's endorsement back in the earlier part of this decade, defeated the #3 ranked GOP senator, Rick Santorum. With the NRA remaining pretty much neutral in this race, that allowed him to eke out a victory.

The conservative John Tester beat out incumbent GOP senator Conrad Burns in Montana. In a state that's been a solid GOP stronghold, this was quite a feat.

Jim Webb knocked off George Allen in Virginia, in a similar manner.

If the Democratic Party is to maintain its majority, then it can't afford a similar type of splitting.

 

[Tez3]

I was wondering what happens when they decide on one candidate how it affects those who supported the other one?
How does a party unite to campaign for one candidate especially if the contest for that position has been a bitter one? To an outsider it looks as if two different parties are campaigning here rather than the same party.

 

[Hand Sword]

To answer the original question, I would say yes, along with a split of the GOP as well. This 2 party dominance has to come at an end at my opinion. More options and views are needed and should be allowed to be heard--IMHO.

 

[mrhnau]

I was wondering what happens when they decide on one candidate how it affects those who supported the other one?
How does a party unite to campaign for one candidate especially if the contest for that position has been a bitter one? To an outsider it looks as if two different parties are campaigning here rather than the same party.

Thats part of the problem. There is some talk that people will be so upset over the protracted fight that they won't support the other candidate. I've seen some polls questioning what will happen if the "other" candidate wins. It was a pretty even split. 1/3 will vote for the other candidate, 1/3 will vote for McCain, 1/3 won't vote at all. Now, this is a long time before November and opinions will change, but if that stat holds true, McCain will win in a landslide. I doubt it will hold, but there is going to be some bitter feelings that will take time to heal! thats for sure!

There is also talk that so much money was spent securing the nomination that donors might be tapped. Might not be a problem for Obama, but if Hillary happens to get the nomination... Obama has outspent Hillary by large margins, and I think thats a large part of why he won some states. Money speaks very loud...

 

[Grenadier]

Almost reminds me of the election in the Republic of Korea.

There were two big time candidates up for election, Kim Young Sam, and Kim Dae Jung. Both were very popular figures, and either could have easily won the election against the other candidates.

In the end, though, neither of them could ever overcome their differences, and they ended up splitting the pool of similarly minded voters, who, when combined, would have won in what should have been a landslide.

Unfortunately for the two Kim's, they ended up splitting the vote, with each of them getting about 30-32 percent, while a third fellow named Roh Tae Woo (the guy that most people didn't like at all), ended up winning the whole thing by a couple of percentage points.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Right now there is a fair chance that the party will split as voters are pretty evenly split behind the lead candidates. (Yes I know the delegate votes wider but I'm going on votes cast, not winner take all)

Here's my question.

If the party were to split into 2, is that a good or bad thing?

Good Thing.

The Republican and Democratic parties were one party at one time. But instead of it turning into just two, I think a very strong third party would be a good thing.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Right now there is a fair chance that the party will split as voters are pretty evenly split behind the lead candidates. (Yes I know the delegate votes wider but I'm going on votes cast, not winner take all)

Here's my question.

If the party were to split into 2, is that a good or bad thing?

Unless it were accompanied by a similar split in the Republican party (say, between old-school conservatives and the more recent neocon mutation), I would say it's a bad thing only because splitting the party would pretty much guarantee a Republican victory in future elections. Call it the Ralph Nader theory, if you will. And that, ladies and gentlemen, I would consider a bad thing.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Unless it were accompanied by a similar split in the Republican party (say, between old-school conservatives and the more recent neocon mutation), I would say it's a bad thing only because splitting the party would pretty much guarantee a Republican victory in future elections. Call it the Ralph Nader theory, if you will. And that, ladies and gentlemen, I would consider a bad thing.

It would be a bad thing for the current election most likely.

But in the long run the one side that is more in the middle is more likely to also attract those not happy with the Republican Party.

 

[Bester]

If it splits, which part will get the 'automatic inclusion' on the ballots, and which one will have to start over stumping for signatures? Which one will be allowed on the infomercials, I mean "debates" and which one will be forced to goto PBS to be heard?