What if the Dem party had moved as far left as the repukes have right?

[KamaAina]

And progressives routinely won primaries and occasionally some generals?

What would Congress be like? What would state legislatures be like? What would America be like?

[Xyzse]

1. I don't know, but I'd finally be found in the Middle again.

Currently, this left leaning Independent has found himself further left than the current incarnation of the Executive and Legislative branches of the Democratic party.

Still, if such is the case, I see the country moving for the better.

[marym625]

2. If only!

Problem is, we moved right with them.

[AtomicKitten]

9. That is exactly the problem.

To traverse the schism between parties and effect bipartisanship, the spineless, ever compliant Democrats, drifted rightward toward the loons.

[marym625]

10. I actually held hope

Back in 2008 that things would change. Silly me.

[AtomicKitten]

12. *sigh* me too

[merrily]

30. I do not see them as spineless, compliant or dumb.

[AtomicKitten]

40. point taken

[SomethingFishy]

32. And those of us who didn't became "the far left loonies"

to be mocked, even by our own, for our beliefs..

[guillaumeb]

3. you would all be living in Canada

enjoying better health care,
shovel more snow,
not spending 60% of your tax dollars on the War machine,
shovel more snow,
have a better housing market,
shovel more snow,
have more regulated banks,
shovel even more snow!,
better donuts
and let me add enjoying the snow.

[Maedhros]

5. I tried to emigrate to Canada, and failed.

Loved the time I spent there in graduate school.

[KamaAina]

7. You forgot the hockey

At the moment, the Sharks would be better off shoveling snow.

[guillaumeb]

8. did not forget. saw a shiny object and Lost my concentration

but while I am here, you would also have better food if you were in Quebec. Not so much in Ontario. Did I mention the snow, and shoveling?

[merrily]

31. With the money you'd save on health insurance, you could hire someone to shovel.

[marym625]

14. We've had more snow here in Chicago

Than Toronto so far

Fun fun fun

[guillaumeb]

18. very true

but as a transplanted Quebecker living in Chicago, you do not know snow. Quebec AVERAGES 144 inches of snow a year.

[marym625]

20. semantics

Ya get snow, ya get snow.

Kidding!

My ancestors hailed from Quebec. Came down south and helped found Chicago

We have to do a Chicago DU get together when it warms up.

[guillaumeb]

21. Chicago is merely the lost part of Quebec

that went to the English after 1760.

[marym625]

22. Haha!

I am sure that there are many that would disagree. But it sounds good.

[guillaumeb]

25. Quebec originally

extended as far south as St. Louis on the Mississippi. The voyageurs trapped and hunted all over this area. Thus the many French names all over Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. Detroit means "the narrows" for example. Terre Haute, Marseilles, La Grange, too many to list.
After the catastrophe of 1760 the territory was claimed by the English.

[marym625]

26. my ancestors

Beaubien and Mathieu, were part of the trade. Founded Kankakee, Chicago and a couple other places. My family owned the entire Chicago lake front, including the Indiana dunes, (the dunes until the mid 20th century) when it was stolen by the city and state respectively.

Yep. I'm aware. Damn! How rich I would be if not for the government!

[guillaumeb]

39. I knew it. A 1 percenter

Better that it was stolen otherwise you might be a Republican.

[marym625]

41. Ha!

I just wish I could prove how wrong you are!

[marym625]

28. wow are we off topic!

[lame54]

4. we'd have anti-vaxxers - oh wait

[olddots]

6. I see the world becoming super communistic eventually

because the anthing goes capitalists create communism .

[randys1]

11. Great question or point. Someone here said they think we will become more communistic

but that is the wrong term, Socialism is more likely the direction we have to go, democratic socialism.


Nobody has anything, do you?

Do you have a nice house and enough money to live the rest of your life?

A few do but most dont, and it is gonna get worse.

[markpkessinger]

13. What if the Democratic Party hadn't allowed itself to be dragged to the RIGHT . . .

. . . I mean, it really wouldn't have had to move left all that much. What if, instead of embracing corporate shills for the past 25 years, we had instead continued to back candidates with a strong commitment to labor, as well as to social justcie?

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

[marym625]

17. I think we would have to go back a little further

Can you imagine someone like McGovern being nominated today! Ha! Not a snowballs chance in hell.

[markpkessinger]

36. And he was considered a conservative Democrat at the time! n/t

[marym625]

37. was he really?

My most prominent memory of him is the, no one should have more than $500k.

[Agnosticsherbet]

15. A new centrist party would have come into existence.

Because a huge number of citizens would not feel at home in either party. Then, either the radical right Republican party or the Progressive left Democratic Party would cease to exist. Occasionally in US History third party groups have been successful. The Grange Movement of the 1870's elected quite a few Congressmen with Reform parties like the Greenback party. Eventually they disappeared into the two party system.

Nothing is keeping progressives from challenging centrists Dems in primaries as the Tea Party did with Republicans

I have been surprised that it has not happened.

They need good candidates to qualify for elections and to run in districts where centrists Dems or center right Republicans have been elected. Progressives will not be elected in deep red states.

One other thing. The Democratic Party moved right to claim that political space Republicans surrendered. In our two Party System, Republicans would have drifted left, back toward the center and even the center left.

In such a scenario, I think the a Centrist republican party or a new centrist Party would pick up seats in Congress. Progressive Democrats would dominate in New England and West Coast, with a few from the northern Midwest. Republicans would rule the South with an Iron fist and part of the West. Centrists would have control regions in the Midwest and parts of California.

As to Legislation, a few elected progressives would not change much. You would need to control the House and Senate in order to set the agenda. Without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a Progressive Democrat in the White House, it would be hard to make any big changes. What would happen is some small changes would be made to improve existing programs. Progressive Democrats and Center Left Democrats would have enough in common that they could do a few good things.

[Dont call me Shirley]

16. WooHoo! Is what it would be like!

Well regulated capitalism, although capitalism would become diminished due to rising Economic Democracy. Reinstate strong banking regulations. Create more local community and state owned banks.

General welfare of all people is the highest order. Government which manages the commons based on basic human needs and rights (and the needs and rights of other beings, flora and fauna).

Accountability and minimization of prison, military, spy industries. Reel in imperialistic foreign policy. Eliminate mass blanket spying. Close down prison pipeline. Recommision weapons manufacturing into peacetime well regulated manufacturing.

Clear line of separation between church and state. Churches pay taxes.

Heavily punish corporate polluters with fines and community service cleaning up the messes they have created.

Take subsidies away from big ag and give them to sustainable farmers and ranchers.

Create Manhattan Project for renewable energy by taking away and using subsidies from fossil fuel.

Create a real Health Care system based on "Do no harm" (including financial) motto.

Return 4th estate to the people, for the people and by the people.

[on point]

19. They would be back close to center

[Augustus]

23. You may not like this answer:

But religion is the problem.

It is much too easy to divide people along social policies in order to win elections. The religious people who currently control the politics are perfectly content to vote against their own economic self interests if it means having a political candidate who pays lip service to being against abortion and gay marriage and the whole host of other issues that people with low critical thinking skills place as high on the scale of importance to them.

You won't get people to vote for the truly liberal (and therefore, truly moral) candidates until they stop believing in imaginary friends.

[merrily]

33. Yet, that is exactly where the New Democrats drew the party lines.

*Parody of Imaginary Announcement*

"Forget most of what remains of the the New Deal and the Great Society We'll end "welfare as we know it;" we'll repeal Glass Steagall; regulatory agencies will represent business more than consumers; we'll put Social Security and Medicare on the bargaining table without being asked so to do; we won't pass EFCA; we'll put away our comfortable shows and enter into trade deals that break the backs of workers and unions; we'll settle with banks during a foreclosure crisis; we'll do whatever it takes for Big Oil, Big Food, Big PHRMA, Big Health, etc., etc. etc. But, we'll be pretty good about choice and LGBT rights. And all of this will bring in voters by droves. So, rejoice."

[Thinkingabout]

24. Many would be looked on as being the TP on the left, failing to compromise on any issues and having

A radical Ted Cruz just tossing in balls hoping something hits. As some have suggested it would probably be a new central party with the two far wings hanging on the outside.

[Rex]

27. Impossible, Americans would not stand for a true egalitarian state.

If we went to the left, as far as the right is now to the right...we would all be living in communes and private wealth would not exist. The state would control everything and there would be no such thing as a free market.

[randome]

29. How would they possibly win if people didn't vote for them?

If people want to vote for them now, why don't they?

The answer is dismaying, to be sure. It really is a more conservative country than we would like. The idea that if only Democrats would behave more boisterously, then we would have what we need is preposterous.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[merrily]

35. No, It's a much more conservative political class and media/propaganda class than we SAY we would

like.

See replies 23 and 33. Do you think most voters want their jobs sent overseas, high interest rates on their kids' student loans, but lower taxes for the rich, tap water igniting, social safety nets slashed, and so on?

Issues near and dear to the hearts of traditional Democrats poll at around 70% (all political parties) approval when the propaganda machine either butts out or has not geared up yet, and issues are not labeled Republican, Democrat, conservative, or liberal.

The rest the plutocracy at work.

[hifiguy]

34. i'd be a happy pony.

[KamaAina]

38. Don't you mean a happy brony?

[JEB]

42. They all (both parties) go for the fucking money.