The longer this dream is deferred, expect more political

[mmonk]

upheaval. The more the present party leadership ignores it, the bigger the chance it goes by the way of the Whigs. Have a nice evening.

[brooklynite]

1. By upheaval, you mean...

...not bothering to vote?

...not joining the Democratic Party to influence its policies and nominees?

Let me know when something changes.

[whatchamacallit]

3. I sincerely hope a viable 3rd party rises after this

cuz I'm done with this shit.

[silvershadow]

4. I am too. I've had enough of the Clinton's shit. Enough triangulation. Over it. nt

[brooklynite]

6. ...and of course, that'll be someone else's job?

Much easier to grumble behind your keyboard than do the hard work.

[philly_bob]

8. Funny you should mention joining the Democratic Party.

I've been a registered Democrat in three states, and except for getting solicitations for funds and reminders to vote, the Democratic Party has never reached out to me in any meaningful way to participate. I don't even know who my chief Democratic Party delegate is. How do I join the Democratic Party in such a way that I get to express my opinion on issues like money in politics and neo-conservative war mongering? Serious question.

[Autumn]

9. Many of us have been democrats. I was one for over 40 years

never missed an election, and have always voted a straight democratic ticket. I dropped my democratic party affiliation, that's just one thing that has changed so far, I will no longer be that reliable democratic voter. I'm sure more will change.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. You have read Kennedy

So won't bother quoting him. But in your salons you are not getting how pissed people already are.

And by the way, I already concluded the ballot is not going to be the way. The elites will learn. This is not a threat...just an observation. And every time the rich believe it will be different. That is what is so humorous.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. That's the hubris of wealth. They don't ever learn........

Don't lose your head over guillotine insurance! But they don't believe it will ever happen to them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. I started to conclude something was really rotten after 2000

It was kind of I drank the kool aid. But both parties do it. We used to have ways of talking about this in Mexico. So I pretend to vote so I can "gripe". Inverted totalitarianism is very real

[Broward]

2. The days of silently acquiescing to corporate Dems should be over.

They are enemies of progress and should be called out as such.

[jpmonk91]

5. Hey dad I totally agree

this revolution will only get stronger

[mmonk]

7. I hope you're right.

Didn't realize you were online.

[Jim Lane]

11. There is zero chance that the Democratic Party will go the way of the Whigs.

The big difference is that we now have primaries. In the 1850s, the Whigs like Abraham Lincoln who were dissatisfied with the party leadership couldn't do much about it. Their only alternative was to leave and start a new party.

If the same situation arises today, the people who are unhappy with the party's direction can change it through primaries. It can take more than one cycle. I think and hope we're seeing the beginning of it here, as a rumpled septuagenarian socialist is getting about 40% of the vote against an Establishment candidate who began the race with the biggest lead of any nonincumbent in the history of modern polling. Bernie didn't achieve that on the strength of his endearing Brooklyn accent. He achieved it through the power of his ideas.

In short, the lesson of Bernie's campaign is not that the Democratic Party is hopeless. The lesson is that the transformation of the party may be a lot closer than the commentariat realized a year ago.

Would the third-party route be easier? It can't possibly be. If you have enough votes to win under a new party's banner, then you have enough votes to win the Democratic primary. The reverse isn't true, though. Many people will stick with the Democratic Party out of inertia. The main effect of a third party would be to enable a long series of Republican victories with a plurality of the votes.

[mmonk]

12. A problem not mentioned is a captured system.

The parties are currently shrinking. Yet the hold a sort of dictatorial grip through their discipline.

[Jim Lane]

13. I don't see the parties' discipline operating the way you do.

This year, the Democrats had the ultimate Establishment candidate, one with overwhelming support among the party's elected officials and party functionaries. She's nevertheless faced a significant challenge from an opponent who, as her supporters frequently remind us, isn't even a Democrat. On the Republican side it's even worse. Of the 17 candidates who started the race, the two whom the party leadership would have ranked 16th and 17th are the two who are currently the front-runners.

The party bosses still have a lot of power. They can still lose, however, to a sufficiently aroused party membership. The key point is that the level of anger needed to break through the party discipline is less than the level needed for a successful third party.

[randome]

17. Nicely put. I was wondering when the 'upheaval' was even going to start. I don't think it has.

If Sanders can't even get a majority of voters on his side, that's not an upheaval.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jim Lane]

19. The upheaval has started. It will take more than one cycle.

In the context of the OP and demise of the Whigs, someone posting to an Internet message board after the 1856 election might have written, "If John C. Frémont can't even get a majority of voters on his side, that's not an upheaval. Therefore, this new Republican Party does not represent the start of a major change."

That person would have been correct about Frémont's vote total (he got only 33.1% of the popular vote) but wrong to draw that conclusion. I don't know Sanders's overall percentage of the vote but he'll probably come in above Frémont's share. Right after the 2014 midterms, with the Republicans riding high, how many people were predicting that a self-described democratic socialist could give an overwhelming favorite like Hillary Clinton that much of a contest? IMO it represents an upheaval. It may persists and transform the Democratic Party, or it may turn out be just a wave that crests and recedes, but it shouldn't be dismissed.

[randome]

20. Well, I'm game no matter how it turns out.

But so far I don't see much in the way of change until we weaken the GOP more. Then we'll be able to get things done and it will be more of a team effort rather than counting on one person's charisma or whatever. Sanders has always been a loner and that has hurt him, I think.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Nah, the dems are now a business party

Get over that. The fate of the Rs is in the balance far more because their fractures are more obvious. Politics like physics abhors a vacuum. But tje FDR coalition is beyond fractured.

As to Whigs, we'll both parties are bleeding members and the form of tje 7th US political system is not yet taken form.

[Jim Lane]

21. Why do you write "now"? The Dems have been a business party for decades.

Even in FDR's day, the Democrats were the mainstream party, with groups like the Socialist Party running because they thought the Democrats were too pro-business. Then as now, the Democrats supported maintaining the capitalist system, although then as now they were more willing than the Republicans to use government to provide some amelioration of the system's harshness.

The realignment from FDR's day came without the formation of a new party. The Dixiecrats ran as a new party in 1948 but that didn't last. Instead, they simply became Republicans. That's why, as you point out, the FDR coalition fractured. The Democratic Solid South, part of the FDR coalition, became the Republican Solid South.

Yes, both major parties are currently bleeding members. That seems to be mostly a disdain for the Establishment. There's no unifying ideological bloc, like opposition to slavery, that could form the basis of a viable new party. More to the point, though, is that, if there were such a unifying ideology, its adherents would find it easier to take over one of the existing parties (through primaries) than to start a new one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Because the current form of the D's

Is that which moderate republicans occupied in the past. Concerns for labor are truly just window dressing. That is why. The dems are now done with the realignment and as far as I am concerned they are hardly friend of the middle class, the working class or labor.

It will take time for those who do not pay attention to truly notice

As to the critical issue...climate change will be part of it. My question is whether the planet has time.

That said. This rise of RW parties is global.

[Orsino]

18. Watch Dems in this election to see which ones....

...tell us to ignore inequality. They have been bought.