In the last decade the number of people who consider themselves members of a third party rather than Republican or Democrat has more than doubled, and the number who consider themselves neither Democrat or Republican has risen to 37%, 6% more than the number of adherents claimed by either mainstream party nationwide. These voters are a force which neither major party can afford to alienate. In certain key states the gap is even larger. Independents dominate many of the western states where no party registration is required, and even some of the old northeastern states which require registration by party have more than 50% who register as independents. Even the number of people who vote 'straight ticket' in elections where it is allowed is declining as loyalist blue hairs become too old to vote. People like choice, but they don't like the choices the major parties are offering them, especially the Democrats. Over a 20 year period polls on poilitical identity have shown a 15% decline in those who identify themselves as Democrats with Republican numbers staying roughly even.
With membership declining and out of power in all of the branches of government, you would think that it would be time for unity among Democrats, but instead they've gone into a frenzy of divisiveness and recriminations. The moderate Democratic Leadership Council which brought them their successes of the Clinton era has become a target for attacks as "right-wing collaborationists" by those who feel that it betrayed the leftist traditions of the party and cooperated too much with the Republicans. The problem is that the DLC achieved its successes by appealing to moderates, and their far-left counterparts within the party like the Progressive Democrats of America have nothing to offer the voters who left the party or any of the other independent voters who are uncomfortable with the politics of either extreme. The success of this attack is demonstrated in the Lamont victory and the increasingly hostile rhetoric directed at other prominent DLC members like Hillary Clinton.
The far left feels that moderates have betrayed their party and that it's time for them to take over and reform the party on more of a socialist model. They have a good point. The voters who've slipped away over the years got tired of a party which seemed to have no convictions and no direction. They New Left has been extraordinarily effective in imitating the techniques of the religious right, revitalizing and subverting the party at the same time. They pursue their agenda remorselessly, targeting candidates within their own party for destruction and organizing grassroots movements through the Internet. They are determined to dominate the party, even if their destructive purges leave them with a much smaller, politically marginalized party to control. They may be winning the war for ideological purity at the expense of ever being a meaningful national party again.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - G. Chell
"With the latest polls showing Lieberman's independent run crushing Lamont by 10 to 12 points in Connecticut, the writing may be on the wall already."
Oh?
americanresearchgroup.com
rasmussenreports.com
2 - Dave Nalle
Chell, in the article I linked to two polls which were taken at about the same time as your two. Your polls are no more likely to be accurate and they STILL show Lieberman leading Lamont. They just have larger numbers of undecided voters. Which way do you think the undecideds are likely to go once they get to the polls?
Dave
3 - Clavos
The leadership of the Republican party should pay close attention to what's happening in the Democratic party and put the brakes on their ongoing pandering to the religious right.
Instead, it seems as if both party leaderships have some sort of bizarre death wish.
4 - Dave Nalle
Dead on, Clavos. The problem the GOP has been facing for years is quite similar. The difference seems to be that the GOP is willing to work with the crazies and the crazies don't quite have control yet.
But there is a very clear parallel in the way that the extreme religious right is targeting Chafee for defeat in Rhode Island. He represents his people extremely well, but he also represents the most moderate element in the GOP, and he's being targeted just the way that Lieberman does. If he survives that's going to be a sign that the GOP is not going to go down the same destructive path that the Democrats are on.
Dave
5 - Lumpy
What bothers me is that all this fragmentation doesn't seem to be leading to any real effort to create a moderate third party.
6 - Seabiscuit
Dumnest title and dumnest article I've ever read.
Any Democrat who doesn't kiss Bush's arse is to this author "far left" as in pinko/commie/hippie/scum. Those who think like this got lost in the right-wing mucky-muck language of the 60's.
There are no pinkos, commies, hippies, etc. any more. Forget it. This "far left" crap is just that: crap.
7 - Dean
Left and right are relative terms. They represent the political extremes.
What extremists represent varies with time.
8 - Bliffle
The dems may have concluded that the moderate path they've pursued the last 10 years was fruitless. they were scorned by the right and no matter how much they conceded they got nothing in return. And there didn't seem to be any broad middle they could join, so they're trying radicalism, as the reps did 12 years ago. Worked for them.
9 - Mohjho
What country are you writing about?
We moved to the right so that we could feel secure and strengthen our economy.
Turns out, it was all hot air. Incompetence and corruption of core value is what we ended up voting for.
We are now moving back to the center and the right is howling.
Conservative republicans have dug their own hole, its left to the rest of us to replace the divot.
10 - Dave Nalle
Seab, you might want to get out more. Pay a visit to the Buzzflash link in the article, or go visit Democratic Underground. Believe me. The pinko, commie, ultraleft is alive and well and campaigning to take over the democratic party.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
What country are you writing about?
Always a relevant question. I guess we'll know after November.
We moved to the right so that we could feel secure and strengthen our economy.
Turns out, it was all hot air. Incompetence and corruption of core value is what we ended up voting for.
Yes, we got those, but we also got fewer terrorist attacks and a stronger economy, though they weren't free.
We are now moving back to the center and the right is howling.
Conservative republicans have dug their own hole, its left to the rest of us to replace the divot.
If you're a democrat you're practicing dangrous self deception. You should join Seabiscuit and read up on the forces that are taking over your party.
Dave
12 - Dean
The Democrats have an edge on Republicans not because they have something better or different to offer the country, but because the people have tired of those in power.
People vote against incumbents to punish them, not because they expect something better.
13 - RJ Elliott
Dave:
Here's the thing - The GOP is presently hated by most voters. We are now likely to see a "tidal wave" in the 2006 elections...not because the voters are in love with the Democrats, but because of their outright hostility to Republicans. The Dems are pretty likely to retake the House, and have a decent shot at regaining the Senate.
Once in power, the Dems will likely support a lot of leftist policies that mainstream voters will dislike. But, it will be too late, because they will ALREADY BE IN POWER! And incumbency offers huge advantages come re-election time (except for those rare "tidal wave" election years like this).
So. Even though the Dems are becoming more kooky and fringe than ever, they could still win despite (not because of) it, and then use the power of incumbency to maintain that control, whether the average voter likes it or not...
"Tidal waves" come only rarely (1974, 1994, 2006?). If the GOP loses control of the House in November, it could be another decade or two before they win it back, regardless of the relative merits of the ideas the two parties support...
14 - Dave Nalle
Dean, people don't vote against incumbents. Where on earth did you get that idea? This election will be revolutionary if it gets the incumbent reelection rate down as low as 90%.
RJ, I don't actually think the GOP is hated by most voters. I think it's hated by the most outspoken and obnoxious people on the internet and in high-exposure left-wing groups. Like Nixon I'm confident that these people don't really speak for the general public.
The growing unaligned majority may be irritated with the GOP, but when they get in the voting booth they vote for whatever's in their best interest, and despite the endless prattling that Americans are stupid we get from the left and the media, they're smart enough to see through a lot of the lies the left is promoting, especially about key issues like the economy.
Someone earlier mentioned third parties. I'd like to see it happen, of course. If a party developed around Lieberman and some other moderates it sure would be cool if they had the balls to call it the Whig party like they should.
Dave
15 - G. Chell
"Which way do you think the undecideds are likely to go once they get to the polls?"
As a rule of thumb against incumbents but that was not the case in only two elections: 2002 and 2004. In 2000 from Delaware to Washington State they all went against incumbents. Let us see whether trend from the last two elections continue. But, it is a big jump from tons of undecideds to your conclusion.
16 - G. Chell
"Any Democrat who doesn't kiss Bush's arse is to this author "far left" as in pinko/commie/hippie/scum."
Plenty of pinko/commie scums in the GOP House masquerading as conservatives if one wants to go that route. Duncan Hunter wanted to nationalize the ports to keep it from foreign hands. Steve King openly talked about the American proletariat (plagarized from Karl Marx) while discussing illegal aliens. Dana Rohrbacher wanted to establish Gulag for prisoners to pick fruits and vegetables instead of guestworkers. Don Goldwater the Arizona candidate for governor wants to build a wall and electric fence similar to the Berlin Wall...and there is a long list of Marxist-Leninist comments made by the GOP congressmen from other places such as Georgia and Alabama.
17 - G. Chell
"Dean, people don't vote against incumbents. Where on earth did you get that idea? This election will be revolutionary if it gets the incumbent reelection rate down as low as 90%."
Comment: Except for 2002 and 2004, in most senate races, incumbents loose when they are under 50. Please go back and see what happened to Roth, Gorton, Rod Gramms and others in 2000..they were all under 50.
18 - G. Chell
"Believe me. The pinko, commie, ultraleft is alive and well and campaigning to take over the democratic party."
As I told you there are plenty of them in the GOP as well.
19 - Clavos
Chell,
Did you get all that from Robert Welch?
20 - Dave Nalle
Yes, I agree that there are neocoms in the GOP. They're a bit different from the ones the Democrats are stuck with, though. They're the hardcore neo-stalinist hawk types. They do love their pork, though.
Chell, even in 2000 incumbents got reelected at 92%.
Dave
21 - Webster
There *are* national third parties out there, and they just need a breakthrough to get some attention. The biggies (relatively speaking) are the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party. All three have the support to consistently get a presidential candidate on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical chance to win.
What those candidates need is credibility, which can only come from winning positions like Governor or Senator. But those positions are high enough in profile, especially in big states, that they have the same problem. So, for long term success, the "third" parties need to either recruit current & former officeholders, or start winning the VERY lowest level offices, and build from there.
22 - Webster
Chell --
The Berlin Wall was built to keep people IN, b/c the East German government was so bad, ppl wanted to leave. It was wrong b/c the right to emigrate is a basic human right.
A wall on our southern border would be to keep ppl OUT who do not follow our laws on how to enter, legally. They have the right to leave Mexico, if anyone will have them, but we don't have to take them in.
23 - G. Chell
"Chell, even in 2000 incumbents got reelected at 92%."
Agreed. But, in the Senate races, with the exception of Conrad "I like Burning and hate the firefighters and give me federal pork" Burns, everyone who was under 50 with large undecided lost. The unfortunate part was the true conservative Spencer Abraham. He was ahead of Stabenow by 48-33, but in the end lost 50.5-49.5. The morons who voted against him gave us the main reason his push to import engineers from abroad. However, the many of the morons who voted against him, employed by Ford and GM lost their jobs anyway...instead of importing engineers Ford and GM moved jobs abroad and the rest is history..and the unemployment among engineers in Michigan is now higher even with fewer foreign engineers. Design jobs have moved to Singapore and the production has moved to Malaysia and China..and what does commie Pinkos like Duncan Hunter say, let us restrict foreign investment..so that American corporations move abroad and foreign corporations dont creat employment. Commie Pinkos all!!
24 - G. Chell
"A wall on our southern border would be to keep ppl OUT who do not follow our laws on how to enter, legally. They have the right to leave Mexico, if anyone will have them, but we don't have to take them in."
Agreed. But, do you really believe that if someone from the west wanted to go and settle in Soviet Russia, they would have been allowed to? I worked in the Former Soviet Union. Along the southern border with Afghanistan they had a big fence..to keep Afghan refugees as a result of Soviet intervention out...not very different from the wall commies such as Don Goldwater are suggesting..they had guard towers every few meters and electric fences as well. Of course, Goldwater is not the biggest commie. That award goes to Pat Buchanan, who combines some racialism with a lot of socialism and communism in his new book, "the state of Emergency."
25 - Dave Nalle
There *are* national third parties out there, and they just need a breakthrough to get some attention. The biggies (relatively speaking) are the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party. All three have the support to consistently get a presidential candidate on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical chance to win.
Webster, the problem with all three of these parties is that they are ideologically rigid and unable to come up with a realistic platform which will attract more than a handful of voters. They are to a large extent one issue parties (christianity, freedom and the environment), even if they've attracted some positive attention and their one issue is a good issue. None of them have had nearly the success they need at winning local offices to support a nationwide effort.
Realisitically if we get a third party it's going to have to come into existence with members already in office the way the Democrats and Republicans both did back in the 1820s and 1850s respectively.
Dave