It depends (4.00 / 7)

In football terms, we could drive a Mack truck through the center they're abandoning. And that doesn't mean the Democrats have to simply be centrists - they just have to welcome them.

The Republicans continue to break to the right. But the Democrats frequently try follow. You'd think one party committing suicide was enough. But driving from center right doesn't exactly offer enough differentiation. Come back to the 5 and dime, Jimmy Dean Jimmy Dean - we can simply return to being an inclusive center-left party of the 60's and reap the benefits, or we can keep trying to be Republican Lite and fall to the guys who know what message control and wingnut mean in practice.

---

by: Desider @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 15:46:19 PM CDT

Not so easy, I think. (4.00 / 1)

They figure that with enough money, and a good script, they don't actually need a party in the traditional sense. So far, they've been right about the strategy, if sometimes they have as a hard a time with the scripts as Hollywood does. (Obama good, Hillary bad, McCain/Palin suitable only for Roger Corman or maybe Russ Meyer.)

It's not that they buy voters, exactly, they just romance the hell out of them. It's not so different from selling toothpaste, when you come down to it, and it certainly doesn't require them to pay that much attention to what voters actually think. TV got blamed for ruining a lot of things that it didn't actually ruin, but this is one bit of ruination that I think can be laid at its door, at least in part.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 20:47:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think she was pushed (4.00 / 3)

  The Republicans are trying to make the Tuesday night narrative about their "comeback" and about an anti-Obama backlash, and if they didn't unequivocally win NY-23 that narrative would have been severely dampened (particularly if Corzine holds on in New Jersey).

  So Scozzafava walked the plank. For The Party.

  And the fact that the GOP is now basically the teabaggers' party should doom them in national elections from now on, but as the Virginia governors' race demonstrates, never underestimate the Democrats' ability to whiff on a hanging curveball.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 16:03:44 PM CDT

When I hear about something like this (0.00 / 0)

my first thought is to wonder if it could help open up space for the two-party calcification to be assaulted from both ends.

Then I wonder if right-leaning Dems won't, in their bizarre way, claim this is evidence that they need to lean even further right. (I read elsewhere that it's supposedly the all-important independents the dog-type Dems drool over who like this Hoffman).  

http://attempter.wordpress.com

---

by: Russ @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 16:05:03 PM CDT

Just Remember (4.00 / 2)

That most independents lean toward one party or the other.  So when people talk about "independents" as if they were a homogeneous mass, they're either blithering idiots, or else they're discussing things at a level where it's appropriate to lump them that way (as in, "the number of self-identified 'independents' has increased as the number of self-identified Republicans has declined.")

But if anyone really believes that independents a homogeneous mass, ripe for the plucking with just the right mix of DC consultant ju-ju, see if you can sell them a bridge or two.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 16:14:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

true (0.00 / 0)

I'm an "independent" but have a hard time thinking how it could ever be possible to vote for a Republican. It just won't happen.

I do vote for Greens however.

---

by: alex @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 01:30:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Voter Revolt (4.00 / 2)

What we saw is a voter revolt, a rejection of both the Republican party AND the Democratic party.  Now, true to form the teabaggers have selected a rich guy that's going to bend them over just like the Republican party does, but the real message is that voters are starting to wake up and see what a raw deal they've been given by BOTH parties.

The Republicans will embrace this because their party is so shattered that it's got no where else to go.  Grabbing onto populism rage as the economy heads into the next great depression is actually a pretty smart maneuver for the Republicans.  If they can capture the Ron Paul crowd and a bunch of independents that get gob smacked by the economy, they might just be back in business.

The Democrats are not doing themselves any favors by so obviously aligning with big business.  The Republicans will continue to relentlessly attack every one of Obama's policies, and these attacks gain traction as we all watch the rich get bailed out and everybody else get screwed.

Things to watch for:
Republican party re-branding as the Conservatives.
Blame for the economic collapse is all government - not banks.
Republican presidential front runners will start supporting Conservative party (some already have).

---

by: glenjo @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 16:11:12 PM CDT

It's hard to believe, but.. (4.00 / 6)

The Democrats are not doing themselves any favors by so obviously aligning with big business.  The Republicans will continue to relentlessly attack every one of Obama's policies, and these attacks gain traction as we all watch the rich get bailed out and everybody else get screwed.

..as things are right now, the Dems really are the party of the fat rich. Everybody knows the Reps can't do anything right now. Every action is a Dem action.

Heckuva job, Rahmie, and as we sink into Depression...Oughta play real well at the polls.

Republican party re-branding as the Conservatives.

Maybe that'll be one of Luntz's "words that work".

http://attempter.wordpress.com

---

by: Russ @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 16:35:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It means running a third party against someone (4.00 / 3)

who ignores the base is a good strategy for getting rid of corrupt people.

---

by: Dameocrat @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 16:59:48 PM CDT

or, winding up with Bush instead of Gore (0.00 / 0)

Gore 'ignored the base,' according to the die-hard Naderites.  We sure showed him!  That eight-year Bush interlude?  Hey, collateral damage.

This entire thing is nonsense.  'Primaries all over the country ... independent House and Senate third-party runs."  Yes, because a Democrat who votes our way half the time isn't nearly as good as a Republican who never does.  

---

by: Weeferdog @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 17:26:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (4.00 / 5)

Because defeating a couple of Democrats who stab us in the back repeatedly is a very powerful teaching device, and very well priced when losing traitors actually helps to enhance message clarity and discipline.

And the best way to do that is to put as many seats in play as possible early on, to see which emerge as the strongest possibilities in the end.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 17:44:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Target Those Suckers (4.00 / 3)

I agree, It's better to go after the real idiots with primaries, and to support the CPC every chance you get.  Just get much more selective about where you donate your time, energy, and bucks.

And always remain loud and vocal about where you think OUR party is screwing up.  Always call and write your Representatives, Senators,  and the President.

According to Rahm - that's counterproductive which means we are making an impact.  If you get in a group call and get treated like you don't exist - you're doing something wrong.

---

by: glenjo @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 21:15:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right (4.00 / 2)

If you're not pissing someone off, you're doing something wrong.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 21:29:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so we risk losing a term or two (4.00 / 3)

if we persued it repeatedly, and not just once in a while it would get rid of bad dems.  The naderites were against all dems, not just bad ones.  Also you can still do primary challenges, but if they don't work, run third party.

---

by: Dameocrat @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 18:06:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nader did not cause Gore's loss (4.00 / 1)

Gore lost it all on his own.  He bailed out of Ohio even though he still had a good chance to win there.  He did dis the base and in doing so failed to generate any enthusiasm for his campaign.

Also, please remember that the election was stolen by the Supreme Court.

I voted for Nader (granted I live in NY, so I had the privilege of doing so without worrying about the state outcome) because he and Clinton, over 8 years, put in place the economic structure that led to the current depression. Pushing through NAFTA did more to destroy jobs and industry and provide an opening for cannibal capitalism then Bush. It is the template for all trade agreements.  Notice how, despite his promises, Obama hasn't amended NAFTA?

So get over it.  Enough already.  And your analysis is just plain wrong.


I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 18:19:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This Either/Or Thinking Is Fucked Up (4.00 / 5)

I voted for Nader, too--In California, where it was not a de facto half vote for Bush.  I had plenty of disdain for Gore--which he richly deserved.  His own ambivalence in the Florida fight underscored that vividly--how tepid he was in fighting for black voting rights, even when it meant his own election.  All of that sickened me.

But Nader still cost him the election.  It's called joint and severable liability. As Yogi Berra would say, "You could look it up."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 18:30:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

we wll just have to agree to disagree. (0.00 / 0)

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 20:14:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's A Great Line (4.00 / 1)

when you have no plausible argument.

As long as you're arguing with someone who dogmatically defends Gore, you can counter their one-sided arguments with one-sided arguments of your own.

But up against someone who doesn't play that either/or game, you're all George Constanza.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 20:24:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

in one... (0.00 / 0)

of the more memorable replies in West Wing, Amy Gardner tells Josh Lyman "the crazy part of what you're saying is, they aren't even Barlett's votes", this after Josh tells her that a certain senator would "steal his votes if he ran".

at the time of the Gore/Bush/Nader race, I lived in FL and rallied hard for Gore. Unfortunately we lost but that's what happens when a Democrat fails to be a strong Democrat.

---

by: alex @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 01:47:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bravo, Paul (4.00 / 1)

This is the first sensible thing I've read on this topic in nine years, beyond the yes-he-did no-he-didn't food fight that is the usual form this discussion takes.

It was okay to vote for Nader (strategically) in states where it didn't matter (I did so too), however doing so in states where it did matter was stupid, and we (the broad swath of self-identified progressives) were not uniformly acting strategically.  

And Nader himself did not understand the game - his power to "teach the Dems a lesson" was limited to the case where they barely won - putting the fear of God in them.  By instead helping (true, it wasn't ALL his fault) them actually lose (he didn't HAVE TO campaign so much in Florida) he wound up reinforcing the opposite lesson - it's now much harder to think of organizing a third party because of Nader than it was in 2000.

The point being this third party stuff needs to be thought over very carefully.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Knee-jerks in either direction don't cut it.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 10:27:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Joint and Sevable Liability (0.00 / 0)

would mean that I personally am fully responsible for everything that Obama does because I voted for him. Fully responsible to the point that I could be sued for damages. It is a ridiculous standard to apply to politics.

---

by: bento @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 13:01:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nobody suggested running a presidential candidate (4.00 / 2)

America is closely divided enough that a third-party candidate with substantial support is almost certain to swing the election.

But not all congressional districts or states are as closely divided as America. There are plenty of safe Democratic seats where a progressive third party run wouldn't endanger the seat, because Republicans get 35% only in very good years. There are also plenty of Republican seats where a third party run would actually be a net benefit if it fires up the local activists, such that they're willing to do the sort of issue advocacy that's needed to change political positions long-term.

It's also worth noting that three party systems tend to reduce down to two very quickly. People generally think this happens on a national level, but actually it's more based on individual constituencies. Thus even though the UK has three main parties (four in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), it's very rare for more than two parties to have a serious chance of winning a seat, and that normally only happens when another minor party is able to split the vote still further. Therefore it's quite likely that if successful third party challengers run in safe Democratic areas, Republican support will actually crater more, as there'll become a minor party there.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 19:45:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Different... (4.00 / 1)

Nader had no chance... Hoffman did...  Of course, he had a lot of help.

If you find a liberal third party presidential candidate that can get enough votes to win outright, I'm all in.

I don't think that will happen anytime soon, though...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 20:45:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In NY we do not have traditional 3rd parties (4.00 / 3)

In most state the nominee of each party had to be differnt. They are not allowed to corss endorse....

The Working Families Party cross endorsed in many races pulling the party to the left.  the Independence party sgoes both ways.  The Conservative party has historically cross endorsed the Republican candidate pulling it to the right.

This race was unusual in having 3 significant candidates represnting 3 parties.....

I think it actually says nothing about third parites.

It does say that the Republcan civil war may be very brief..the shots have been fired, Surrender will soon come.

The remainder of the moderate wing surrendered and what's left of that remnant is going to allow the right wing to take over.

Metaphorically this is like in Roman history...the Rape of the Sabine woman..  They conquer, they absorb and the invaders become the winners.  Indeed in actuality that is what happened after the Norman invasion of England.  Historical genetic studies have shown that the markers for Anglo Saxon males became very uncommon in England, while the markers for Anglo Saxon women were not affected.  Norman males had access to the conquered female population while the male Anglo Saxons didn't.

The aggressive win.

The Republicans have been listening and molding themselves to their base since the late 70's.  Democrats have been ignoring their base for the same period of time.

We need to learn one lesson from them...being nice gets you nowhere.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 01:12:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just One Quibble (4.00 / 1)

The Republicans have been listening and molding themselves to their base since the late 70's.  Democrats have been ignoring their base for the same period of time.

Actually, the GOP has been developing that base, feeding it, nurturing it, but never giving it what it really wants, because to do so would bring disaster.  Now that disaster has come anyway, the base is moving to take over.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 07:59:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

One other quibble: (0.00 / 0)

Historical genetics does not say that. It's a young field, with a lot of historians who do not understand genetics properly and a lot of geneticists with an inadequate knowledge of the history, and it's has problems with false positives and inadequate sampling. There's good work being done on the subject at the moment (I recently applied for a scholarship on one of the major historical genetics projects currently running in Britain) but it's far too early to make those comments in most areas.

In the area of the Normans, however, it's unfortunately just plain wrong. Our best estimate is that there were 10,000 Norman males in an English population of two million and without things such as droit de seigneur (which is much more of a European than a British thing). That wouldn't be enough for that kind of change in any monogamous society, unless the Normans were setting up Mongol-style rape camps (they weren't.)

Moreover, they still haven't really established what Norman (or indeed Anglo-Saxon) genetic markers are. They've accomplished it for Iceland, they've accomplished it for the Hebrides and they're making progress in sorting it in northern England and western Norway. They aren't close to it in Normandy, and in fact we couldn't even make a clear guess of what ethnicity most of the 'Normans' who settled in Britain identified as, let alone what cultural groups the majority of their genetic ancestry came from.

That's not to say that the process doesn't happen - it's been suggested for the Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings in certain areas (although mostly not proven) and cultural absorption certainly works, so a genetic element is not unlikely.

But it is to say that the Normans didn't really 'Normanise' Britain. People may have begun to identify as Normans, and Normans certainly did intermarry with Anglo-Saxons, but there's more or less zero evidence that anything William the Bastard ever did (the Harrying of the North aside) stopped your average Anglo-Saxon male getting his leg over.

< /end irrelevant medievalist's quibbles>

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 11:21:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Great Info! (0.00 / 0)

I've really missed your more active participation of late.  And this is just a super comment.  I've got so much going on right now, it never occurred to me to question this.  And here I get a whole little mini-lecture for free!

< //end irrelevant medievalist's quibbles>

Nonsense!  It's precisely the accumulation of such information that gives us our rich and textured sense of the world, so vastly different from the oversimplified worlds of the fear-driven right and the simple-minded tom foolery of Versailles.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 12:45:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Englishlefty. (0.00 / 0)

I found your comment most illuminating.

---

by: Querent @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 20:34:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Opening salvo? (0.00 / 0)

The "Palin" wing of the party means running candidates who know nothing, are rich or aligned with the rich, and who expect to win simply by saying who they are: "a conservative." They are banking on a country that no longer understands what representative democracy means, and will vote a) for whomever some party or 'movement' tells them to vote for or b) someone with a totally vacuous personality, a la Palin, who mouths empty speech while trying to look seductive and sexy.

This is the Republican, not the far right playbook. It's what the architect of nazism also recommended to run know-nothing people for an office they actually disdained (as Palin disdained her governorship). It was almost already true of GWB, who apparently 'misspoke', mispronounced, and said next to nothing substantive whenever he opened his mouth.

I see this as an opening salvo in this type of candidature. Hoffman couldn't answer a single question about the district in interviews; he has virtually no personal charm. But the kick Republicans get out of it is the one they aim at the teeth of their voters, smirking to themselves about how utterly stupid they are.

---

by: jjmm @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 17:55:55 PM CDT

The GOP is officially a 3rd party (4.00 / 1)

The new second party is the Right Wing Fringe Element Party of America.

It is just one race but it completes the trend we have been seeing for years.

The GOP is Dead.

Scozzafava was a true Republican. Right Wing extremists like to call people like her a RINO. The fact of the matter is that she is the true Republican and Hoffman is an extremist in Republican clothing, the true RINO in other words.

The GOP is Dead.

This is exactly why all of New England and most of New York is in Democratic hands these days. It is why Gillibrand won. There will be only 2 Republican held districts in New York State in 2010. Only 2.

The GOP is Dead.

---

by: Andrew C White @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 18:08:36 PM CDT

Hope you are right about this (4.00 / 1)

Actually, Gillibrand won because the incumbent is a drunkard who attends frat parties despite being on the plus side of 45.  

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 18:23:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That was icing on the cake (0.00 / 0)

She won because he was a wingnut that did nothing for the district while promoting the far right wing agenda of the Bush/Cheney administration.

The frat party simply nailed his political coffin shut.

---

by: Andrew C White @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 20:50:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is anyone worried that Hoffman may actually win? (4.00 / 3)

I am.  That will embolden the lunatic fringe, Club for Growth types.  Someone mentioned a little Weimar German history and that scares me.

If the Republican party is dead where is the oh-so-important second party going to come from?

The next split is between progressive Democrats and coporate
Democrats. The results of that split will create the 2 parties people think are so important to democracy.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 18:30:13 PM CDT

I presume he'll win. (4.00 / 2)

My question is, will The Great Emboldening help or hinder progressive Dems?

---

by: Joel @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 19:00:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope the progressives are embolden (0.00 / 0)

to split too.

---

by: Dameocrat @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 19:13:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The right isn't splitting from the Republican party (4.00 / 2)

They are taking it over.

That is what we should try for...more heft and control for the progressives within the Democratic party

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 01:16:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hoffman is not running as a (0.00 / 0)

Republican.  You can take over the party, but others can challenge from the outside if it doesn't work.  I just won't vote for a shit dem anymore.  I just won't. Not even in the general.

---

by: Dameocrat @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 04:25:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hoffman will win now .... (4.00 / 1)

cause the Nutters are all fired up .. remember .. Republicans have held this seat since Abe Lincoln's days

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 19:21:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've been concerned about him winning (4.00 / 1)

from day one. That's why it is necessary to make it as clear as possible that he is part of a right wing fringe that has driven the Republican party and this nation into the ground.

If you want more of the Bush/Cheney economic disaster vote for Hoffman.

If you want sane, responsible, reasonable leadership then vote for Bill Owens.

---

by: Andrew C White @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 20:52:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Andrew, if he wins that is a narrative that becomes harder to sell (0.00 / 0)

to the MSM, the village, even the electorate.

If she was the winner, you could have touted a Republican party that realized it needed moderate...and that Democrats  should reconsider how many Blue Dogs they put up for open seats.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 01:21:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it means the GOP is on its way (4.00 / 4)

to reconstituting itself as an American Nationalist Party of anti-government, nativist Know-Nothings, with a theocratic bent.

The Republicans won't be fractured for long. The craziest of the crazies will run the less crazy ones out of town on a rail, and the maniacs will be left in the drivers' seat.

Too many Democrats are not taking this seriously enough. A stealth theocrat is about to become the governor of Virginia, with even crazier theocrats sweeping into state office on his coattails, and no one really seems to care.

Creigh Deeds may not be the most scintillating of candidates, but I don't think a President Obama who fails to deliver on health care/climate protection/economic recovery will fare much better than that in 2012 against someone like Huckabee.

And even before then, if we lose seats in 2010, the GOP will be able to obstruct the business of Congress and form an alliance with conservative Democrats, and if the Clinton impeachment was bad, what they do to Obama then will be worse.

---

by: limpidglass @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 20:01:10 PM CDT

Too bad. He brought it on himself. (4.00 / 4)

He could have become the leader of the left, instead of shunning us.

---

by: Querent @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 23:29:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

too bad for him is too bad for us, (4.00 / 2)

since the failure of this presidency would mean a plunge into Depression coupled with widespread social unrest, and a return to GOP rule under someone far more extreme than Bush/Cheney, most likely a theofascist demagogue.

There's no satisfaction in being right here. Only a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

---

by: limpidglass @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 03:09:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Me too, but (4.00 / 1)

I am no longer looking to the President for leadership.  He doesn't have it to give.  I'm pinning my hopes on the third of Paul's wave elections sweeping more progressives into Congress and teaching the Blue Dogs that what they are selling, nobody wants to buy.  With each bad decision, the President is making himself more irrelevant.  When he decides to send more troops into Afghanistan, he will be considerably shortening the odds of being a one term wonder.

---

by: Querent @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 20:41:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe good, maybe bad (0.00 / 0)

If the Republicans became a Palin-Hoffman type party it would be interesting.

It's scary because these are people who will march down the streets with guns, act like brown-shirts, and disrupt democratic processes.  They would march us into fascism and be glad they did it.

However, if voters have to choose between them and us progressives, I think they'll break for us in a big way.  We might be seen as nerdy and soft, but they are just plain scary.

I would welcome a political climate of hard left versus hard right.  I also think that there would be a high probability of a third party forming as a centrist party which I would welcome.

However, it is likely that the Rahm Emmanuels would successfully use the Republicans moving to the right to move the Democrats to the right to capture "swing voters."  This would be an awful outcome.

So this could turn out well for us or poorly.  I'm not going to pretend predicting the future is easy.

---

by: idratherbedrunk @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 21:24:28 PM CST