The Good news?  Well, you are right, but they are not going to listen.  They have this paranoia that makes them think any good advice must be a trick, and there fore avoided.

The Bad News?  About the same. 

On a positive note, as they continue to implode, many of us can now start looking at a valid third party (soon to be one of the mainstream ones) that is closer to our ideals.  Yes, the Libertarians are looking better every day.

I live in a very conservative midwest area, in fact, we are blamed for picking the president this time, and I do mean blamed. I am constantly involved in talk around the office, (by which I am on average 20 years younger than everyone here), and the want of a new party is very common. Americans, well non-republicans seem very disillusioned anymore by any of the political candidates out there. The Republicans only seem to care what you say if you can right them a BIG check, otherwise they do what they want. The Democrats, just seem lost in the woods. Hearing the Howard Dean got DNC chair, and his speech to accept it, gives me some hope for them, but not much. I really think this country needs a third party, and fast.

I will admitt, I know very little about the LP. From what I have seen from most third parties out there is even more radical than what we have now. We need some moderation. Right now, everything is either too right, or too left. We need a party that thinks of the people, and the future. Maybe, one day.....

I see a lot of talk here at JU about how the Dems are on the verge of extinction and how America is becoming a one party state. This does not reflect reality. Kerry was a pretty crappy candidate, ran a bad campaign, and he still managed to pull 48% to Bush's 51%. The Republican majorities in the House and Senate are slim. So the data (i.e. facts, reality) says that it's a very even split, notwithstanding the many blogs proclaiming the death of the Dems and the two party system.

I think a better explanation for the explosion of "Why The Dems Suck" blogs is that American Republicans are really fundamentally bad, angry people who didn't play team sports as children and have zero concept of what constitutes civilized societal norms. You don't kick a team when they are down because they do get up, and when they do they'll kick you twice as hard, so the whole thing is foolish really. It's not an altruistic thing, it's a practical thing. When I played sports as a child, we were taught never to gloat or rub it in when we won.

Back when the Yankees were winning the World Series every year you never saw Bernie Williams or Paul O'Neil writing in the NY Times on how the Red Sox sucked and why they lost so badly. I don't think Tom Brady is about to write a blog on how badly the Eagles' secondary blew their assignments and how their D-Linemen were too fat to catch him. It's just not done.

Flashback to January 1991. I was a first year politcal science student. The Gulf War was on, Bush Senior had record approval ratings and looked invincible. I distinctly recall considering writing an essay title "Is America becoming a one-party state?", but wrote an essay on Just War Doctrine instead. Anyhoo, after the Mondales and Dukakii the Dems were running back then things looked really bleak. Even the music of the time lamented the inevitable 1992 Republican victory (Exhibit A: R.E.M.'s 'Ignoreland'). So while writing off the Dems is nothing new, the rabid right's dancing on the grave schtick is definitely new, and it speaks more to how today's Republicans are sickos and sore winners than any real or perceived decline in the Democratic party.

Yes, I realize that the Dems controlled both legislatures back then, but things were still pretty bleak. It took a once in a century superhuman politician like William Jefferson Clinton to come out of nowhere to lead America to 8 unprecedented years of peace and prosperity. Sort of like how Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round by the Patriots.

I have a new solution for the Dems, I call it the billion dollar solution: 57 million people voted for Kerry last election. If the wealthiest 2% of these people - roughly one million individuals - each donated $1000 to winning back the presidency it would total a billion dollar war chest. A thousand bucks is a small amount of money for the top 2%, who I'd guess have a median net worth of ~ $700,000+. And that's just to get the ball rolling.

Finally, time and demographics are on the side of the Democrats. Blacks have historically voted 90% Democratic and have a much higher birthrate than whites. Hispanics vote Democrat although not quite as strongly as blacks and they too have a much higher birthrate than whites. I'm looking at the 2004 vote by gender, race, etc. at CNN right now and going by sheer demographic data I would argue it's the Republicans who may never win another presidential election and are destined to dwindle away.

David St. Hubbins

While I really don't think that the Democrat party is on its way out, I do think that they are making it clear to moderates that there isn't much for them in the party anymore. The "3rd Parties" would do well to recruit from the dissaffected (from both parties) in order to gain a bigger marketshare. The Libertarian Party is best poised to take fill the void left in many, since their ideals include facets of right, left and moderate thought.

While I really don't think that the Democrat party is on its way out, I do think that they are making it clear to moderates that there isn't much for them in the party anymore. The "3rd Parties" would do well to recruit from the dissaffected (from both parties) in order to gain a bigger marketshare. The Libertarian Party is best poised to take fill the void left in many, since their ideals include facets of right, left and moderate thought.

I would say the libertarians, at least the non-radical ones, are the true conservatives now.  Republicans are the moderates, and Democrats are the left liberal.  But that is just my view.

Reading this, I realize that you are very right in the dangers of the Republicans running everything. But the point that you have wrong is how we will get to that. Republicans are pushing us in that direction by popping up and yelling "All Democrats love gays, kill babies and think religion is wrong!" Saying such wholly untrue things as this, and the current tendancy by Republicans to claim everything a Democrat that goes against what a Republican says is to be unpartisan and is destroying the nation, are pushing people away from those that want to help them. Democrats want to help the country get back on its feet, get our budget back in the green, which Iraq has shoved WAY in the red, and regain our world status. Right now America is seen as a loose cannon. We push our idea of "the perfect system" on those who don't want it. Who is to say that we are right?

Now, I do recognize that Libertarians are the best chance right now of a major third party. But the Libertarians could dissappear any day into the Republicans. The current Republican trend to push for as little government and as many guns as possible to police the world, and to take every restriction off of business. I'm sorry, but isn't that the same platform the Libertarians run on? So they too will disappear.

There are two big views of government now: big as possible and as little as possible. I'm in favor of big government for one reason: The public works programs that such a government would offer. The government exists because of the people, and I think that therefore it should do everything it can to help those people. Yes, it will cost, but raise taxes. The flax tax proposed by Bush will shove this country very far down the financial drain. Many people don't make a lot of money, in fact a vast majority of people live in the lower tax brackets. And if you make say $30,000 a year (a very common number), 15% is $4,500 dollars of taxes, and a significant portion of your income: you can barely make ends meet with 30K a year. But if you make say, $150,000 a year, you pay $15,000 dollars, and still have $135,000 left over, while the poor only have $25,500 of their meager start to begin with. So, those at the bottom will not be able to keep afloat, and those at the bottom, the majority of the country, will stop being able to pay taxes. Do the math, big losses. So have the rich pay more, they can afford it. But if you are in favor of minimal government, those big businesses that will no longer be restricted by tax laws and you will start seeing very many massively corrupt businesses. And thats all I have to say for now.

I can't believe it, but for once I agree with David St. Hubbins.
The Democrats are not dying. They've survived for over 170 years. Look the Republicans had every President from Lincoln to Taft with the exception of Grover Clevland (YEAH! NJ!). Did the Democrats die? Of course not! More than half of the third party candidates agree with the policies of the major parties. So why not join them? Like some people have said, the only major third party candidate was TR in 1912. The rest will be lucky if they get 2% of the vote.

Here a breakdown of the Senate and House. Only two independents are in both combinded. Oh, and I forgot Ross Peort, but he shouldn't have droped out in '92.
Senate
Membership
100 Senators
(Vice President votes in case of a tie)

Party Divisions
55 Republicans
44 Democrats
1 Independent


House
Membership
435 Members
4 Delegates
1 Resident Commissioner

Party Divisions
232 Republicans
201 Democrats
1 Independent
1 Vacancy

But the point that you have wrong is how we will get to that. Republicans are pushing us in that direction by popping up and yelling "All Democrats love gays, kill babies and think religion is wrong!"

Actually, no...the reason I left the Democratic party has NOTHING to do with the Republican propaganda. It has to do with PERSONAL experience. Like it or not, the Democratic Party platform IS being hijacked by the far left, and there is no room for moderates in their party. I have said it, DICK MORRIS has said it, and at least two other bloggers on this site have said it. We're being told we're liars, basically.

But the Libertarians could dissappear any day into the Republicans. The current Republican trend to push for as little government and as many guns as possible to police the world, and to take every restriction off of business. I'm sorry, but isn't that the same platform the Libertarians run on? So they too will disappear.

WRONG! For one thing, the Republicans are NOT creating smaller government, they are INCREASING the power and scope of the federal government (No Child Left Behind, Department of Homeland Security...the list goes on). They are NOT fiscal conservatives (unless you count an annual BUDGET that amounts to $8500 per man, woman and child in the US and depends on a MINIMUM of a $600 Billion deficit fiscal conservatism), they are ANTI personal freedoms (the war on drugs is a good example here...not to mention the "moral majority" crowd that focuses on victimless crimes because of their "moral" implications).

If you think the Republicans are even CLOSE to the Libertarians, you haven't studied EITHER party's platform very closely.

no room for moderates in their party

Good point. I supported Joe Lieberman in 2004, but he got killed.

If you think the Republicans are even CLOSE to the Libertarians, you haven't studied EITHER party's platform very closely.

They are supposed to be. But that and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. I am very disappointed in the republicans. I thought that when they took control, they would be true to their creed. But that has proved wrong.

Alex, I wanted Liberman as well! maybe he can run as a Libertarian! He's got my vote!

"Like some people have said, the only major third party candidate was TR in 1912. The rest will be lucky if they get 2% of the vote. "

"Oh, and I forgot Ross Peort, but he shouldn't have droped out in '92."

What about Lafollette in '24?

What about Lafollette in '24?

What about Wallace in 68? Anderson in 80? But it will take a strong charismatic person who does not fold like Perot to pull it off.

Actually, I have a series on third party candidates that has listed several players to the turn of the century. Martin Van Buren, for one, ran as a member of the Free Soil Party and garnered 21% of the vote, John Fremont ran as a Republican in 1856 when they were still a third party and garnered 33% of the vote. Even old Abe won his 1960 presidency by a 39% plurality due to the split among the Democrats that effectively made them into two parties. You also might want to research the Populist Party, the Socialist Party...in several cases, the vote percentage garnered by the third party candidate was enough to cover the gap between the winner and the loser, meaning it could well have changed the outcome of the election.

So, the next time you're going to tell me what a third party CAN'T do, do your homework please. I have.