I’m not really sure what the question is, but if you’re asking who is more likely to split, I’d say it’s the Kossacks, because they fancy themselves as anti-establishment types, whereas Powell is very establishment. If you’re asking who would be more successful, however, it’ Powell in a landslide. The netroots might have some structural instruments in place, but the question is how valuable are they? Probably not that much. ActBlue, for example, is kind of nice to have, but it doesn’t raise very much money in the grand scheme of things. Powell, on the other hand, has name and a remarkably durable popularity. The party would have to be centered around him at the outset, but that would be a very valuable asset to have.

I’m not really sure what the question is, but if you’re asking who is more likely to split, I’d say it’s the Kossacks, because they fancy themselves as anti-establishment types, whereas Powell is very establishment. If you’re asking who would be more successful, however, it’ Powell in a landslide.

I guess I didn’t really ask a definitive question on purpose, but you definitely got where I was going with it. Regarding how successful the netrooters would be, that’s up in the air.  It depends how many lessons they’ve learned. I saw a lot of naivete (and outright petulance) from them in the Howard Dean and Wes Clark runs.  Ned Lamont showed both their strengths (Lamont beat Lieberman—are you fucking kidding me?) and their weaknesses (they were blindsided by Lieberman’s indy flip). I don’t think they had a hell of a lot to do with Obama’s win because his campaign did an end run around them and directly sought (and cultivated) the support of their readers.

I think they could probably learn to adapt their strategy to have some success over the long term (then again, that they’re currently fixated on giving Democrats in more-conservative-than-average districts headaches when they could be focusing on state contests before reapportionment makes me think it would have to be a looooooong term), their short term disadvantage would simply be that they don’t really have any obvious candidate to rally around. Someone who could draw attention and garner respect. The “Powell Party” would have the advantage of having an immediate face that’s extremely well known and extremely popular to give them instant credibility. They’d have something of an opposite challenge; could they move from a short term strategy built around one person to a long term focus on the party more generally.

But then, I don’t really think either is going to happen, and I think the whole conversation overestimates how much control the conservative movement base types have over the levers of the GOP, especially the Presidential primary and other national concerns.

But what name does the leftward party use?  The Greens had a chance at being that name during the California recall fiasco, but blew it by running Peter “who the hell?” Camacho.  The Democrats gave the Republicans their southern racists half a century ago, dramatically changing their voter base, but kept their name.  I don’t see how to convince people to vote for “one of those weird parties.”

The only way I see it happening is with a celebrity and/or super-rich third party candidate, but I’m not sure who that would be.  Then again, Ross Perot came out of nowhere…

Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

I guess from my perspective, the Democratic Party is big enough that it could weather the migration of the Blue Dogs to a center-right party, but the loss of the blogging progressive left would take all the organizing energy out of the coalition.  A new left party might not win national elections, but it would certainly gain a healthy number of seats in Congress.

Would it kill the Democrats to lose Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh?  Not likely.

Another point about Bloomberg: with Arlen Specter’s move to the Democratic Party, there is now only one Jewish Republican left in the entire Congress—Eric Cantor.

Conservative Jews would be much happier in a center-right party with folks like Bloomberg, Specter and Lieberman.  Even those who appreciate the hard Evangeliban right’s unquestioning support of Israel are smart enough to know that their ultimate motivation is the hastening of Armageddon and the Rapture which they believe will leave the Jews behind.  Or put more simply, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

But then, I don’t really think either is going to happen

Honestly, neither do I, but I’ve been wrong before.

Hardly ever, but it’s happened.  ;)

Bloomberg! My own mayor and I completely spaced about him.  There’s a guy with the political will and an astounding pile of cash to make it happen. Thanks, Allan. If Maha’s non-prediction were to come true, Bloomie would certainly be my top pick to be if not the leader, one of the leaders.

I could easily see an evaporation of the GOP by 2016, followed by a fracture within the Dems that lead to moderates and progressives splitting off.  Only problem with it is that the moderates will be largely represented by a constituency which is much older than their opponents, so it’s hard to say that they will have much in the way of long-term viability.

As our nation continues to become more urban, networked, secular, and diverse, the move towards greater progressive dominance in politics is inevitable.  The very purpose of conservatism is to protect an establishment that is rapidly fading in relevance.

But what name does the leftward party use?  The Greens had a chance at being that name during the California recall fiasco, but blew it by running Peter “who the hell?” Camacho.  The Democrats gave the Republicans their southern racists half a century ago, dramatically changing their voter base, but kept their name.  I don’t see how to convince people to vote for “one of those weird parties.”

If that was a response to me, I should have been more clear; I was talking about individuals with name recognition (like Colin Powell).

Bloomberg might be able to do it in a one-off circumstance, but he could never build a full party apparatus around himself; he’s far too self-centered.

Brien—That was in response to Kevin’s “and that a more leftward party will emerge as a result, led initially by the netroots.”  Unfortunately, our elite PERL hackers have yet to add threaded comments.

I get the feeling this discussion has been going on, at various levels of urgency and immediacy, ever since the demise of the actual Whigs. And in the absence of a transcendent collective trauma (such as a Depression or a Red Terror or a 9-11) that obliterates the usual class/party/education/race and rural-urban divisions, it still generally comes down to who can own 51+% of a fairly stable right-left ideological spectrum without losing message coherency, alienating the base and having the whole Big Tent collapse when the center-pole snaps.

Whether you’re talking Right or Left, the galvanizing rhetoric always emanates from the extremes, even though the victories are generally eked out somewhere nearer the middle. In the end, the GOP didn’t run Thompson or Paul, and the Dems didn’t run Kucinich. They nominated relatively featureless, broad-appeal candidates who were nonetheless suitable dress-forms for the rhetorical fashionistas of the Far Right and Far Left.

Unless someone can make a reasonable and compelling case for a Transhumanist Party or a Futurist voting bloc that taps the unspoken cross-party desire for equitable water rights, loose clothing and anti-gravity research, I think we’ll be trapped in the conventional Right-Left Skinner Box of political behaviorism for a few more years, anyway, with the only two viable parties gamely contesting for breakout demos and dejected crossover voters.

In fact, I think the only certain losing strategy is to promote anodyne, cardboard candidates like Powell to front a queasy, ambiguous “tweener” platform of not-too-hot, not-too-cold, just-right porridge. I mean, who the hell is going to hump that shit 24/7 on a righteous, kick-ass, take-no-prisoners blog?

Comedian Pat Paulsen had the definitive take on the hopelessness of “We’re Not the Other Guys” third parties, when he ran for President with bland, Prozac-moderated intensity on the “Sure, Why Not?” platform.

I don’t see the rise of a third party anytime soon. The GOP is doing a great job of marginalizing itself around trivial issues but I think what will happen with a great many moderate Republicans is that they will either leave the Party and identify as Independents or, if they’re more liberal leaning on social issues, identify as Bluedog Dems.  As others have noted above, history has shown that third parties are pretty ineffective in this country.  I expect to see the remaining Republicans continue to shrink in numbers and influence and eventually the moderates more or less take the party back. 

As Maha said “I’m guessing that if the Republicans have another losing election in 2010 — and I’m not making predictions, but right now that seems a good bet . . .”.  It’s practically a certain bet.  We’re half way through 2009 and the best they can get done organizing themselves at the national Party level is to call a special meeting to re-brand the Democrats as the Democrat Socialists?  And bicker whether Colin Powell or Rush Limbaugh best represents the party?

No, I’d say for the next few years the Democrats have a great opportunity to get some real reform enacted in health care, education policies, taxation and entitlement programs while developing meaningful energy policies and bringing back responsible oversight to financial institutions.  And etc.  Also.  So let’s just hope to god/goddess/whoever that they don’t blow it!

Interesting alliances have developed among extremist groups, religious organizations, and the all-mighty corporate overlords.  Fear and hatred are the only unifying forces that they can muster, but those are powerful motivations to the base.

Scare the hell out of everyone by tell them that we’re under attack by “illegal aliens,” frighten grandma by telling her that there is a Muslim just waiting to blow her to smithereens.  Typecast everyone on the pro-choice side as baby-killing monsters, characterize LGBT as pedophiles, and of course, sound the alarm about “socialism” at every opportunity. 

Justify torture and laugh about chopping down trees, pervert our Constitution at every turn by forwarding the tired old “we are a Christian nation” lie, push Calhoun’s failed “States Rights” arguments of nullification and interposition. 

I, for one, choose to recall Martin Luther King’s words in 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial:

“I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”

True words, and I, too, have a dream—that the party of “NO!” will follow George Wallace’s “National States Rights” party (and its revenants) to the historical obvlivion it so deserves.

Interesting conversation and great article by Maha Barb.  I need to start reading here again.

My take on it is that Dems will continue to move center-right to pick up more of the Powell/Specter/Snowe Republicans and those that are now identifying Independent due to the takeover of the Republican party by the right wing.  This has been going on for a number of years anyway.

As far as the hard left (and a good chunk of the netroots), I really see a schism in a 2012 primary as Obama will have fully pissed them off by then.  Look for the next Ralph Nader.

That brings me to my constant point that those who are now screeching about Obama doing Bush-like things were never paying attention to begin with; just like those who thought Hillary was the Mother of Progressive Invention were, and remain, delusional.

Unless some heretofore unknown dynamic politician comes along and adheres to one of the existing third parties, I think the next few election cycles stay pretty much the same.

@gimmeabreak

Agreed. Even if the Far Left goes totally sour on Obama, the best they can produce (short of Jesus) is some sort of progressive version of a Perot spoiler candidate, at which point they can knock themselves out for the next four years bashing President Palin. My hope is that folks like Kos continue to concentrate on city and state races, where the issues are local, the politics are personal and demo shifts can be a decider.

Same with the GOP. If they try to reformulate themselves as a spongier, more inclusive party, they’ll just turn into what they already are, and they’ll lose. And if they shift rightward, they’ll just lose harder, but with clear principles and a flinty look in their eye as they’re run out of town.

On the other hand, if we’re all broke and stealing each other’s canned goods in 2012, we’ll probably ditch the old parties and unite behind the first person with a decent haircut who offers law, order, food and a return of national pride.

I think a lot depends on what Obama is able to do on healthcare and the environment and getting the economy back on track. Remember, FDR was no great civil libertarian (that’s putting it mildly), but the hard-left factions in the US seem to have been pretty well defanged by the New Deal. And heck, Obama isn’t talking about interning American citizens or packing the Supreme Court.

Now, if he ends up with some half-assed approach on these issues (which I certainly don’t discount as a possibility), then we could have a leftie candidate emerge. But I’m not sure who it would be—other than Nader again, who is essentially Pat Paulsen without the self-awareness at this point. And I don’t see ANY white leftist candidate—or party—peeling off enough votes from the black or Hispanic bloc to make any real difference. As Al Giordano has pointed out tirelessly, especially in recent months (and in his takedowns of Naomi Klein), you CANNOT talk about “the left” in America as a meaningful entity if you don’t include blacks and Hispanics.

As others have pointed out, although the ideological extremes try to control the agenda, the success of national elections relies on the middle, which dictates moderation, and if you want to get anything accomplished, reality-based pragmatism, which is all but missing in most ideological battles.

The current vile incarnation of the GOP, so dominated by its extreme elements seems to be quite an illogical aberration. They are already so far down the path of “purification” that I seriously question whether they can pull back from that precipice at all. For one thing, too many of their “base” seem to take the wrong lesson from 2006 & 2008 - that they weren’t extreme enough and their only strategy at this point seems to be to oppose everything the president or democrats want to do or to do nothing at all, simply thinking that they will magically gain seats in 2010, solely because there are historical patterns for that…without any contemplation or broader understanding of the true hole they have dug for themselves.

Although politics can be very fluid, unless there are major changes, it looks more likely that they are headed towards more devastating losses in 2010…and the question then will be - is it too late for them to learn the lesson…or will there even be enough rational people left in the GOP to care?

I think they are so tarnishing their “brand” that whatever re-emerges as the 2nd major party might be renamed something different - even if it contained many of the same players.

I already hear many “right-wingers” I know no longer call themselves Republicans…which is funny, because it seems that by starting down the road to “purification”, ironically, it is not “pure enough” for the different extreme factions that now have dominant voices.  Will even these people hang on to a tarnished brand, or will they flee to increase the ranks of existing Libertarian Party or Constitutional Party memberships…or create another one like that?

So therefore, I do think the GOP is headed down the road to becoming the Whigs.  I think 2010’s elections will just accelerate that.  Once it becomes clear that they are truly no longer a national party, I think a whole host of other dynamics and factions will come into play for awhile and eventually a strong second-party will emerge. 

I do think in that period, it is likely to see a possible split-off of the far-left or the center-right-moderates, but I think when everything has settled back to two major parties, centrist voices will end up dominating, but the country and politics as a whole will have shifted leftwards from where they have been over the past several decades.

The Republicans claim they don’t want to be the Democrat-lite party so they instead choose to be the Libertarian-lite party.

The Democrats straddle the fence, owning a swath down both sides.  It used to be the Republicans.  Doesn’t matter which party has the middle, that party will dominate.

To make things trickier, the fence wobbles left and right depending on who is President.

Oops, you asked a question.  I think the social conservatives might splinter off into a new party for awhile which will be unsuccessful except in a few Southern Congressional districts.

Your third party candidate is going to be Jesse Ventura in 2012.