act as though the historic gop was anything like the "moderate purging" gop of today. George Romney was far to the left of his republican counter-parts (and to the left of many Democrats of the day) and lasted about 10 years.

Believe it or not, the republican party, once upon a time, had as big a tent as the Democratic Party enjoys today ... (despite that best efforts of "liberals/progressives" to shrink the Democratic tent to only accommodate those of sufficient purity).

is there some sort of acceptable lag time response that is potentially effective towards rendering taxation with representation?

Sad, but true. Purging your ranks in the name of ideological purity is the ticket to permanent minority-party status.

But don't worry: if and when the GOP cracks up completely, the Dems will surely split between their liberal and corporate wings. I know which side I'll be on...but I don't expect it to be the winning side.

the anti-war left that came from the Vietnam debacle forward appears voiceless.
the economic justice contingent should look for scraps despite demographic dominance?
"we" who?

There are numerous parties that represent exactly what you're talking about: socialist, Green, etc. Those parties are proudly lefti-liberal-progressive and have nary a conservative in their ranks. Given that parties exist that do share your world view, why care what the Democrats do?

it appears to be the case. not particularly convinced it is the natural order rather than self reinforced racketeering, myself, but I wish to have my radical interests (majority rule, economic fairness and security, justice for all) represented. How about you?

There has never been a Democratic Party without conservatives in it.
Prior to about 2004, there had never been a Republican party without liberals in it.

Yes, our election system tends to coalesce into two parties; until you change first-past-the-post elections, that won't change. And those two parties have been, relative to the parties in a parliamentary system, ideologically diverse. That's precisely what made them viable on a national level.

What we're seeing now is nearly unprecedented -- you have to go back to 1820 or so to find an analog. Basically, one party has willfully shrunken itself by narrowing its appeal -- and the other party has moved into the vaccuum, expanding even further. But to do that, it's had to become ideologically muddier.

What's the alternative? Well, yes, you could purge the Democratic party of its non-liberal element. What was left would offer a strong, bold, honestly liberal vision. It would also end up with under 30 electoral votes in a national election.

And everyone you purged? Certainly the establishment GOP would make a play for them, perhape successfully. If they were unsuccessful, what do you end up with?

1) An arch-conservative GOP with narrow demographic viability, but lots of corporate money.
2) A center-right corporate party with a crapload of cash and plenty of intact political organizations.
3) Your newly liberal Democratic party.

If we inevitably tend toward a two-party system, guess which one of those three parties gets demoted to also-ran? And what do you end up with? An ideologically-pure third pary. I return to my previous point: if that's what you want, you've already got them.

If not then what is the hold up and if so then how is it we wouldn't have some wiggle room for increased "purity"? How did the TeaPubliKlans take the House in 2010 as a permanent minority? How did they hold it in 2012? How do they have any chance of holding the House and taking the Senate this trip?

Why are so many acting like we need to nominate Hillary Clinton to have a chance in 16?

I think the GOP, if it doesn't change tactics, is a permanent minority party after 2020. Why 2020? Because we first need to re-gerrymander their Congressional districts. They held the House in 2012 precisely because of that gerrymandering; remember, Dem congressional candidates overall got more votes than the GOP did. As for 2014, the midyear election in a president's second term has never been kind to the president's party, and this one is exacerbated by the fact that we have twice as many Senate seats to defend as the GOP. Our 2014 fortunes always looked grim.

As for the only-Hillary-can-win crowd, I think those folks are nuts. Any sober look at demographics, electoral college trends, and the GOP field should illustrate that we have a wide range of candidates who can beat the GOP. Personally, I can't imagine there's a state that Obama took in 2012 that Sherrod Brown would lose.

I'll also substantively agree with your primary argument but my take on that is that the cowering and Republican lite tactics are of little to no benefit and I argue net negative, laying a foundation of sand but viewpoints vary.

Folks can holler about "Big Tent" till Kingdom Come but eventually one cannot serve two or more masters ably. In fact, in almost all cases somebody is served and everyone else gets hosed.

and enshrined in the RepubliCon Party.

if people decide to register and vote as Democrats, that influences what the party as a whole does

Also, liberals are not anywhere close to being a governing majority in the USA.

the former, as long as they want,

the latter, they don't exist, given that party's strict orthodoxy

That's odd....

http://mediamatters.org/research/progmaj/

There are a lot more moderates+liberals than there are conservatives, and there are a whole lot more conservatives plus moderates than there are liberals.

American politics are decided by the squishes who believe mutually contradictory things (want government to be smaller but do more to solve problems etc, want change until they get it), insufferable centrists, and perenially fickle types.

But even he called it quits in 2007.

in today's "Democratic" Party.

Sad but true.

the GOP now caters to the irrational far right.

are "tolerated" in the Democratic Party because they usually only hold "conservative" positions on just one or two issues.

in the ashes of the Republican Party.