The One Successful Third Party Movement in U.S. History

When George Washington was inaugurated as the first president of the United States in 1789, no political parties formally existed. That situation quickly changed, as members of Washington’s first cabinet demonstrated substantial ideological differences which led to the emergence of two distinct political parties – the Federalists (led by Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton) and the anti-Federalists (led by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson). Following the completion of Washington’s two presidential terms, the Federalists won the first presidential two-party contest, with the election of John Adams in 1796. The anti-Federalists soon became known as the Democratic-Republican Party, which nominated Thomas Jefferson as its presidential nominee, to become the first U.S. President of that Party in 1800. The Federalists never won another presidential election, and by 1814 that party barely existed. In 1816 their presidential candidate won only 31% of the popular vote.

By 1820 the United States was essentially a one-party nation, as incumbent President James Monroe won reelection unopposed. The presidential election of 1824 involved four major candidates, none which represented a separate political party. However, the top two vote-getters in that election, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, eventually led to the development of two major political parties, the Whig Party (led by Henry Clay) and the Democratic Party (led by Andrew Jackson), respectively. Neither of those parties could be seen as a third party movement, since they were only two parties, developing out of one. The Whigs elected presidents in 1840 (William Henry Harrison) and 1848 (Zachary Taylor).


The emergence of the Republican Party

The Republican Party emerged in 1854. Its main reason for being was anti-slavery. By the mid-1950s, the most important and controversial political issue of the day was slavery. Indeed, it could be said that the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party because of a split in the Whig Party over the slavery issue. Politicians deserted the Whig Party in droves over its refusal to take a stand against slavery. Among those who did so was Abraham Lincoln.

Those who don’t believe that the Civil War was fought mainly over the slavery issue should consider the Republican Party platform of 1856 – its first party platform for a presidential election. Granted, the stated reason for the Civil War was the secession of the South from our nation. But the assertion that slavery wasn’t the primary cause ignores why the South attempted to secede. Its economy absolutely depended upon slavery, and Southern slave owners interpreted the anti-slavery sentiments of the Republican Party as a dire threat to their way of life. Consider the Republican Party platform of 1856:

The Republican Party platform of 1856
The 1st paragraph/preamble of the platform makes 3 political statements justifying the existence of their Party. The background for these three statements was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by allowing the people of Kansas and Nebraska to determine whether or not to allow slavery in their Territory. The Missouri Compromise had settled that question by prohibiting the extension of slavery to any U.S. Territory. The Kansas-Nebraska Act consequently inflamed passions throughout much of the U.S. and led to a spasm of violence in Kansas, as slavery and anti-slavery forces violently fought each other over the future of their state.

The three specific statements in the first paragraph of the first Republican Party presidential platform of 1856 were all intimately related to the issue of slavery:
1. Opposition to the repeal of the Missouri compromise – which had already occurred
2. Opposition to the extension of slavery into Free Territory
3. Admission of Kansas to the Union as a Free State

This first paragraph/preamble was then followed by nine resolutions beginning with the word “resolved”.

The first of these resolutions advises adherence to the principles of our Declaration of Independence and the preservation of the Union. The second resolution expands on the principles of the Declaration of Independence:


That resolution then explains the relevance of our Declaration to the slavery issue:


The third resolution further expounds on the moral necessity of prohibiting the extension of slavery, by saying “It is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism – Polygamy, and Slavery.” The fourth resolution describes how the Constitutional rights of the people of Kansas had been repeatedly violated by the pro-slavery forces. The fifth resolution says that Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a Free State.

The remaining four resolutions apply to various and sundry issues such as railroad construction to the Pacific, improvement of rivers and harbors, and guaranteeing “equality of rights” among the citizens of our country.

Thus it is that more than half of the platform specifically addressed the issue of slavery.


Subsequent fate of the Republican Party

The Republican Party failed to win their first bid for the presidency in 1856, though they did garner one third of the popular vote in a three-way race against the Democratic candidate James Buchanan and former Whig president Millard Fillmore.

Whigs could have (and maybe they did) made the case that the Republican third party would split their vote and prevent a Whig from winning the election. Perhaps they were right. The two parties combined garnered 54% of the popular vote and very well might have won the election of 1856 had the Republican Party not formed.

But that was not the point for the founders of the Republican Party. A moral principle was involved that trumped the question of what party would win the election. Those who bolted the Whig Party to form the Republican Party could have refrained from doing so, and their party might have been successful in 1856. In that case, slavery might have persisted for several more years or decades. Many Americans found that possibility unacceptable, as suggested by the Republican Party platform of 1856.

The Republicans then went on to win the presidential election of 1860, with the election of Abraham Lincoln. The Southern states found that unacceptable, and they consequently attempted to secede from the Union, leading to the Civil War and ultimately to the 13th Amendment to our Constitution in 1865, which abolished slavery – hopefully forever. With that, even though their first president had by then been assassinated, the Republican Party had accomplished their great purpose.

As we all know, the Republican Party did not remain the great party that it was under Lincoln. The 1920s saw income and wealth inequality climb to Gilded Age proportions (See Figure 1, page 5) under a succession of three conservative Republican Presidents, culminating in the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which led to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected President in 1932 to repair the damage. It was his New Deal that provided perhaps the most impressive and effective array of liberal-progressive legislation in human history, brought our country out of its depression, created a robust middle class in our country, and paved the way for the greatest sustained economic boom in our nation’s history. Ever since then, the Republican Party has been the Party of reaction, taking every opportunity to reverse the accomplishments of the New Deal.


Progressivism and the Democratic Underground

Progressivism is at the heart of the document that founded our nation, the Declaration of Independence. At the heart of that document is the statement that says:


The Republican Party was created primarily on the principle of anti-slavery. Principles don’t get any more progressive than that, as one can see by looking at a discussion of progressive ideals written by Peter Phillips, all of which relate to the unalienable rights specified in our Declaration. Phillips notes that progressivism is rooted in societal fairness (which allows us the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and government transparency (which allows us to see whether or not our government is helping or hindering us in our pursuit of progressive principles). He notes the onset of the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th Century, when our great grandparents faced:


The same progressive principles apply today:


Relationship of progressive principles to the Democratic Underground
I would venture to say that the great majority of DUers adhere to most if not all of the progressive beliefs noted above. Indeed, DU rules require that they do so, as a condition of belonging to the DU community. From the DU rules:


The rules go on to state that we should support Democratic candidates for political office. That can sometimes conflict with the need to be generally supportive of progressive ideals because – as I think we can all agree – not all Democratic candidates for political office are progressive. Of course, sometimes supporting a non-progressive Democratic candidate can be consistent with supporting progressive ideals, when one considers the alternatives and the fact that even a non-progressive Democratic elected official may be likely to usually support the agenda of the Democratic Party.

But then again, even the Democratic Party itself sometimes fails to act in a manner consistent with progressive ideals. That is probably truer today than it was when the Democratic Underground was created, in January 2001. So this is a complex issue, for which simple answers are often not available. Had the Democratic Underground been created within the first few years of the creation of the Republican Party in 1854, it would probably have been called the Republican Underground.

Of course I can’t speak for the administrators of the DU, but I can offer my opinion of where they’re coming from on this issue. I firmly believe that their primary interest is in supporting the evolution of a better nation, which provides the opportunity to all its citizens for a decent life. In that regard, adherence to progressive ideals is seen as the best way to accomplish that, and that is why DU rules say that its members are expected to be supportive of progressive ideals. Supporting Democratic candidates for office is therefore seen as a means to an end – the end of helping to evolve a better country – rather than an end in itself.

As noted above, political parties change over time, and when they do we should hold our ideals above loyalty to Party. After all, if the anti-slavery wing of the Whig Party (and to a lesser extent the Democratic Party) had not broken away from the parent party in 1854 to form an anti-slavery party, there would not have been an anti-slavery political party. The two major political parties of the time simply were not willing to go that route.

Many of us DUers feel that today we are approaching a somewhat similar crossroad. Accordingly, many of us have been very critical of various Democratic elected officials, even including the Democratic President of the United States, and the Democratic Party itself. The DU administrators tolerate this because (in my opinion) their primary goal is a better nation that adheres to progressive ideals. Our primary differences, given that we are all progressives, are over means, not ends. Therefore we should be able to discuss these differences in a civil and respectful manner.


Thoughts on our future

Our nation is a very long way from the progressive ideals expressed in its founding document, and in fact it is even headed in the wrong direction, as most Americans today believe. We exhibit the greatest level of income inequality of any of the rich nations of the world; Money is so freely used to influence elections in our country today that it is reasonable to say that bribery is actually built into our system and legalized; We are now virtually in a state of permanent war, spending close to $700 billion on defense, almost as much as the rest of the world combined; We have by far the largest imprisonment rate of any nation in the world – 715 persons per 100,000 population in 2008; climate change is threatening to destroy our planet, and yet at the most recent international conference on climate change the United States committed to only a small fraction of what our best climate scientists say is necessary in order to avoid catastrophe.

Yet, the Democratic Party has seemed powerless to promote meaningful progress, despite having control of Congress since 2007 and control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency since 2009. Robert Kuttner, in his book “A Presidency in Peril – The Inside Story of Obama’s Promise, Wall Street’s Power, and the Struggle to Control our Economic Future”, comments on the reasons for the massive Democratic defeat in the 2010 midterm elections, despite the deep unpopularity of today’s Republican Party:


Indeed, the Democratic Party has failed to explain our nation’s problems to the American people. They have ceded way too much ground to the psychopaths of the Republican Party, and in doing so they have lost much of their former credibility. Part of the reason for this is that some of them have been bought off by wealthy interests. Others worry about what the corporate owned media will say about them or that corporate funding will be directed to candidates who oppose them, as was the case with Alan Grayson. Whatever the reason, the Democratic Party has been largely failing to act in behalf of ordinary Americans.

In such a situation it is reasonable for Americans to ask whether or not the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”, which Howard Dean proudly claimed to belong to during his 2004 campaign for president, could represent them better than the conglomeration of progressives, moderates, blue dogs, corporatists, and everything in between that composes today’s Democratic Party. And similarly, it is reasonable to ask whether or not it would make sense for them to refuse to associate any longer with those who are impeding our progress as a nation, as the founders of the Republican Party in 1854 refused to associate any longer with apologists for slavery.

I see the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party (that Dean mentioned) merging with the populist wing of the Tea Party (just opposed the Patriot Act renew) that Dean also mentioned.

It will come down to corporate elitism versus populism. Too many in the Democratic Party are free trade and bankster supporters and too many Republicans are Chamber of Commerce supporters.

The elitist non-populists want a continuation of runaway elitism, a decline in the working and middle class, and of course foreign aid that we can't afford for our friends. Free trade and more tax cuts for the rich and the corporations, while citizen services are cut, will be a catalyst.

elitist of financial elitist. A huge difference. The right hates intellectual elitists but love financial elitists.

think I may have replied to the wrong post.

I have a problem with the term "intellectual elitist". The right uses that term to refer to ANY intellectual - i.e. anyone who cares to think about and learn about things before shooting his/her mouth off. The proper use of the term should be reserved for those who look down upon those they consider to be intellectually "inferior".

The tea party is no happier with banks than we are. Remember the whole thing started because of TARP, and Ron Paul warns about corporate power more strongly than any Democrat except Kucinich.

pitchforks away from the very people that caused this economic mess. They think black people getting mortgages they couldn't afford caused the recession...I kid you not.

A good many of them are racist too, and that colors a lot of their views. But I suppose that some of them might have a progressive streak in them.

He said (and the only place I've seen the 3 TPs defined and mentioned verbatim in the media is in the Christian Science Monitor). http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2011/0105/Howard-Dean-tea-party-is-last-gasp-of-generation-that-fears-diversity

The article headline in my view is sensationalistic, and way off base from the real gist of the article (what's new in our hyped media?). The real gist being that the largest segment of the TP (TP3) is neither racist nor corporatist. TP3 wants America back and they may be pretty socially conservative but not racist and they have a lot of stuff in common with progressives and others including balancing the budget. I agree.

Article Quote: "" Now working for a Washington law firm, Dean argued that there are three tea parties. “There is the racist fringe…. There is the Dick Armey corporate tea party, which doesn’t have anything much more to do with the real tea party than the racist fringe. And then there is the real tea party … which is the vast majority – which are pretty socially conservative even though they try to mask that,” Dean said.

Dean described the bulk of the tea party members as “populists. They are not going to support free trade. They don’t mind taxing millionaires. And they really do want to balance the budget.” ""

the elites I refer to are the financial elites..the deal makers, the investment banksters, the CEOs, those who make the most from doing the least productive work for our society.

(such as with respect to the potential role of government in helping people and attitudes towards some civil rights - for minorities, women, gays, etc.), our own populists have some areas of agreement (such as opposition to corporate bailouts, trade agreements, immigration, foreign aid, assaults on personal liberty, etc.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

"Populism, defined either as an ideology or (more uncommonly) a political philosophy or a type of discourse, i.e., of sociopolitical thought that compares "the people" against "the elite", and urges social and political system changes. It can also be defined as a rhetorical style employed by members of various political or social movements. It is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes". It can be understood as any political discourse that appeals to the general mass of the population, to the "people" as such, regardless of class distinctions and political partisanship..."

Possible strange bedfellows upcoming, indeed. :)

how progressives will ever unite with the tea party. Simply put, they are racists nuts who are easily manipulated. They will not say Wall St. was responsible for our economic meltdown where I think most DUers and progressives feel the exact opposite.

Howard Dean explains it well. Most are not Koch Bro supporters or racists. The media has portrayed them as racists because that's the shell game they have played. Divide and profit it is called. The more they divide and pigeon hole us, the more profits they make and better off it is for the financial elite that own them (and their cronies) to keep us ignorant and squabbling.

and ticket. We might have a chance.

out of 52 Caucus members, and 242 Republicans (of whom a total of 26 voted no). So that's 13% of Tea Partiers, and 11% of Republicans - little difference.

So, if you define those Tea Partiers voting against the Patriot Act renewal as 'populist' (highly debatable, in my opinion - I'd say it'd be more likely because they have a libertarian streak), it's a very small faction in Congress.

You certainly can't conflate a vote on the Patriot Act with a stance on corporate elitism, free trades, the banks, or the Chamber of Commerce. I think you need to ignore the Patriot Act vote entirely if your actual ground for a merger is economic.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

nt

Excellent post.

peace~

And, really, the Constitution is a Liberal document, not a progressive document. Progressivism as a movement only emerged about 1890, and had absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution or the Civil War.

Prohibition and abolishing prostitution were two of the great progressive ideas of the late 19th and earl 20th century. The red light districts such as the Barbary Coast in San Francisco, the Stingaree in San Diego, and Toy Town in New Orleans were made illegal and shut down in Progressive crusades. Prohibition was enacted and made the law until it was repealed in one of Progressivism great accomplishments. Herbert Hoover was ran as a Progressive and was considered a Progressive President. Roosevelt, on the other hand, was a liberal and not a progressive. Progressives detested Roosevelt, and Huey Long would have oposed him if he had not been assassinated.

K&R

Bravo! I always felt the admins of DU unintentionally "stepped in it" by naming the place the way they did, although when it was founded I don't think anyone in America would believe that the Democratic Party and the majority of Democratic congressmen and women would...take the path they have.

PB

...timely, and prescient.

While I agree with most of your goals and will post more of that later in reply to unlike bedfellows.

The term "progressive" has been used for widely different philosophies, movements, theories, human and civil rights, and legislation and while often muddled with "populism", much of what we proud label as progressive (e.g. public education) are actually repressive, racist, or misleading (e.g. literacy test to disenfranchise most black voters).

While opposition to slavery, even its abolition, was the goal of some Republicans, the platform resolutions do not mean what you seem to think, nor the motivations so noble -- more of that mythic morality play that passes for American History.

Like modern party platforms, they are often crafted to leave a stronger impression at first glance than when read carefully.

The slave v free state fights, particularly in KS and MO, were not just about slavery, but about who at statehood would control the state governments, which they favor among competing groups of railroads, banks, and land speculators, and which rail routes they authorized and to whom they were granted. Remember those later resolves.

The resolution with phrase "abolishing slavery" states they will not prohibit its existence. "No person shall be deprived ... of property without due process" reassures slave-owners wrt fugitive slaves.

Even the prohibition on any extension of slavery into free states included less than noble motives, with most residents of free states also wanting them to be white-only. It was illegal or required meeting impossible requirements for a free black to move to most of these free states. The few free blacks in non-slave states were not considered to be persons under the Constitution, stripped of most rights, even those he retained in Southern slave states. He could not serve on a jury in any state in the North, could buy property or vote in only a few.

When you more closely, it looks even uglier, the intentions less noble.

Most in the north were not "anti-slavery" so much as they were "anti-extension of slavery".

They did not want the large planters (and their slaves) occupying the prairie lands. They wanted those lands to be "free soil" and occupied by white "yeomen".

When the south seceded, the House and Senate were able to pass (without southern Democrat opposition) legislation on homesteading farm land, land grant colleges, and railroad subsidies all of which were anathema to southern Democrats.

A book which I would recommend is "Clash of Extremes" by Marc Egnal, Hill & Wang, 2009, ISBN-13: 978-0-8090-9536-0.

It describes the economic tensions in the US prior to the Civil War, the splitting of the Whigs, the decline of northern Democrats, the rise of the Republicans, and the seeds whereby the Republicans became the "business party".

The Civil War wasn't caused by northern outrage over southern plantation owners whuppin' slaves.

Slavery was a part of the economic stresses.

Some didn't really care about the moral aspect of slavery, but others did. Of course, it is almost impossible to know how many fit into each category with much precision.

It is also true that hardly anyone at this time, and certainly not a majority of the Republican Party, was looking towards actually abolishing slavery. Or, perhaps many who would have liked to see it abolished felt that it was politically unfeasible to even try. So many settled for trying to prohibit its extension. Probably if there would have been a lot more effort to actually abolish slavery, the Civil War would have occurred earlier than it did.

In any event, the new Party agreed wholly on one issue, and that was that slavery should not be extended -- notwithstanding the fact that many of them undoubtedly didn't have pure motives. The pro-slavery forces felt that that would eventually lead to slavery's total abolition, and that is a major reason why the Civil War was fought.

I mostly agree with your post unc. You may be surprised to learn that in many cases free blacks did vote, own real property, serve on juries and even hold office in the days between the Revolution and the Civil War. Admittedly these must have been rare, but they did occur, and they occurred far more in the North than the South.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jy8OAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP1&dq=stowe+colored+revolution&hl=en&ei=kb5TTdmdCZH0sgavtqT0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=stowe%20colored%20revolution&f=false

^ should link to The colored patriots of the American Revolution by William Nell and Harriet Beecher Stowe , 1855

Fascinating book. And entirely free to read in entirety online

I have discussed this general topic a lot here at DU and my journal has some of those posts, including links to various modern research based on original sources. By everyone from John Hope Franklin on.

Don't have time to properly respond, but hope to have time later tonight. Until then, you might want to look at how things were in NC, then compare with NJ, OH, IN, IL.

I will have a look through your journal. thank you

Those multi-national corporations and financial elites just can't seem to get it right....
...and it's "in order to form a more perfect Union" .. not .. "in order to have more perfunctory unions"...
...and it's "establish Justice" .. not .. "establish just us"....
...and it's "provide for the common defence" .. not .. "provide for the defence industry"...
...and it's "promote the general Welfare" .. not .. "promote the Generals' welfare"...
...-they are hard of hearing- it must be more than just that, but they are hard of hearing.
Big rec. sure appreciate the Dems who get it.

Please continue this theme, discussion... :applause:

Better a small but robust core party with Progressive Principles than the alternative...which is large, corporatist and elitist.

KtotheR:dem: big time!!

More parties would more accurately reflect the wide range of public opinion.

"represent them better."

See Nader's vote share, 2000-2004. If these people have short memories and need another reminder of reality, they can get it in 2012 if they wish (and they'll be flocking back in 2016). Third parties can continue their irrelevancy with vote totals fluctuating between 0.3% and 3%.

However, progressives opposed to Obama are such a negligible portion of progressives overall (in both absolute terms and compared to all past presidents) that it really is a non-issue.

the entire point of this articulate and well thought out post. not everything is about being either for or against Obama.

this is one of the best OPs I've read on DU..

(not yet named the Reform Party) won 19% of the vote. I don't call that negligible.

come election time. we're either all-powerful, or we don't make a shits difference. in any case, the sensible centrist wing of the party really needs to be a little more consistant on that front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

In 1920, the SOCIALIST party (EEK!) Garnered 6% of the vote for then Presidential hopeful, Eugene Debs.

Hell, some folks still write in his name today.

I view the splitting of the progressive elements from the Republican party under Teddy R. in the Bull Moose party to be a bell weather that set up the guilded age.

I'm wondering what will happen when the Democratic party experiences this as they seem to have been bought by the corporate elite.

-Hoot

because of it. The Kuttner quotes explains that well. bravo!

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.

That's right, a sitting President, in wartime (Hell, in the midst of a civil war) was abandoned by members of his own party. Fremont later dropped out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans#Wartime

Interesting historical faction--in today's world, "radical republicans" just sounds redundant :D

As opposition to slavery was growing throughout the country, Abraham Lincoln and his allies could have capitalized on that. Instead of splitting off and setting up a third party, they could have united behind an anti-slavery candidate in 1856 (presumably John Fremont, who was the Republican candidate that year) and supported him in the Whig primaries. The anti-slavery forces could have taken over and made the Whig Party an anti-slavery party.

Oh, wait, they couldn't do that because BACK THEN THERE WERE NO PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES. Nominees were chosen by a handful of bosses. That's where the phrase "smoke-filled room" originates.

Anyone who argues that we should refuse to associate with Democrats who have failed us should explain why the primary system is not a superior alternative to walking out. If your answer is that our candidates won't get enough votes to win nomination, then you should explain how they would get enough votes to win the general election.

I can easily explain the opposite proposition. The Democratic Party has the loyalty of millions of people who generally support progressivism but who don't read DU and who aren't all that ideologically oriented. They'll vote for the Democrat in the general election even if some third-party candidate is arguably closer to their views. That's also true, of course, of many of us who are very ideological. In 2000, I would've voted for Nader in the Democratic primary, but there was no way in the world I'd vote for him in the general election.

If you have the votes to elect someone as a third-party candidate, then you almost certainly have the votes to elect him or her as a Democrat -- provided you don't spitefully abandon the Democratic Party to the opponents of progress.

those they favor. So the process is stacked in a sense.

Anyhow, I did not say that we shouldn't try to elect progressives through the primary process. I think we should. But there may come a point where it becomes apparent that the Democratic Party is too corrupted to be salvagable.

As far as our country not being ready for a 3rd party, I don't believe that. When Perot ran for president in 92, he was ahead in the polls against both major party candidates. He may very well have been elected had not his erratic personality become apparent. There is a great deal of hostility by the American people towards both major parties. Congressional approval have been running in the 20s for a very long time:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

Money is actually another very powerful reason NOT to go the third-party route.

The main point of my post, though, was to note that lessons from the emergence of the Republicans in the 1850s have very limited applicability to our day. The current availability of primaries is one reason. The increased importance of money is another. The result is that abolitionists had no good alternative to forming a new party, and were able to elect a President in short order because they didn't face a crushing financial disadvantage. Progressives today have an excellent alternative that wasn't available then, and have found that third-party efforts are much more difficult now than they were then.

You write, "But there may come a point where it becomes apparent that the Democratic Party is too corrupted to be salvagable." The only factor that would tell me we were at that point would be clear indication that progressive candidates couldn't possibly win in primaries. A third party makes sense only if it's clear that progressives can't win in primaries but they have a good chance of winning office in the general election. I can't imagine a set of facts under which both those conclusions would be sensible.

Sid

Excellent post.

Because, you know, the rent is too damn high

Lookin' like a fool...

long as it isn't BOHICA while the pants are down. Had enough of that the last handful of administrations.