Sure. Why Not? Let's Split the Democratic Party up into Multiple Small Segments

[MineralMan]

That should work really well. Everyone could align with a group that championed the issues most important to each individual. Then, those groups could bicker with each other and disagree on just about everything.

With a multiplicity of liberal, progressive and other left-leaning political groups, we could field large numbers of primary candidates for every congressional district, each endorsed by a group which agrees on specific issues and a candidate. That'd give the voters, you know, plenty of choices during the primaries. Then, whichever candidate gets the most votes could run against the Republican candidate.

It's only fair, really. With enough candidates in primaries, even a candidate who only mustered 15-20% of the primary vote could win and become the candidate in the general election. More opportunities to be on the ballot, for sure. What could go wrong with that, after all?

Who knows? This could lead to multiple political parties, as well, with each selecting a general election candidate to run against whoever the Republicans choose. That way, every former Democratic Party voter could vote for the candidate who best matched his or her views on one or two issues, even in the general election. No compromises. No problem. I can't see any possible difficulty with that, and it could extend to state legislative, gubernatorial and even US Senate elections.

Lots of candidates have to be better than just one Democratic candidate, right? Let those damned Republicans field their single candidate in general elections. Democrats will have many candidates running. Better choices for each voter to make!

Yup. That's what we should do. It's the only way to get voters to the polls to vote for the splinter candidate of their choice. Enthusiasm and partisanism is the answer. It's the win, win, win, win, win option.

[radical noodle]

1. We should of course

do that in every election.. mayor, governor, whatever... so we never see another Dem in office again. The dumb from Trump voters has rubbed off on some former friends.

Sad.

[Retrograde]

2. "I don't belong to an organized party"

"I'm a Democrat" - probably not Mark Twain

One thing the GOP is good at is keeping their base focused on a very few key issues: unfortunately for the country those issues are Hate Obama and lower taxes [for the 1%]. Now that Obama's out of office and keeping a low profile they're starting to replace him with Nancy Pelosi as the Font of All Evil (tm).

[SharonClark]

3. It is attributed to Will Rogers

[csziggy]

23. Other quotes about Democrats attributed to Will Rogers

The quote above:
From - Will Rogers, Ambassador of Good Will, Prince of Wit and Wisdom (1935) by P. J. O'Brien
I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.
Ch. 9 "Rogers was a lifelong Democrat but he studiously avoided partisanship. He contributed to the Democratic campaign funds, but at the same time he frequently appeared on benefit programs to raise money for the Republican treasury. Republican leaders sought his counsel in their campaigns as often as did the Democrats." ~ P. J. O'Brien
Variants: I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat.
I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.


Others about Democrats
We can make this thing into a Party, instead of a Memory.
Letter to Al Smith regarding the Democratic party (19 January 1929)

You've got to be optimist to be a Democrat, and you've got to be a humorist to stay one.
Good Gulf radio show (24 June 1934)

I have no Politics. I am for the Party that is out of Power, no matter which one it is. But I will give you my word that, in case of my appointment, I will not be a Republican; I will do my best to pull with you, and not embarrass you. In fact, my views on European affairs are so in accord with you, Mr. President, that I might almost be suspected of being a Democrat.
Humorous letter to Republican US President Warren Harding, facetiously offering to replace the American ambassador to the Court of St. James in England.



And here is one from him about Republican presidents:

That's one thing about Republican Presidents. They never went in much for plans. They only had one plan. It says "Boys, my head is turned. Just get it while you can."
radio broadcast (21 April 1935)


Finally a general comment from the great Will Rogers:

We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others.
"The World Tomorrow" After the Manner of Great Journalists

All from: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Will_Rogers

[peggysue2]

4. Another x1000

Let's chew up our leadership, one by one, get those ancient gasbags out and put fresh, inexperienced, dewy-skinned candidates in their place. Because that's where the energy is, the enthusiasm. The on-the-job learning curve will boost our membership because anyone can be a legislator or president--me, you, my local dog groomer. Who needs expertise, experience, just more elitist crapolla.

That's the ticket!

The road to ruin is a short, sweet dream away.

Make it stop, please. :0)

[MineralMan]

5. Thanks. We do seem to be cutting off our noses to

spite our faces, don't we. And then, we wonder why Republicans win. 'Tis a puzzlement, indeed.

[jalan48]

6. Identity Politics?

[MineralMan]

7. You can call it whatever you like.

The result is the same.

[zipplewrath]

8. Let's keep doing what we've been doing

I mean, really, shouldn't we just keep the same leaders and keep the same strategies? It's been working like gang busters for years hasn't it? I think we should rerun Hillary in 2020, she got a majority didn't she? Maybe Biden would run with her? About time to bring back Rahm too don't ya think. He's probably getting tired in Chicago anyway. Surely we must have some old policy positions we can resurrect as well. Maybe we should dig through all the old platforms from the past 4 years or so and see what we can't dust off.

God knows we shouldn't talk about new directions or identify any shortcomings we might have had for the last 30 years or so. We certainly shouldn't engage in any retrospection, much less introspection. And by all means NEVER disagree with leadership or each other. That'd be a disaster. I mean, aren't we in the best shape we've been in as a party since, I dunno, Reconstruction or something?

[MineralMan]

9. Well, that doesn't sound like such a good idea, somehow.

We lost the Presidency and the Senate by doing that. What we've been doing is fragmenting the party all along, with it getting even more fragmented in 2016. That didn't work out all that well, I think, somehow.

See, I'm making my point by exaggerating what has been going on to its logical conclusion. I didn't think I'd need to explain that, really, but I'm beginning to learn that I need to explain every last thing I write, if I want people to understand me. I find that exceedingly boring, frankly, so I'm not going to do that.

What we need to do is not lose. How we manage that is not something I can control, though, but that's what we need to do.

[zipplewrath]

10. By winning

You prevent losing by winning. I'd explain how, but that's so boring.

[MineralMan]

11. Oh, I know how that works.

I know how we lose, too. I wish we'd win more often, especially when it's really, really important to do that.

But, hey, I'm old, and don't have too many more presidential elections left. You can take over, I guess. Do what you think is best. I'll watch just as long as I can and see how it turns out.

[zipplewrath]

13. I'm no spring chicken

Been watching a downward spiral for 30 years. But we're not supposed to mention that. All hail the great leaders.

[BzaDem]

16. Couldn't you make the same argument about starting a nuclear war?

I mean, we haven't launched nukes at other countries since 1945. And obviously we have a lot of problems facing this country. Why would we just keep doing what we've been doing, and expect different results? Isn't that the definition of insanity?

[zipplewrath]

20. Well, quite honestly

I'm not sure I'd advise that we "keep doing" what we've been doing since '45. Of course, at this point, that's alot of things. We've actually already decided NOT to keep doing an awful lot of what we did before. And we're doing things right now that I'd suggest we not continue doing.

The democratic party "split" itself big time in at the beginning of the '60s when it completely desegregated the party. That generated alot of conflict within the party. I'm not sure I'd say we shouldn't have done that though. "Unity at any price" is probably not a winning strategy in the long run.

[Gothmog]

12. Dividing the party only helps trump

[zipplewrath]

14. Because the GOP

Because the GOP got here by being so united. It's why their repeal and replace is sailing right through.

[MGKrebs]

15. There's a lot to be said for more than two parties.

It is normal all over the world. You don't have this focus on just trying to destroy the other party, you promote your agenda instead. Then coalitions have to form and there are more viewpoints represented in the government.

It would be pretty disastrous for either party to split without the other also splitting. But it's probably the best moment to do this right now more than any other time in my lifetime. The Republicans are already split in two in all but name. The Freedom Caucus is essentially their own party (maybe they are Libertarians? Tea Party?). Dems have a natural fault line between moderates and the more progressive wing. If someone with some clout and influence (Sam Nunn come to mind, and Bloomberg) could broker some sort of deal to make it all happen at once we might be better off for it.

I personally would love to see a team out there expressing a more socialist agenda without damaging mainstream Dems in the process.

Whether "Dems" come off better in the end or not I don't know, but I expect the outcome would be a more accurate reflection of the country's citizens. More citizens may participate. More positions would be discussed. Negative campaigning could even be reduced as parties would need to plan to be part of a coalition.

[BzaDem]

18. Other countries don't have constitutions that effectively mandate only two parties.

In this country, you need a plurality vote in states that make up an absolute majority of electoral votes. If Democrats get 269 electoral votes, and every other party gets less than 100 electoral votes, Democrats would still lose the presidency. Because without 270 electoral votes, the election goes to a special House vote where each state gets one vote.

[MGKrebs]

21. It's a good point, but it certainly doesn't keep

3rd party candidates from running. And if Dems got 269 and the Repubs got 100, and the House chose the Repub... well, they might do that, but that would really provide an impetus to change the system.

[BzaDem]

22. "impetus to change the system" is pure magical thinking.

It takes the votes of both legislatures in 38 out of 50 states to change. States with less than 10% of the population can block it.

This "if things get really bad then something must give" attitude is one of the most obviously wrong and politically destructive attitudes present among anyone on the left.

[MGKrebs]

24. You're right of course.

Everything is OK. No need to consider options.
Move along now.

[NCTraveler]

17. Each one of these groups think they are going to be the next Tea Party.

They dream about having their own "Bannon" calling the shots.

[MineralMan]

19. Well, I'm not sure what splinter parties think, really.

They all seem to me to be focused on a very limited range of issues, though. That is why, I believe, they remain small and ineffective, except to act as spoilers.

I suppose it is a natural consequence of things being so complex overall. People tend to have a limited set of things that impact them directly, so those are the things they emphasize, politically. Maybe it's economic, or environmental or gender or racially specific issues. For each of us, we feel most strongly about some issues, and are more or less indifferent about others.

To get elected, politicians have to do a balancing act on the issues that are important to the largest groups of people. It's almost impossible to effectively address such a broad spectrum of things to the degree that is expected by groups with a narrow focus on single or closely related issues without ignoring others.

Further, groups that focus closely on one issue are very difficult to satisfy, since their issue may also affect other issues of concern to other groups. And so, nobody's completely satisfied.

And thus we have campaigns that are highly charged and often very negative. It's not a good situation.

At the national level, this problem is magnified and the problem of satisfying voters is much greater.