Should We Also Take Over the Democrats?

[Peace&Freedom]

The approach to the Democratic Party, as with the Republicans, should be less "take over" or nesting, and more one of being opportunistic.The same special interests control both major parties at the top, and have set things up to make one have to run on one or the other to get elected, but we can pick and choose where we will slap on that label. The liberty grassroots in each state should put together an infrastructure and network, to field and support liberty candidates in major runs for office.

The structure should stand distinct from either major or minor parties, and take on whatever primary race where a plausible opening appears. By plausible, I define objectively as an open seat, or competitive race (under 5+ or 5 pts difference between the Democratic and Republican vote), regardless of whether the selected district historically votes Republican or Democrat. Anything less is wishful thinking. Over time at each level, we pick up more and more liberty candidates in office on this basis.

 

[erowe1]

The GOP is absolutely dying, in some areas.

These things are an ongoing never-ending roller coaster. One party's numbers go down and the other's go up for awhile, and then it's the other way around for awhile.

These dips are not a party dying.

 

[acptulsa]

These things are an ongoing never-ending roller coaster. One party's numbers go down and the other's go up for awhile, and then it's the other way around for awhile.

These dips are not a party dying.

Not always. The Whigs suffered a succession of dips. Where are they now?

The GOP is not too big to fail. Dickhead Cheney sure did his best to sacrifice it on the altar of short-term gains for the MIC. And when Cheney sets his mind to something...

 

[grizzlymere]

Personally, I think that both parties are essentially the same. They both push hyper-capitalist control and are in lockstep with whatever their sponsors and benefactors want. Either party could be infiltrated. All people are sick of the same old stuff from both parties: look how Obama is becoming increasingly more similar to Bush, and this illustrates perfectly how the party makes no difference in the policy.

 

[devil21]

A Democrat that will be running for Mel Watt's (heavily gerrymandered toward Dem) NC seat is a good example of a Dem (Matt Newton) that we have things in common with. When I suggested supporting him here I was soundly blasted for suggesting something that would "damage the inroads made with the GOP". Thing is, there's some in our movement that have ascended inside the GOP and see any Liberty supporters helping a Democrat as damaging their efforts.

 

[enoch150]

These things are an ongoing never-ending roller coaster. One party's numbers go down and the other's go up for awhile, and then it's the other way around for awhile.

These dips are not a party dying.

In 2008, Republican party registration was 4.30% in Hartford and 4.16% in New Haven. Those were some of the lowest numbers in the country. For comparison, NYC was 12.1% Republican, Washington D.C. was 7.7%, and Berkley California was 4.5%. Hartford and New Haven were rock bottom, you might say. So what happened after four years of Ron Paul bringing young people into the party (and those cities both have a lot of college students, especially New Haven) and Ron Paul Republicans trying to take over the local parties? In 2012 Republican party registration was down to 3.83% in Hartford and 3.82% in New Haven.

And I am absolutely sure that better than 90% of those still registered as Republicans in those cities are in their 50's or older. That's not a dip, that's staring death in the face. They are literally dying off. They're running fewer and fewer candidates for city and state legislature for those areas. It's not going to be many years before they effectively cease to function as a party, at the city level. There are several other cities and towns in Connecticut with fewer than 10% Republican registration where the same thing is happening.

 

[enoch150]

Understood, and I agree totally. But are these districts, and there are many across the country, dominated by the Dems because of party label or because of ideology of the voters? I tend to think in the large majority of cases it is ideology. You mentioned the Working Families Party that gets seats in CT towns - that is a progressive party, from what I can see, and they look to be to the left of the Dems. The point being that a libertarian cannot win in these districts because of the views that they would hold to, not because of any party label they may have.

It's label, not ideology. Connecticut is one of the highest taxed states in the country and people across the state are sick of it, but the Republican label is toxic, largely thanks to Republicans at the national level pushing a social agenda, the wars, and the police-state PATRIOT Act stuff. I had so many people tell me they would vote for Ron Paul in private, in a general election, but they couldn't stomach being associated with the Republican party even on paper to vote for him in the primary.

I wasn't suggesting running as a Libertarian in those areas. I did switch my registration status to Libertarian, but I don't think they're going to find electoral success this side of a catastrophic economic collapse. I think the Republicans are going to take the brunt of the blame for that and it will be important to have a functional alternative, when the time comes.

But I do think it's possible to run as a Democrat, up to the state legislature level, as long as the candidate can stay on message and avoid talking about welfare programs. Almost no one looks up their state legislator's voting record and if they do, few remember it by election time.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

It's label, not ideology. Connecticut is one of the highest taxed states in the country and people across the state are sick of it, but the Republican label is toxic, largely thanks to Republicans at the national level pushing a social agenda, the wars, and the police-state PATRIOT Act stuff. I had so many people tell me they would vote for Ron Paul in private, in a general election, but they couldn't stomach being associated with the Republican party even on paper to vote for him in the primary.

I wasn't suggesting running as a Libertarian in those areas. I did switch my registration status to Libertarian, but I don't think they're going to find electoral success this side of a catastrophic economic collapse. I think the Republicans are going to take the brunt of the blame for that and it will be important to have a functional alternative, when the time comes.

But I do think it's possible to run as a Democrat, up to the state legislature level, as long as the candidate can stay on message and avoid talking about welfare programs. Almost no one looks up their state legislator's voting record and if they do, few remember it by election time.

I see what you are getting at, but I still think it is a foolish endeavor. In order to win a state legislature seat, one needs quite a lot of votes. A lot more than can be generated by a candidate and his family and friends knocking on doors. So if a liberty candidate was to run in the Dem primary, they are going to face a huge uphill battle as the members of the Dem committee will be working against this candidate. It's hard enough for folks like us to run in GOP primaries, even though we may have some allies on committee. It would be a monumental task for someone to win in a Dem primary when the entire committee is working against them.

Good luck with it, if you try it. But personally, I'll continue to focus my financial support on the path of least resistance.

 

[erowe1]

That's not a dip, that's staring death in the face. They are literally dying off.

No. It's a dip and nothing more. The same thing has happened before, to both parties, and will happen again and again to both parties.

Plus, it looks like you're talking about a local phenomenon. The two parties will both endure into the foreseeable future. But they'll both change also. And these changes will include some localities becoming almost all one party, and other localities becoming almost all the other party, just like what we have now, only with the locations of these localities changing.

But the two parties themselves will survive through these changes. They never die. Neither does the constant talk of one or the other of them being a dying party.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I see what you are getting at, but I still think it is a foolish endeavor. In order to win a state legislature seat, one needs quite a lot of votes. A lot more than can be generated by a candidate and his family and friends knocking on doors. So if a liberty candidate was to run in the Dem primary, they are going to face a huge uphill battle as the members of the Dem committee will be working against this candidate. It's hard enough for folks like us to run in GOP primaries, even though we may have some allies on committee. It would be a monumental task for someone to win in a Dem primary when the entire committee is working against them.

As opposed to the difficulties clearly seen trying to get past the GOP committees running as a liberty Republican? The two parties are about the same in this regard. The resistance put up to liberty by the establishment is more subtle using the major party approach, but is just as real. Neutralizing a movement is likely more easy to do within the big party (where the establishment can 'whip' or defund the faction), than without by marginalization.

 

[Sam I am]

If the GOP is dying, it only helps us. The Democratic Party has nothing in common with us. A few of them were antiwar when Bush was the president.

Actually, for the most part, democrats are still anti-war, the continuing wars actually weaken the democratic base's support for Obama.

If you wanted to be viewed favorably by Democrats, than railing against War, PRISM and the PATRIOT act would be an excellent place to begin.

 

[Working Poor]

If you wanted to be viewed favorably by Democrats, than railing against War, PRISM and the PATRIOT act would be an excellent place to begin.

Also making marijuana legal seems to be very popular among dems.

 

[muzzled dogg]

I'm not sure "we" need to take any party over. Candidates should consider their districts before choosing a party

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

As opposed to the difficulties clearly seen trying to get past the GOP committees running as a liberty Republican? .

Well since there are far more liberty Republicans holding elected office than liberty Democrats, the results show that it is significantly easier. In fact, there are many counties where libertarians along with their tea party allies have a majority.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Well since there are far more liberty Republicans holding elected office than liberty Democrats, the results show that it is significantly easier. In fact, there are many counties where libertarians along with their tea party allies have a majority.

That's due to it being easier in certain parts of the country to get libertarians and TP people into power within the GOP, not because the party made it easier.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Actually, for the most part, democrats are still anti-war, the continuing wars actually weaken the democratic base's support for Obama.

If you wanted to be viewed favorably by Democrats, than railing against War, PRISM and the PATRIOT act would be an excellent place to begin.

People who rail against war, PRISM, and the PATRIOT Act are viewed as crazy isolationists by Democrats.

 

[acptulsa]

People who rail against war, PRISM, and the PATRIOT Act are viewed as crazy isolationists by Democrats.

Don't confuse media types who claim to be Democrats with human people who are Democrats.

Among the latter, it mostly depends how brainwashed they are.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

That's due to it being easier in certain parts of the country to get libertarians and TP people into power within the GOP, not because the party made it easier.

No you are incorrect. The party makes it easier when the county committee is comprised of libertarians and TP folks.

 

[anaconda]

The Democratic Party has nothing in common with us.

Probably about as much as the GOP. Theoretically civil liberties, foreign policy, the rule of law, the Constitution, and a modernized economy with an educated work force. No reason the Dems couldn't socially redistribute with some fair tax money, road & bridge tolls, and postage stamp revenue. I think it's a really excellent idea, actually. Close in on the establishment from both sides.