Is the Democratic party at risk of splitting into a conservative vs liberal branch party?

If that happened how could it effect the election?Is the Democratic party at risk of splitting into a conservative vs liberal branch party?
There's always been tension between conservative and liberal democrats, but they aren't going to split off until they actually hold some power. Until then, they'll stick together to ensure Repubuplicans are out of office. Once they are solidly in control, expect the intercine fighting to start. Getting Democrats to do anything is like trying to herd cats.Is the Democratic party at risk of splitting into a conservative vs liberal branch party?
You know, I think it very well could. And it might not be such a bad thing after all.


Not that it would affect this election at all. I still think they will come out with only one candidate, and if it is Obama they will tank in November.


But for a very very long time, the Democratic party has failed to fulfill the needs of a very large faction of Democrats and that is the conservative Democrats.


Yes, we exist. And way back in the day, the Democratic party was not so God-awful liberal and trying to appease the ';rights'; of every malcontent on the face of the earth.


Many Democrats do not like it and don't approve.


You know, America was never intended to have ';just'; a two party system, and there are people who will tell you we don't have. But let me tell you (although why someone would need to TELL you, I can't imagine), if you are not the nominee of one of the two major parties, you have absolutely no hope of competing. Look at how much these two Democratic hopefuls have spent already.


So go ahead. Let's have a split. Let's have the Liberal Democrats and the Moderate Democrats and the Republicans. And let's have an absolute spending limit on campaigns. For each and every candidate. And I don't mean a hundred million dollars each, and that's it. I mean like one million, that's all you can spend.....period. Or I would like even less, but I don't suppose it could be done any cheaper. And make them account for each and every penny of it.


But give us three distinct mainstream parties. And anyone else who can scrape up one million bucks can join the fray.


Yeah, I'm all for a split.
What the Democrats need to do if they wish to be a successful party in the long run is to abandon their pro-war wing (the Clinton wing) and reach out to the libertarians who are being run out of the Republican Party. In order to do that, they need to move leftward (embrace gay rights, oppose the video game censorship efforts of the Clinton wing, stop the FCC from censoring TV, actually be non-interventionist in foreign policy instead of just pretending to be, support repeal of the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and elimination of Homeland Security, legalize marijuana, stop corporate welfare etc.). Were the Democrats to openly court the libertarians (the fastest growing voting block in America) as part of Barack Obama's coalition by moving leftward, Obama would end up with somewhere around 85-90% of the young vote, which would be devastating for the future of the Republican Party and future historians would be amazed how wise the Democrats were to abandon the dying remnants of the 20th century and move into the 21st century.
No, of course not.





Do you actually think the two-party system evolved by accident? We are stuck with this abomination because the real rulers of society, who appear to be the bankers, want it this way. As presently constructed, this bizarre system allows them to control the political process without seeming to.





Because both of the official parties are comprised of numerous factions who in a normal political system, would never be in the same party to begin with, nobody can be elected without being A TOTAL LIAR! This suits the actual controllers just fine; the last thing they want is anybody with principles becoming President. As long as the new president is a sociopath, the only real issue is how much they'll have to pay him (or her) for services rendered.





The bankers are in the same relationship to our elections that executive producers are to a popular tv show; while all the rubes are obsessing over the actors and the cooked-up drama, all the real decisions are made behind the scenes by (who else?) the producers.





Think of it this way: Regardless of whether the Cylons or the Colonial Fleet win the war on ';Battlestar Galactica';, Ronald Moore and David Eick are still going to own the show. It doesn't matter whether Gaius Baltar or Laura Roslin is President of the Colonies, David Eick is still going to make the same amount of money. It doesn't matter which skinjob is in control of the Cylons, Ronald Moore is still going to be the real power in the BSG universe.





It also doesn't matter which skinjob becomes the next US President because the bankers on the board of the Federal Reserve are still going to be the real power in this country. Together with their colleagues in the other developed countries, they will continue run the world for their own profit. I don't want to sound hopless about this, but nothing can be done about this until a critical mass of people understand the situation. Each and every one of them must as an individual, choose to take the Red Pill. And to do that, you first have to.....





OPEN YOUR EYES !!!!





Barrow-Wight
Yes we're in danger of splitting into a dumb vs a dumber branch of the party.





I think we need to get our sh*t together and stick together. I am hopeful we'll all put our differences aside after the convention and act as adults.





(It has and will affect the election more)
no, it's more like splitting into a 'moderate vs socialist' party...the neomarxists seem to be gaining the upper hand...pretty soon, the moderates will bolt to the repukes, and it will be 'liberal/communist'
The Democratic party has torn itself to pieces... I was a Democrat, but I'm going to vote McCain, at least he is settled and He would not raise my taxes up to the sky and I do not like communism!





McCain 08!
I don't think so. they are pretty much all liberals anyway. They stay way left and rarely go right. I think they are most at risk because of Hillary refusing to concede.
There are already red and blue democrats.
Gosh I hope so.