IMO, the two-party system has served as well for 225 years and only needs minor tinkering, not a complete overhaul.
The Republicans problem is that they wish to remain ideologically pure....even if it is a death wish since the country is so ideologically diverse.
The NY election reference in the OP is only the most recent example, but it goes back to the 06 and 08 elections when Democrats won 50+ House seats, mostly in red distrcts, by recruiting and running moderates, while the Republican ideological test required that they run the most conservative. Most of those 50+ "Blue Dog" Democrats are fiscal moderates, bordering on fiscal conservatives.
As a result, the Democratic party has become a big tent party, which presents opportunities as well as challenges....and it means those on the far left will have to chose to be either more accommodating and flexible or risk losing that majority status.
What the Democrats have in their favor is that as long as this is the face of the Republican party....
...Republicans will never attract the swing centrist voters. Limbaugh, Beck, Palin are great for the base, but a losing face for a party that wants to govern.
---------- Post added at 07:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by inBOIL
What frightens me more than the current choice between a fundie spendthrift right and an anti-gun spendthrift left is an unchallengeable hegemony should the Democrats not splinter as well...
|
Rather than splinter, in 06, for example (after electing moderate Democratic Senators in AR, CO, NH, PA, VA, WY - most are either fiscal moderates and/or pro-gun or anti-choice - not your "typical" liberals) the Democratic caucus in the Senate chose a Majority Leader who is pro-gun and anti-choice. He would not have been my choice.. but there is that flexibility that is required.
I can't imagine a scenario where a pro-choice, anti-gun Senator could become a leader of the Republican party....Limbaugh, et al would not allow it.