LOL! You don't know how this arguing thing works, do you? If we're going to have some model for predicting the success or failure of a third-party strategy in the US, we can either do so with a coarse-grained model based purely on what happens in SMDP systems irrespective of particular differences, or we can do so in a more fine-grained way by looking at SMDP systems with FURTHER relevant similarities in political culture, broad coalitions, recent evolution of policy, credibility, economic situation, etc etc.. Which one is more accurate?! Holy cow, get some sleep guy. You're not thinking clearly.

Does the presidency make a difference? Huh? Presidential elections are where in recent decades third-party candidates have had the MOST INFLUENCE on the political landscape. Nader? Perot? What planet are you on? As for independents caucusing with the main parties: yes, just as in multi-party parliamentary systems there are inter-party coalitions. I don't see anything interestingly different about the position of minor-party or independent reps in the US, other than that independents tend to have power combined with freedom within that caucus. That sounds like an argument FOR third-party moves, not against.

And lets take a step back to look at the criterion for 'success' for a third-party move. Success does not necessarily mean that it becomes a major party along side the other two. Probably the most successful third-party move of the twentieth century in the US was the Communist party during the Depression. It was small, but if you read the accounts of how economic policy was formed, you will find that the little Commie party was hugely influential in Washington policy circles. It made the radically unorthodox New Deal seem moderate and mainstream. Basically there was a choice between more-of-the-same Hooverism, radical reparation of Capitalism, or a Communist revolution. Had these commies followed your advice, because 'statistics show...', they wouldn't have had any pull, just being one more backwater of the Dem party, and likely the New Dealers wouldn't have been able to push their reforms through. I'm sure there are other examples, like the Socialists and the McCarthy insurrection in '68, but, jeezus, I'm not going to run through all the obvious examples here. The dynamics are pretty obvious - third parties disappear because the political landscape adjusts to accomodate the third-party forces within the one party or the other. That doesn't mean the third-party effort was a failure. I don't know how many ways I have to make this pretty self-evident point which you refuse to see.

Now the tea-party. I don't see what you're arguing. Is it not cut-and-dried that it is sanctioned from the top? Apart from a couple of powerless out of touch party elders, I haven't seen much resistance. I contend that this was no insurrection. It was by-and-large a disciplinary action bringing moderates into line with the hard-right leadership. And as such, of course it brought the party to the right. But that isn't an argument for your case or against mine. What we are arguing about is whether this was a bottom-up attack on the party establishment. I can't see that. Though, is there a grass-roots element involved? Yes. But the only defining characteristic of that movement is ... opposition to Obama (as far as I can glean from studies). Which the establishment is just fine with, I'd guess. So if this isn't a threat to the party establishment, then it is painfully obvious that it can't provide a model for how to bring the Dems leftward, since their establishment is firmly ensconced in the center of the national political landscape.

My point about money, which you seem to have misunderstood, is that the parties have a funding infrastructure, an infrastructure which the leadership can control and direct if it so chooses. It can shut off funding to certain inconvenient candidates (as the GOP does not seem to have done for the TP). It is a lever of power that is hugely important in determining how viable a candidate is, and inevitably also creates all kinds of pressure points on the policy positions the candidate can adopt. Don't play all naive about these influences. When you spend 90% of your time on the phone with this pool of contributors, it's going to skew the way you see the world. A third-party structure with a distinct funding infrastructure makes a world of difference. It's not an accident that it's Bernie Sanders who is organizing an alternative left-wing fiscal plan with outside think-tanks and advocacy groups. No one inside the party can buck the president's commission and have access to those outside outfits in setting up an alternative.

Really, sorry to get all ornery. But this kind of preemptive beating down of any movement away from full party loyalty is frankly annoying. And you guys are doing it again and again. And EACH TIME it is utterly baseless, as far as I can see. You're really suggesting just 'put up primary candidates'? Given how the party leadership deals with challenges from the left. Remember Lamont? Remember how he ... won the primary? and the party unified around FUCKING LIEBERMAN anyway? The guy who did a TON of harm to the legislation produced over the last two years. And it is with this party that you want to send the kids out to engage in primary challenges. Legacy structure my ass! Rahm made his name as a hardass beating down progressives. That is what the leadership is most expert at doing. Given a choice between corporate money and progressive activism, they'll choose the former each time. That is the party as it is today. Good God. If anything is, relatively speaking, a waste of time, it is going the primary route.

And, beyond all that, there's the note so minor point that the Dem brand name is in the toilet. Sure, it's not quite as deep down the toilet as the GOP brand, but I'm talking in absolute terms. If you advocate a policy, and that policy has a Democratic Party sticker attached to it, it is immediately suspect to at least half the country. They won't even pay attention to the details. It is just toxic. If you present a policy under another flag, it might just get a fair hearing. That is another, very important, advantage.

Anyway, I'm ranting again. This kind of discussion just seems like a dead end each time. Have a good day, DF