1. Kinda silly (but predictable) how both articles say he has no chance of winning. Teachout still hasn’t decided who she’s endorsing; if she ends up endorsing Hawkins, that could easily increase his support into the 15-20% range or more (especially if he gets to debate). Even if he still comes up short of winning, such a large result might help loosen the hold neoliberals have on the Democratic Party. That in of itself would be a victory.

2. I’m not a Republican, but I know the only way the Republican will survive as a major political party in the United States, and in certain individual states, is for there to be a division within the national Democratic Party.

   This is something which rarely happens. On the national level since 1856, there has only been 3 times which one could call a division within the Democratic Party.

   1860 was the 1st great division – when the party divided into a Northern section supporting Douglas, and Southern section Breckenridge.

   1948 was the 2nd great division – when northern liberal Democrats supported Henry Wallace on the Progressive ticket, and the southern segregationists supported Strom Thurmond on the States’ Rights ticket. Both 3rd party nominees remained Democrats after the election.

   1968 was the 3rd and last great division – when George Wallace organized the national American Independent Party and may have taken enough votes away from Hubert Humphrey to keep him from winning, and almost took too many votes away from Richard Nixon to keep him from squeezing out his victory. Wallace remained a Democrat and sought the regular Democratic nomination for several years thereafter.

   NOTE: Some may not accept the 1968 division as actually a division, but many historians believe if Wallace had not ran, Humphrey would have had a better chance.

   My point is, I could see in future decades, of the Democratic Party having such internal divisions. Today, in the Democratic Party, we have the secular progressives who are driving the social agenda. Many Blue Collar Democrats as well as Democratic Hispanic voters who do not agree with Abortion or Same Sex Marriage are not happy. And of course, African-Americans have stuck with the party because they had a prominent seat at the table. Now, many of them are only getting a seat at the corner of that table.

   I can see some potential clashing of philosophies which could cause the Democratic Party to split.

   If such split was major and non-mendable, there would be room for the GOP to remain a major party but win with a plurality at many important elections – especially presidential elections.

   The future of U.S. politics from 2050 and beyond will be interesting.

3. Or such split would result in Greens winning by plurality.
   What’s happening in NY is precisely because Cuomo’s policies are in alignment with the Republican Party and has, de facto, supported the Republican Party control of the State Senate. It’s not that the Democrats are divided, it’s that there’s no real Democratic Party candidate. They had a choice in the Primary but the small turnout decided to nominate a Republican style candidate in their own party.

4. GreenGenes:

   Are you really saying Cuomo is not a real Democratic candidate? How much more liberal does Cuomo have to become to be considered a “real Democratic candidate?”

   But you make my very point. The larger the Democratic Party becomes – due to population growth – naturally or through immigration – we are going to see this party have major internal problems.

   GOP, don’t give up hope yet – though it may be a generation or two before the “great schism of the Democratic Party begins.”

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.