Are the parties so diverse that they are no longer one party?

[Melon]

At what point is the length between democratic socialist and conservative democrats….. or whatever is deemed the far spectrum of the parties too far to keep everyone voting for one party?

This can go for any party of course. I don’t know what they call the spectrums of the Republican Party.
But at what point do people not buy into “ voting the ticket”, when the ticket stops representing most of their beliefs? Is this why there are so many independents now?

[rampartd]

1. we democrats have always been diverse.

democrats were slaveowners and copperheads, unionists and most of the union soldiers and many of the confederates.

the new dealers were opposed by dixiecrats and populists like huey long.

"i do not belong to an organized political party. i am a democrat." will rogers

[waterwatcher123]

2. Our system only really works with two parties. If the vote is split in the Democratic Party, Republicans win.

I do not know what to make of so-called, independents. I think some of them are either poorly informed, and/or are expecting a president or party to rescue them from their life situation. Voting data seems to suggest that a large block of these voters (the so-called independents) swing wildly from election to election.

[LeftInTX]

8. They really do seem to swing wildly.

I have voter in my precinct who voted in the Democratic primary in 2018. Then, she voted GOP in the rest of the primaries.
I pretty much blew her off as GOP. Then, she voted in the Democratic primary this year. It seems like she's being "reactive".

I get the impression there are quite a few "reactive" voters this election season.

[waterwatcher123]

12. Yes, I think it is pretty common if you look at voting behavior in the data.

I reviewed some precincts for past elections in a familiar place and it was just astounding how large numbers of voters switched their voting behavior from presidential election to election (like a third of the voters voted differently in subsequent elections in this one precinct). I suspect you might see the same behavior lots of places.

[some_of_us_are_sane]

21. That would be a great name for a 3rd party.....

"Reactive"....

(Would also be "the third rail" for a traditional "Democrat" vote in the next election.

[karynnj]

3. With due respect to the huge amount of diversity within today's

Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2026, 11:12 AM - Edit history (2)

party, I think it may be less extreme than in some earlier times.

Back in the 1950s until at least 1970, on almost any issue, there was not the sharp divide that exists now between the two parties. The Democratic party at least into the mid 1960s included both Dixiecrats and liberals. The Republican party also had liberals, such as Jacob Javits as well as extreme small government conservatives such as Barry Goldwater.

In recent times each party became more homogeneous and a wide difference between them developed.. Then you could say the Republicans had at least two game changing periods. The first was the sudden wave of the freedom caucus. This left many of the old money, small government Republicans very uncomfortable. The second was the wave of Trump Republicans. My guess is if you could have shown 1950s Republican Congressmen the 2024 Republican convention (like Dickens Christmas carol), they would not believe this was the Republican party future.

Ignoring the issue of Israel, I wonder if we can think of FDR as a midpoint, where there are people, once called the DLC or new Democrats to the right and Bernie and the DS to the left. It might be that the sweet spot is similar to FDR. To the DS, it is not all they think needed and to more centrist it could be as far as they can go.

Given the time, we need to push the debate on the economic issues. We need to more clearly explain how increasing economic inequality drives many of the problems. Our country worked better in the times when the top tier of income had less of the total assets. We are moving toward the profile of a third world nation, where a few have a lot and the majority have very little. The Trump taxes should be argued to have made that worse, the debt worse and is intended to starve the federal government, preventing programs to help people.

[RockRaven]

4. The nature of the government structure created by the Constitution seems to collapse parties into

a bipartisan reality. Because of the unitary executive, apparently, because the power is vested in one single person, there is no power sharing or coalition governments possible in practice. You either have the Executive Branch, or you don't but will soon. And that makes parties mush together until only two functional, office-holding parties remain -- to either be part of having power now or to avoid missing out on the next power transfer as the wheel of fate turns. Nobody is willing to risk being perpetually out in the cold when it comes to executive power, so only two parties survive-and-thrive at a time.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. .

too far to keep everyone voting for one party?

"Everyone voting for one party" never happens. Each candidate, election, ballot initiative and referendum is different for every voter.

But at what point do people not buy into “ voting the ticket”, when the ticket stops representing most of their beliefs?

It's different for every person, and it's not always consistent.

[BannonsLiver]

6. I'd like to join the winning is all that matters party.

Where applying political power ruthlessly as a force for good after winning said elections is the only thing people care about. Sign me up.

[LeftInTX]

9. Majority first, please!

[Torchlight]

7. Fundamental platform positions indicate no real schism to me

The variances that do exist, while colorful, don't appear to create a division of direction or degree.

[Progressive dog]

10. There have always been many independents.

Think about this, with two realistic options many people don't join either party. Adding parties is not a solution. If you are unable to choose between two parties, what will happen if there are many more?

[Melon]

11. I'm by no means advocating

Splitting up the party. Just theoretical.

If there were more choices along the breadth of the spectrum, then maybe it would be easier to find a better fit, not more difficult.

[Torchlight]

13. And your conclusion?

What point do you believe it the spectrum becomes an unworkable schism? What would indicate it as such?

[Melon]

15. I don't have a conclusion...thus the discussion

[Torchlight]

16. What point do you believe it the spectrum becomes an unworkable schism?

As alluded to.

[Melon]

17. Maybe two ideas for any party politics. I'm sure

There are many more. This isn’t specific Democratic Party but any party. I don’t see a break in our party.

The party or any party has core fundamentals that attracted the individuals to the party. The party still gets the vote if the core fundamentals of the party stay intact. In this way, the surrounding party ideas become nice to have or not acceptable but don’t change the desire to vote the overall ticket because the fundamental core values stay the same. If the core values shift enough, it could lose the foundation of the party.

It’s not necessarily a measurable value on the spectrum but linked to core values.

I think the other case is if the party becomes unable to perform to expectation and the belief that staying in a party gives less chance of success long term than risking trying something new.

[Torchlight]

20. Far too vague a reponse for me to make heads or tails of.

At what point does that perception or assertion of a schism become irreparable requires a separation of parties?

For example, a schism between Democrats and Dixiecrats occurred 60 years ago with the failed formation of a new party, and I simply don't see our party circling anywhere near that level of division.

[Melon]

22. Listen brother, I'm eating a burger and drinking a coke

I’m not scurrying off to find evidence in 1960’s of cracks in the party to satisfy you in some way. I answered giving two different ways I believe that a party could fundamentally break up. If you don’t agree…just say you disagree. It’s no skin off of me. It’s for discussion and wasn’t an accusation that the party is splitting. I said either party as a matter of fact and see it as a possibility for the republicans with Trump.
But I don’t do additional leg work to satisfy one person in the great wide web.

[Torchlight]

23. Sounds serious

Good luck

[Nanjeanne]

14. No. I believe the vast majority of the Democratic Party voters support the same policies. However

the media, the Republicans and many Dem consultants and pundits (including never Trumpers who now think they are Democrats although they don’t actually support core Democratic policies) — are very vocal and get the most attention and like the labels because it gives them something to talk about, keeps the on the air and/or their consultancy fees and maintains the status quo.

But take the labels away and I think you would find the majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and probably a decent amount of not MAGA Rs would fit in the tent!

[Melon]

18. Are the R's close to that situation with Trump

It seems many are moving away from Trump but still in the party. Does this become the straw that splits the party?

[forthemiddle]

19. I fear it's equivalent to the rights Tea Party movement of a decade ago

Social Democrats come along with some appealing proposals, but soon the more radicals start to encroach and it becomes a loyalty test for going farther into true socialism.
I’m not saying the two ideals are any way equivalent, just that the followers maybe. We already have moderates, like Josh Shipiro, sounding the alarm.
Please read some of the DSA platform, or join the DSA Reddit groups, they hate anything to do with capitalism. They won’t be satisfied with Norway or Switzerland models. They don’t like the idea of any private company, they must all be worker owned.

[LeftInTX]

24. I didn't know that. DSA actually endorses reasonable candidates around here:

Greg Casar
Three city council members


However, there are other socialists groups that all Democrats should stay clear of: Party for Socialism and Liberation. It's literally the communist party and they want to destroy the Democratic Party. There could be overlap with DSA. I know DSA is non-partisan.

I really don't understand the socialists obsession with I/P. There is all sorts of injustices and other ongoing genocides in the world. I hate to see that this is the hill that many of chose to die on. Is there a possibility that we can reduce arms to Israel without tearing the Democratic Party apart. Funding for Israel is I believe for 10 years and cannot be repealed. (It's a wierd set up) Presidents do have discretionary rights to temporarily increase funding. (Which Biden did)

However, DSA does not address the complexities of the ME.

What would happen if we stopped all arms funding to Israel?

Fortunately, DSA does not address Russia/Ukraine.


Party for Socialism and Liberation, which is everywhere these days and they support Russia. It is also a communist party, not a socialist party, yet they have infiltrated local Democratic Parties and try to recruit Democratic voters via protests and workshops. When they aren't running candidates they have workshops and they currently are very active in anti-ICE activities, which appeals to many Democrats. (They carry "loud signs" on wooden stakes)

Their leader Neville Roy Singham lives in China. They also supported Bashar al-Assad when he was in power. They also support the Islamic Republic. IOW, they sorta have an axis they support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Roy_Singham

Singham lives in Shanghai, China.[13][6] He is married to Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans, who has become pro-China after marrying Singham in 2017.[18] Singham has also become a major donor to Code Pink, with organizations from his network providing around a quarter of the budget.[18

]

PSL calls for a 90% cut to the military budget of the United States,[65][63] the closure of all overseas military bases,[63] and a halt of American aid to Israel.[63][71]

PSL supports the Worker's Party of Korea.[8][67][26] PSL describes North Korea as a "communist government" and North Korea as "one of the few top-to-bottom, actually-existing, alternatives to the global capitalist system".[72] PSL has defended North Korea's human rights record against criticism by the United Nations, which it calls "thinly veiled justification for U.S. aggression toward North Korea",[73][74] and argues that "conditions in North Korea are vastly better than those in other developing countries".[73] PSL supports North Korea's nuclear weapons program.[8][75][72][76]

PSL supports the Communist Party of China,[8][67][75] criticizing only its economic reforms concerning a "market socialist economy".[77][78] PSL argues that "militant political defense of the Chinese government" is necessary to stave off "counterrevolution, imperialist intervention and dismemberment".[67][78] PSL defends China's human rights record,[8] and strongly denies that the People's Liberation Army massacred peaceful student protestors in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre.[67][79][77] PSL denies that China has suppressed democracy in Hong Kong during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests.[80][81]

PSL supported the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea.[80][82] PSL did not support the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but blamed the Russo-Ukrainian war on NATO and the United States.[80][83] In its statement on "Russia's military intervention", PSL highlighted the "plight of ethnic Russians [...] in the Donbas", Russia's "legitimate security concerns", and NATO's "provocative behavior".[80][84]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation

Is this the hill we want to die on?

I think DSA should stick to workers/domestic issues - medicare for all etc....

[betsuni]

27. Thank you for the info.

[Melon]

25. I had no idea.....

[Eko]

31. Here is there platform for 2026.

I think you are going to have to do a lot of stretching to show “They won’t be satisfied with Norway or Switzerland models. They don’t like the idea of any private company, they must all be worker owned.”
https://platform.dsausa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/DSA_WDM2025Program_v2.pdf

[CrimsonBight]

26. Division within the parties is nothing new.

In fact, they are probably more ideologically unified now than they were in the past. The Dixiecrats, for example, are long gone, and we no longer have to contend with an explicitly racist and socially reactionary contingent in our ranks.

[Norrrm]

28. In our 250 years, America has usually been a two-party gov't...

but the parties have not always been these two.

Dems and reps pretty much swapped positions from the 1960s civil rights times.

Who would have thought that Southerners would claim to be the 'party of Lincoln'?

............ while flying the Confederate flag.

[no_hypocrisy]

29. FDR managed to minimalize, then end, The Depression while fighting

and winning the Second World War with a party made up of democratic socialists and southern racists. It can be done.

[J_William_Ryan]

30. "the ticket stops representing most of their beliefs"

Political scientists refer to strong Democrats and weak Democrats – weak Democrats became Reagan Democrats during the 1980s.

Reagan voters often referred to themselves as ‘social liberals/fiscal conservatives’ – pro choice but opposed to government spending.

Unfortunately, over the last 40 years, it’s Democrats who became splintered and divided – which is why the country is in the mess it is today.

[Eko]

32. No.

But that is not really what you are tying to do here. You are not asking an honest question you are trying to lower support for the DSA. You’ve shown further down your disdain for them. Why are you trying to divide us?