3 ms·

To add to the other comments, it's a false equivalence because, while there certainly are factions within both parties, they aren't equally divided. For example

To add to the other comments, it's a false equivalence because, while there certainly are factions within both parties, they aren't equally divided. For example, there's simply nothing comparable, in terms of power, effect, and influence, to the Tea Party/"Freedom Caucus" of the Republicans on the Democrat side, at least not yet. Sanders or Warren might prefigure a major shift or break in the party, but it hasn't happened yet. On the Republican side it has happened several times in the past 10 years, first with the "Tea Party" wave and now with Trump.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Doesn't the amount of votes that Sanders got in the primary indicate that there is a farther-left (and maybe even insurgent) Democratic wing that has at least as much "power, effect, and influence" as the Tea Party? Or do you need to see it actually unseat senators in primaries, instead of almost unseat presidential candidates?
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  Yes, we'd generally want to see evidence of something before talking about whether it exists. The Tea Party unseated incumbent Senators and Congressmen and forced (or enforced) policy changes in the Republican Party. While they have fallen from their 2010 height, they still wield some power, especially in the House via the "Freedom Caucus". Meanwhile, thus far the "farther-left (and maybe even insurgent) Democratic wing" for all the noise it seems to make has had little effect on the party. They aren't electing people, they aren't even really challenging incumbents very much. Contrast this to the steady rightward march of the Republicans over the last 30 years: the rise of the Evangelicals in the 70s, Gingrich's 1994 "Republican Revolution", and more recently the Tea Party wave of 2010 and the explosion of an apparent Trump faction. All of these lead to not only actual electoral victories, if not dominance in the Republican Party in some cases, for the more extreme factions, but were coupled with real threats of incumbents who didn't play ball being "primaried" by more extreme challengers. As I said, it's possible that the surprising performance of Sanders and the popularity of people like Warren may be the beginning of similar change in the Democratic Party, but until that actually happens it's just not comparable to what's happened to the Republicans.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

Doesn't the amount of votes that Sanders got in the primary indicate that there is a farther-left (and maybe even insurgent) Democratic wing that has at least as much "power, effect, and influence" as the Tea Party? Or do you need to see it actually unseat senators in primaries, instead of almost unseat presidential candidates?

Sangermaine 9y ago
Yes, we'd generally want to see evidence of something before talking about whether it exists. The Tea Party unseated incumbent Senators and Congressmen and forced (or enforced) policy changes in the Republican Party. While they have fallen from their 2010 height, they still wield some power, especially in the House via the "Freedom Caucus". Meanwhile, thus far the "farther-left (and maybe even insurgent) Democratic wing" for all the noise it seems to make has had little effect on the party. They aren't electing people, they aren't even really challenging incumbents very much. Contrast this to the steady rightward march of the Republicans over the last 30 years: the rise of the Evangelicals in the 70s, Gingrich's 1994 "Republican Revolution", and more recently the Tea Party wave of 2010 and the explosion of an apparent Trump faction. All of these lead to not only actual electoral victories, if not dominance in the Republican Party in some cases, for the more extreme factions, but were coupled with real threats of incumbents who didn't play ball being "primaried" by more extreme challengers. As I said, it's possible that the surprising performance of Sanders and the popularity of people like Warren may be the beginning of similar change in the Democratic Party, but until that actually happens it's just not comparable to what's happened to the Republicans.