If there had been a new dominant party on the left created since the formation of the Republican Party in the mid-nineteenth century, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. If there had been one, the United States might not be an empire that it is today and might be even social democratic.
So why do you think that you can do what hasn't happened in 150-odd years, and only happened then when an existing national party split because of a hughly focused crisis, and the other party imploded over the same crisis? What makes you think that getting out 2-3% of the vote for Nader for President is going to promote building a progressive, left, social democratic, even a liberal party? I'm just asking. But it doesn't answer the question to say that if things had been different, they'd be different.
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com