I'll take an easy example for Americans to get their head around: The British Conservative Party

The Conservative Party of the United Kingdom has hired an unexpected-but-certainly-qualified person to advise its general election team: Jim Messina, architect of the Barack Obama re-election and former Deputy White House Chief of Staff. What gives? How could a self-described lifelong Democrat go work for the Conservatives?
~snip
Yes, that's right: Messina can still wear his all-blue outfit when he has to take meetings in London.

The final tally from the above? Two Conservative policies similar to the Republican party; six to the Democrats. And in two instances — the death penalty and nationalized healthcare — it runs further to the left.

In other words, Messina doesn't need to change his policy arguments that much, either.

The Conservative Party is fiscally conservative i.e they prefer privatisation of public assets and many quite like Obama's ACA for it private sector insurance scheme. Some refer to this as neolibralism [or just liberalism this side of the pond]

Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector. It takes from the basic principles of neoclassical economics, suggesting that governments must limit subsidies, make reforms to tax law in order to expand the tax base, reduce deficit spending, limit protectionism, and open markets up to trade. It also seeks to abolish fixed exchange rates, back deregulation, permit private property, and privatize businesses run by the state.

Liberalism, in economics, refers to a freeing of the economy by eliminating regulations and barriers that restrict what actors can do. Neoliberal policies aim for a laissez-faire approach to economic development.

How "liberals" hate to be compared to neo-liberals, but as can be seen from the past campaign it is a plain as day that they are one and the same. The biggest proponent of TTP and TTIP was the President himself who also happens to be a Democrat, also it was supported by many senior Democrats including their eventual candidate until it was politically expedient not to do so. Without Bernie Sanders campaign I doubt it would have even been an issue for most of them.

Anything slightly to the left of the conservative Democratic Party seems to illicit kneejerk reactions of "socialism" wheras there is a country mile to the left of the Democratic Party before you even get a hint of actual socialism. The only time socialism is used in the US is to bail out the top 1%.

Neither Party has committed to reducing income inequality, no matter which one has been in power it has only got worse

Most talk of income inequality focuses on the problems of the very poor or the broader socioeconomic implications of rising inequality. What is less well-known is that income inequality makes us all less happy with our lives, even if we’re relatively well-off.

We examined data from the Gallup World Poll and the World Top Incomes Database and found that the more income is concentrated in the hands of a few, the more likely individuals are to report lower levels of life satisfaction and more negative daily emotional experiences. That is, the higher the share of national income that is held by the top 1%, the lower the overall well-being of the general population. Specifically, we found that a 1% increase in the share of taxable income held by the top 1% hurts life satisfaction as much as a 1.4% increase in the country-level unemployment rate.

Which hurts even more when we cannot even ensure the proper nutrition for tens of millions of children in the richest country on earth.

The estimated percentage of U.S. households that were food insecure declined significantly in 2015 to 12.7 percent of U.S. households (15.8 million households, approximately one in eight). This is down significantly from 2014, when 14.0 percent of households (17.5 million households, approximately one in seven), were food insecure. It continues a downward trend from 14.9 percent food insecure in 2011, the highest percentage ever recorded. However the 2015 prevalence of food insecurity was still above the 2007 pre-recessionary level of 11.1 percent. (Food-insecure households (those with low and very low food security) had difficulty at some time during the year providing enough food for all their members due to a lack of resources.) In 2015, the percentage of households with food insecurity in the severe range—very low food security—also declined significantly. (Coleman-Jensen 2016b)

It is not as if we don't have the resources to eliminate malnutrition however we decided that increasing the debt through foreign wars was much more fun, and many Democrats applauded them at the time and the to continue upporting funding them

The capitulation of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership to the Bush administration’s request for nearly $100 billion of unconditional supplementary government spending, primarily to support the war in Iraq, has led to outrage throughout the country. In the Senate, 37 of 49 Democrats voted on May 24 to support the measure. In the House, while only 86 of the 231 Democratic House members voted for the supplemental funding, 216 of them voted in favor of an earlier procedural vote designed to move the funding bill forward even though it would make the funding bill’s passage inevitable (while giving most of them a chance to claim they voted against it).

Many Democrats also claim not to support the wars yet they continue to elect them anyway even if they deliberately lie about their intentions, it is really quite astounding. Couple that with their tacit acceptance of war crimes and torture and a rather ugly picture is painted.

The only lesser evil on show is reduced rate of decent into evil. They wilfully participated in our decent into a full blown oligarchy [another word they scream about] and are unwilling even to attempt to turn it around. How often was "citizens united" really challenged in the legislature? Mention lobbying, all they come up with in defence of doing nothing about it is "freedoms" and if it wasn't above board it would be in the back rooms. Mention campaign finance reform and all they can come up with is we need as much money as "them" to win, hint they raised more and didn't win either.

Some experts had a look and concluded that the US was indeed an oligarchy

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

The Democrats are quite happy watching people sink under crushing debts, well if they didn't why would they ridicule people proposing ways of trying to ameliorate it. Any policy designed to really help anyone but the elite seems to meet the same fate, single payer anyone? Medicare for all even?

Climate Change, brought out of the bag every now and then to prove they "believe" in science then just as quickly forgotten about when it comes to that "winning" thingy.

Which one is evil, the one that makes no bones about it, or the one that pretends they are not? The way both party faithful look at it, just pick and choose which one is which, the results are both headed the same way.

No need for another party they say, we can change them some "progressives say" well it hasn't even remotely slowed down the politics as usual in anyway shape or form, playing along for scraps will not work, eventually they will take those away as well. One side of the same side of the aisle might just do it a bit more slowly. Hell they even applaud it when their side gets to appoint a supreme court justice who is politically on their "side" and scream like hell when the other side gets the ball, what justice eh?

Perhaps one day the majority will have the courage to say, enough is enough of this game of thrones. I wont hold my breath.

Democrats this time around basically complained about not having a loyalty oath for their primaries due to some states not requiring in the primaries that you must be a "D-registration" to participate. Next time around just draw one up, it will be simpler and avoid someone possibly upsetting the apple-cart.

I'm done with both of the conservative parties. I want a party at least mildly on the actual left, then voting might be a damn sight easier not to feel ill about.