Democrats are voting for establishment candidates at a rate of 89%

[scheming daemons]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-establishment-is-beating-the-progressive-wing-in-democratic-primaries-so-far/?ex_cid=538twitter

AOC is an aberration, and Bernie is largely being ignored.

[nycbos]

1. Help help! I am being repressed!

[JHan]

85. LOLOLOLOLOL

[budkin]

103. Bloody peasant!

[Madam Mossfern]

2. I have been identified as

an "establishment Democrat", whatever that means.
I did support Bernie in the Primary ...

[Squinch]

12. I've been called that too. Don't sweat it. The secret they don't like to share is that they

want all the same policies we do.

There is some strong emotion around the philosophical reason for those policies, though. Like I give a shit about that.

[lovemydogs]

75. It is really sad that some here cannot respect those who agree with Sanders ideas

This is not a lock step party.
Not everyone has to love Clintonism/centrism
Many democrats long for a more bold thinking and for the party to move left. Some want to revive some of the New Deal policies. Afterall, the New Deal did provide a more fair income distribution and kept Wall Street and corporations in line. It worked for working people and created a strong middle class.
Bernie is a New Dealer and many of us agree with his policies more the Clintonism and those policies.
We are on the same side and the party is a big tent.
Obsessing endlessly about Sanders, et. al., is so self defeating and keeps people churning in resentments. Why they are so resentful of Sanders and progressives I just never understood.

[GaryCnf]

78. What's worse

is that they won't even debate policy.

Instead, for example, they claim "universal health care" or "helping small business" is the same "policy" as Medicare for All AND then claim that anyone who disagrees "must be" opposing their candidate for some reason everyone on this board would find disgusting.

It's dishonest. It's divisive. It's the same politics of triangulation that brought us Bush the Lesser in 2000 and Trump in 2016.

[Squinch]

82. I'd certainly debate policy with you, Gary, if you would name one on which we disagree. In my many

attempts to get you to, you haven't.

[GaryCnf]

83. I believe you've had, and still have, that opportunity

As many were pointed out to you.

Unfortunately, you appear content to carry forward with the politics of triangulation, FALSELY and DIVISIVELY claiming that real-life left-leaning Democrats only oppose establishment candidates because of some immutable characteristic.

But you go right ahead repeating yourself . . . soon enough the choir will chime in and you can have an outright chorus singing a left-hate left-blame tune.

[Squinch]

84. Nope. Not one.

And if you are maintaining that my stance that we don't differ on actual policy constitutes "left blame" and "left hate," i don't think those things mean what you think they mean.

[Hortensis]

90. I agree avowed goals are basically the same, differences manufactured

by the minority group so they can claim to they are not. I no longer believe, though, that actual immediate goals are the same.

This is illustrated clearly by the shocking position taken that our current national healthcare system was too badly flawed to allow it to continue. Shocking because this position was held passionately not just while we were out of power but also in tandem with -- and thus giving aid to -- the Republican congress's determination to destroy it. Of course, the idea was that it would somehow, but inevitably, be replaced with a new, better national healthcare system credited to themselves. .

(This is very like Trump's betrayed base, btw, who thought he was going to give them an improved ACA with more coverage for lower costs and, extremely important to them, a new, Republican name.)

Thing is, behaviors like this convinced me that first priorities are NOT to progressive ideals and the general wellbeing but rather opposition to mainstream Democrats, both for its own sake and as a route to power. After all, when the main reason for political existence is opposition, opposition must be maintained.

[brush]

102. Your last sentence just nails it.

After all, when the main reason for political existence is opposition, opposition must be maintained.

I remember all the vows to fight for their preferred candidate inthe primaries but to come together behind the winner to go against the repugs in the general election.

What happened to that? Now they may as well be a third party. Isn't at least one OR candidate running against a Democrat and repug in one general election?

Seems their opposition to so-called establishment Dems is about being "different", when the actual differences on policy are almost indistinguishable.

Oh, and some get leadership positions and good salaries.

[Hortensis]

105. Yes. Well known to political scientists,

of course, not my discovery. But, boy, watching it play out lost its fascination long ago. Most are sincere and have no idea, but their top leaders do.

Same on the right. Whenever mainstream Republicans have tried to meet the demands of the Freedom Caucus to end its crippling opposition, new, unmeetable demands are made.

[Squinch]

110. Their inability to specify policy differences and their subsequent

insistence that THERE ARE TOO POLICY DIFFERENCES AND YOU ARE FULL OF HATE FOR REAL LIFE LEFT PEOPLE!!! suggests that you are quite correct.

[ehrnst]

94. Hear, hear. (nt)

[ehrnst]

91. Interesting - the only ones I've ever heard equating UHC and MFA are those who

support MFA, and decry "establishment" Democrats.

[GaryCnf]

95. Perhaps you are confused

I have it on good authority that there are no policy differences between so-called "establishment" Democrats and so-called "leftist" Democrats.

I hope I haven't been misinformed.

[ehrnst]

98. Perhaps you get your information from places other than DU, then.

And perhaps you are confused as to the topic of my post. Let me clarify.

My experience here on DU has been that the ones who have stated that until the Democratic Platform cites MFA as a goal, it is not truly have Universal Health Care enshrined as a policy.

When one points out that the ACA is indeed the furthest down the road to Universal Health Care we have ever gotten, despite much damage from the GOP, and that MFA is not the only option for UHC, as most other developed democracies demonstrate, one is often accused of "hating Bernie" or "being an establishement shill," or trying to confuse the discussion with "semantics."

That may be where your confusion on my statement came in.

Is that clearer?

[NurseJackie]

108. Nice try, but...

Is that clearer?

Nice try, but don't get your hopes up.

[GaryCnf]

109. Maybe you should scroll up

It's the choir singing the "no policy difference" tune.

Maybe I should have used this

[Squinch]

81. Its also sad that some here cannot read. I was saying that we all want the

same policies and I don't give a shit about what philosophies get them for us. Which of us is obsessing endlessly about Sanders, dear?

[Demsrule86]

112. There is no such thing as clintonism first of all. Secondly, the new deal without a doubt

saved this country...but it is of the past and really benefited White people...so a more inclusive modern approach is needed...living in the past won't work...most people today don't even know who Roosevelt was. We need a new new deal if you will. As for Sen. Sanders, his policies are Democratic policies...have been around for years...And I voted for Senator Sanders in the primary but won't do so again based on his comments about social justice.. I want a fresh candidate...not Clinton or Sanders.

[Farmer-Rick]

43. Aren't the majority of Democratic candidates running considered establishment candidates?

In fact, in most cases, especially in the South, there is only one Democratic candidate running.

[John Fante]

3. Establishment democratic candidates.

Or as I like to call them - Democratic candidates.

[Wwcd]

11. + a million.. Me Too.

[Progressive dog]

38. K&R

[R B Garr]

39. Exactly!

[JHan]

86. takes all the pluses +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[brush]

104. I'm with you. The Democrats are the party to the left.

Other factions have, or are in the process of splintering off, which of course generates power and generous salaries for some and being "different" for the rank-and-file.

Actual policy differences are in degrees that sensible people could work out in-house.

[Eko]

4. I think the word "establishment" is offensive.

I'm a centrist in many ways but I do think this part is cool.
"Although those endorsed by progressive groups may not always win, in many races they are shifting the policy debate and forcing favored candidates to at least address some of their progressive stances."

[elleng]

5. 'Every time Democrats lose a presidential election, blue America promptly

collapses into civil war—and never more so than in the aftermath of 2016. Progressive Democrats ... insist that if the party is to have any hope of fending off Trumpism, it must decisively move to the political left . . . Establishment Democrats ... dismiss that idea as electoral suicide, contending that now more than ever is the time for the party to reclaim the political center by championing an agenda that pragmatically appeals to voters on both sides of the aisle.

And you know what? They’re absolutely right. All of them. The Democratic Party must reclaim the political center. And the only way to do that is by boldly moving toward the so-called “radical” left.'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211001235

[KPN]

14. Yep! Amazing how this OP appeared within a half hour of the one you linked to.

This is a lot to do about nothing frankly. The party IS moving to the left because of growing progressive pressure and that's all that matters to me. Moving to the left is moving back to the historical center. It's all relative .... though some like to call it "populism".

[Wwcd]

28. The Party has always moved left & center as necessary. It remains fluid .

Progressives..socialists, etc, would like to stake claim to some power of force of movement, but in reality, the Party has always been forward moving, has always held a good variety of those who kept it in check & has always held the basic tenet of human & equal rights as it's Party platform.

Maybe some just weren't so aware of this fact.

See?

[KPN]

33. Ummm ... labor, wages, public higher education costs

finance/cost, economic justice? I respectfully disagree on those grounds. I do agree on the human and equal rights part though. We’d probably also agree on the environment and health care as well. We have a hell of a lot more in common than not for sure.

[Wwcd]

35. Those items have been long fought for by the Dem Party.

That is what the Party has always stood for.
They still do.

Where were all those far left voters when Pres Obama & the Dem Party needed a midterm majority to bring about his policy plans for labor, wages, public higher education costs finance/cost, economic justice ?

Not buying the claim that these items are exclusively specific to the Left wing of the Dem Party.

If that is the case, then Hillary Clinton's campaign platform was indeed a very progressive left policy.

The Dem Party holds these very items as their basic tenets of policy & good governance.

I don't know of a time in history that the Dem Party wasn't fighting the GOP to maintain equality & fairness for the people of this country.

Democrats have always been the Party of the People.

Just as Republicans have always represented the best for corporations & big money investments.

Democrats have always been left of the Republican right.
Human rights vs Corporate wealth.
That's as simple as it can be explained.

[betsuni]

41. +1

[KPN]

73. Results?

[Caliman73]

48. Populism just means that the leadership is being lead, in ways, by the voters.

Which is kind of how it should be.

I prefer politics to be kind of boring, with discussion of goals and exactly how we might get there. I don't want to be "excited". I want people with good policy ideas, that can work with other Party members and maybe people on the other side (of course people on the other side) to enact policies that will raise everyone's standard of living, without destroying the environment or exploiting people from less well of places.

[GulfCoast66]

60. Respectfully, you are absolutely incorrect.

Populism alway, not sometimes, but always sets up an enemy to be attacked.

It is really just another name for nationalism.

And it can come from the right or the left. Hell, this whole thread is replete with a term that populist on the left set up as a straw man.

Establishment. It has no real defined meaning. But is is apparently bad.

Here is a partial list of other terms Populist use. Right and left.

Jews(the oldest and most common. Most often used by the right but increasingly by some on the left)
Black
Mexicans
Transnational corporations( can be a dog whistle for Jews depending on the context)
LGBT persons
Atheist(see the AGs Freedom Of Reigion recent bullshit)
Socialists
Bankers(Jews again)
Millionaires and Billionaires
Muslims
Evangelicals
Welfare queens
Scientists
Europeans

You get the idea. A good rule of thumb is to avoid politicians who have a ready made group of people to stereotype and make the enemy.

I suspect you and I agree on most policy issues. But I was raised by a man who watched southern populist keep FDR from extending his social policies to people of color. It is a personal issue for me.

[Caliman73]

69. Respectfully disagree.

Neither "Establishment" nor "Populism" have solid meanings and both are used pejoratively. The people who come to power, especially those who have been in power for a long time are often referred to as "elite" and "Establishment". People often conclude, whether right or wrong that those in power are out of touch with the needs of the average person and then label them "Establishment" or "elite". Populists tend to rail against that "elite"

On the left, the elite are typically commercial interests and those who support them. Large multinational corporations and wealthy financiers. As you get further to the left, anyone in the mainstream liberal parties who support capitalism is considered "establishment"

On the right, the "establishment" is typically all governing structures except for the military and law enforcement. The "elites" are intellectuals.

The fringes of each side of the political spectrum obviously get more radical with the right wing often going fully into racism, sexism, and xenophobia and the left wing going into the vanguard communism that wants to smash the existing order including any liberal democratic values which to them are often equally horrible to full on unrestricted capitalism.


I understand that your situation is personal, but often when things are personal and emotional it gets in the way of determining the correct attribution. You were raised by a Black man who suffered from Racism, not populism. The establishment in the South at the time of FDR was racist. All of the governing structures since the failure of Reconstruction were racially based, especially in the South, but all over the country. FDR wasn't really stopped by any movement. It wasn't high on his priority list to do anything for minorities. Eleanor Roosevelt was the civil rights champion in that family. FDR used populist sentiment against the business elite. Remember his speech in 1936:

In 1932 the issue was the restoration of American democracy; and the American people were in a mood to win. They did win. In 1936 the issue is the preservation of their victory. Again they are in a mood to win. Again they will win.

More than four years ago in accepting the Democratic nomination in Chicago, I said: "Give me your help not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people."

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

That speech looks pretty darn populist to me. FDR mentions "the American people" as the heroes and victims and has his ready made enemy, the business elite and organized money.


Just because people misuse words doesn't mean that the concepts do not exist. Populism is not always bad and "the establishment" is not always bad. This country has an establishment that for some, keeps them oppressed, but for others keeps the lights on and the infrastructure going. For some, populists are just fighting for a living wage and to others populists are preparing to fight against the black helicopters and the merging of the US, Canada, and Mexico into one country.

The words are not the problem the specific beliefs and actions of certain groups are the problem.

[question everything]

63. Except that ours is a representative democracy. I think

We elect representatives to act to their best judgement and not be swayed by yesterday events and mood changes and, yes, "social media."

[George II]

50. The party is "left" where it has to be, and "center" where it has to be....

...this was proven last week in Missouri, Kansas, and Michigan.

[Wwcd]

52. Good point George. That describes the Dem Party as I've always known it to be.

The party is "left" where it has to be, and "center" where it has to be....

Thank you

[appalachiablue]

23. Good post Ellen, thanks. And I like Nick Hanauer.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. No question... if establishment Democrats don't move left in 2020, it's gonna be a repeat of 2016.

[still_one]

45. Why, because 10% of the self-identified progressives will not vote for the Democratic nominee, and

end causing two SC nominees to be lost?

Because every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states will lose to the incumbent, establishment, republican, because they believe there is no difference between the two parties, even though those swing state Democrats running for Senate were progressive by any standard.


If those self-identified progressives want to play either my way or the highway, instead of working within the party, then they are part of the reason we have people like trump, bush, and reagan.

[George II]

46. Well since we gained seats in both the House and the Senate and it could be argued....

....that we won the Presidency, what's wrong with a repeat of 2016?

[mountain grammy]

40. Thanks for the link

to this very well written piece. I feel like he gets me. We can't be the we suck less than Republicans party or the party of missed opportunities anymore.

I was arguing with a local repub about her party blocking marriage equality in our state legislature. She said, the Dems had the majority a couple of years ago. Why didn't they pass it then? I had no answer.

[JHan]

87. The "establishment" argument was a ridiculous canard.

That's the point.

Using "establishment" as a smear, and insulting "establishment" politicians with progressive records, is and always will be dumb. The progressive vs establishment false dichotomy is being exposed for the vacuous nonsense it always was...These elections prove this.

And I would suggest people who consider themselves radically left quit insulting voters whose views lie on a spectrum. Very often people's ideological stances exist on a continuum and not within neatly defined categories. Sometimes voters just vote pragmatically while having quite radical views. Some voters lean more moderate in some areas and more radical in others.

[Demsrule86]

113. 50 state solution...is the answer. We have more seats in red areas that are realy purple...and

moving 'left' won't help. I don't consider health care or other Democratic policies far left...but guaranteed income and things of that sort won't sell in purple districts...we can't sacrifice our principles of course...but we must win. I want everyone to win moderate , left and those who lean conservative like Manchin, as you pointed out we need them all.

[NCTraveler]

6. Most people respect experience.

I tried hiring a clerk at 7-11 to fix my AC. Didn't go well. Yet I hear there is one out there that's great at fixing them.

[Squinch]

7. AOC is fine for Brooklyn. Hopefully she will win the seat and it will be one more

Democrat to add to our quest for majorities.

I don't care how we get there. We need the committees.

Do I like Manchin? Do I like AOC? YES I DO! Because I LOVE to control the committees.

[Tiggeroshii]

17. +10000

[Squinch]

19. I expressed this to someone IRL recently. They said I was prostituting myself and lacked ethics.

My answer? "Hey sailor! Want a date?"

[Tiggeroshii]

21. LOL

Purity in politics is a myth. As they say: like the sasquatch or supply side economics.

[Caliman73]

51. Ethics?

Maybe the person doesn't understand what ethics are. Principles that guide you in making decisions. Like maybe, oh I don't know, allowing the voters in a particular district or state decide who they want to represent their interests to the Federal Government? Manchin and Heitkamp would likely not work in California (though they'd do well in the inland areas like Fresno, Riverside County, etc.. but if that is who the people of West Virginia and North Dakota respectively, want in office and they vote with the Democratic Caucus a majority of the time, then what is served by denying the will of the voters?

It isn't ethics, it is ideological rigidity.

[JHan]

89. This! And even though AOC has ticked me off I still like her.. and I wish her well.

she just needs a new mentor.

And I'll say no more than that.

[Wwcd]

8. Not surprised at all. Glad that the obvious is finally being stated publicly

Thanks 538.

Enough is enough

[KPN]

9. The important thing is the party is moving to the left -- back to the historic center. Who cares

which endorser has the highest percent or number of wins? I certainly don't.

[Tiggeroshii]

18. Yep

I welcome that. I also welcome winning in November regardless of whether the Dem was "establishment" or not.

[KPN]

26. Ditto.

[ehrnst]

92. Left on social justice issues?

When I hear them dismissed as "identity politics" I don't consider that to be left or center.

[KPN]

96. Yes. Our resolve and commitment to social issues has been strong

for up to decades depending on the specific issue. But it’s also gotten and continues to get stronger all around (across the social issues and amongst democrats overall). I reject the notion that it’s either/or — we can give high priority to both social and economic issues without leaving either behind or excluding any group. And we are and have moved in that direction imo.

[ehrnst]

99. Certainly Bernie has been pulled to the left since the 2016 election.

I think that Hillary did him a big favor in doing that.

[George II]

100. +1

[KPN]

101. I won't argue with that.

[sheshe2]

106. +1000

[NurseJackie]

107. True! Thanks for pointing it out.

[LiberalFighter]

10. I question a lot of what 538 puts out.

[Wwcd]

16. Not me. 538 is quite a reliable source

[Bradical79]

79. It's very reliable

Though I think the OP is intentionaly trying to be divisive.

Edit: OP is also misrepresenting the article. Wish I had time to break it all down. Towards the bottom there's a chart.

[Cha]

20. And, you're attempting to personally insult DUers again.

shocking.

[hlthe2b]

15. Buying into EXPERIENCE not "establishment". If there was EVER a time that EXPERIENCE

is going to be necessary, it is dealing with Trump and his aftermath.

That certainly doesn't mean there isn't an opportunity for our "up and comers"... but most are wise enough not to throw out any chances we have of righting this leaking ship before it sinks.

I admire what AOC accomplished and her enthusiasm, but she is not going to have the answers for every candidate from every region and district across the US. And I sincerely hope she has learned from the backlash from her ageist comments. From what I've read lately, it seems she well may have.

[Tiggeroshii]

24. Actually that literally is the definition, I think

Bernie is just as establishment at Pelosi. Simply because they have been around the longest. If these anti establishment folks win and dont get kicked out the next election, they too will qualify as "establishment."

[Cha]

22. They're experienced and successful.. So called

"established" was attempted to be made a dirty word.. like "liberal".

It didn't work.. it backfired.

[Tiggeroshii]

25. Agreed.

We agree on something.

[Cha]

31. WOW!

[R B Garr]

36. Exacty, Cha! There was that push to taint anyone who had experience

as "establishment," as if experience is a bad thing. It looks like voters are hungry for safe and familiar faces. Enough of this "swamp" fraud and other nasty insults.

[Cha]

42. Cheers to our High Standard Democrats, RB!

[muntrv]

27. Or they are voting for candidates that can actually win elections.

[Cha]

44. They're voting for High Standard Dems like Gretchen Whitmer, Sharice Davids,

and William Lacy Clay..

[Power 2 the People]

29. I can't think of a good reason this article was posted on DU

Pitting Democratic readers against each other is not the way we win.

[R B Garr]

37. It's a good thing to reflect on the reality of what voters have chosen

instead of the never-ending campaign rhetoric that we have been exposed to.

[Power 2 the People]

57. I see your point RB

It's a good thing to reflect on the reality of what voters have chosen instead of the never-ending campaign rhetoric that we have been exposed to. That's why we need to examine why we lost 1,042 representative seats between 2009 and 2016. As you say,we need to focus on the reality. The reality tells us that the direction we were heading in wasn't working. Agreed?

[R B Garr]

71. Since this thread is about Bernie's groups losing, it doesn't seem like a good

idea to deflect about those losses. Independents and third parties consistently lose. I can't recall them winning anything pretty much ever. The current results show that people want established/experienced candidates after all.

[JCanete]

30. Well money is a powerful component. Are you suprised? The sad part is our

candidates take a small some of money that certainly dwarfs the funding of most candidates opposed to doing so, and then they go into the GE against candidates who take 80 percent more money and beat them there, because we tie our hands behind our backs...we can't go for the jugular about who the GOP work for.

But I'm glad your happy with these expected results....

[eleny]

34. After these Trump years the estab Dems will feel fresh and new

Maybe that's what people feel they need given the situation in the Executive Branch. And it will be our job to pull the establishment to the left. It always has been that way.

[Progressive dog]

47. Good

Using endorsement data from various interest groups, we can determine which wing of the party candidates belong to, and using the share of the vote they received in their primaries, we can determine how well candidates’ positions worked out for them.4

The article didn't rely on what the candidates called themselves, it relied on their positions on issues.

[MineralMan]

49. Establishment is not necessarily a bad word.

Truly.

[Kaleva]

53. Our Revolution endorsed candidates have a success rate of 46% in 2018 so far.

https://ourrevolution.com/results/

[George II]

56. That's being charitable - three or four (or more) "ran" unopposed.

[OilemFirchen]

59. And some were also endorsed by the DNC.

The 538 article takes that into account. Probably safer to rely on their analysis than that of OR.

[Kaleva]

61. Which ones were endorsed by the DNC?

But your own comment refutes the opinion expressed by the OP.

[OilemFirchen]

64. I have no idea.

I follow OR as closely as the Annual Wheat Germ Pageant.

Here, from the article:

In races where a party-endorsed candidate ran against a progressive-group-endorsed candidate (excluding any races where a candidate was endorsed by both sides), the party-endorsed candidate won 89 percent of the time.

My bold.

How on earth does my comment "refute" the "opinion" in the OP? This is 538's analysis of the primary victors so far.

As to their math vs. OR, BTW:

Justice Democrats and Our Revolution had the worst win rates — candidates they endorsed won only 32 percent of their primaries

[Cha]

65. Good! "OR and justice dems won only 32% of

their primaries".

Especially Looking at Gretchen Whitmer, Sharice Davids, and Lacy Clay.

[Kaleva]

68. The OPs comments are not 538's analysis

OP's comment:

"AOC is an aberration, and Bernie is largely being ignored."

AOC isn't an aberration and nor is Bernie largely being ignored. According to 538, Bernie has endorsed 9 candidates. Five of whom have won.

And I'm not sure how 538 got its info on Our Revolution endorsed candidates. 538 says OR endorsed 85 but OR's website says they have endorsed 144. 538 says that only 27 OR candidates have won but I count 66.

You can look at ORs website and count yourself.

https://ourrevolution.com/results/

[OilemFirchen]

70. I honestly didn't notice the OP's one-line observation. Mea culpa.

He is right, though, about AOC. There haven't been any similar primary wins this season or in recent memory.

Say... did I ever tell you about Adam Clayton Powell Jr.?

[Gary Gary]

72. your stat is wrong according to fivethirtyeight (It's actually 32%)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-establishment-is-beating-the-progressive-wing-in-democratic-primaries-so-far/?ex_cid=538twitter

Secondly, the link you provided does not say anything about a 47% success rate.

[SkyDancer]

55. This is a lie debunked 3 years ago

Stop repeating bad talking points. It isn't a good look.

[OilemFirchen]

58. To those who persistently suggest that the Democratic Party has shifted rightward...

allow me to offer this chart. Your arguments are based on the Democratic Party's inability to pass liberal legislation - not the Party's ideological bent. It's easy enough to refute the assertion that Democrats don't press for progressive legislation, but there's really no value in arguing the details when it literally becomes graphically evident:



Compare the Roosevelt era with the past 25 years. The Democratic Party's platform has followed a leftward path during that entire period, yet legislation has lagged behind. Any guesses why?

[drray23]

62. That's not what this chart shows.

It simply depicts which side had a majority in house and Senate, not how progressive or middle of the road the political agenda were.

[OilemFirchen]

67. It shows who was responsible for passing legislation.

I explicitly stated that legislation during this period does not reflect ideology - the metric some erroneously use to cast doubt on the Democrats' political orientation. If in doubt, check the Democratic Party's platforms for the same time frame.

[Sparkly]

66. I just can't stand them skating right over HRC

when they say Bernie and Trump "tapped into something" about 'working people and young people,' and that we need a "clear message" about healthcare, education, taxes, wages, climate, campaign finance --

She was ALL ABOUT it, and she had been for decades, AND about women's rights, children, and African-Americans.

They speak as though she were invisible, said nothing, wrote nothing, did nothing -- makes me so angry.

[JI7]

74. that's because they think only white and more specifically

white males matter .

minorities are ignored or not seen as important.

[JHan]

88. We can count on the efforts of women getting erased everytime..

Most political pundits/writers are of a certain demographic, I guess they can't help themselves.

[ehrnst]

93. +1000

[vlyons]

76. So what?

They voting, and voting for Dems. Isn't that the whole point?

[bsandman1977]

77. Florida Senate Race

This a key race for the Senate I been supporting Bill Nelson campaign with donations but Rick Scott will not stop with the ads... its unreal how much money that guy made in blind trust in 1 year. He was the worst governor of our state. I hope Bill can pull it out but I am little nervous.

I think a democrat will be governor of this state , this republican is a joke and even my republican friends will not vote for them they said.

[Rhiannon12866]

111. Welcome to DU, bsandman1977!

We're glad to have you with us!

[beachbum bob]

80. inaccurate description at best, democrats support mainstream candidates and not those on

the fringe...america is NOT a left-center country, never has been or will be. We are a center-left ountry

[Gothmog]

97. Nate's numbers are correct