General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre you an 11% Democrat?
Someone posted a poll that said only 11% of Democrats want a candidate more "liberal" than Hillary Clinton and 83% were fine with Hillary or wanted someone more conservative.I don't mean this as a criticism of Hillary in particular. She would have done roughly the same job Obama or any number of DLCers would have done.
However, I wonder if the results of that poll would be the same if you asked some specific questions:
Should corporations be held accountable for criminal actions, pay closer to full restitution and their executives sent to prison?
Should those very wealthy individuals who live primarily on investment income have a separate, lower tax rate than most middle and working class people?
Should workers get to keep a greater share of the wealth they create for their employers?
Should public education be privatized, turning our tax dollars and children's education over to the same Wall Street scammers who outsourced your job, gambled with your mortgage then foreclosed you, and got trillions in bailout dollars that they didn't use to help the economy?
Should we have trade deals that enrich transnational corporations but impoverish average Americans AND average people on the other end of the trade deals?
Should there be cuts to social programs in the name of balanced budgets while the budget for a military as big as that of the rest of the world combined is uncut and the many of the most profitable corporations in human history not only pay no taxes but GET subsidies from the federal and state governments? AND start more costly wars?
Should we continue overthrow foreign governments, by covert means or overt wars, when those governments are not compliant enough to oil companies, plantation and sweatshop corporations, and international bankers?
Should all policy decisions of our government be for sale to the highest bidder, and the role of average Americans be restricted to being sold on what has already been decided behind closed doors?
Should the differences between our major political parties be limited exclusively to abortion, gay rights, gun control, immigration, and the role of religion in public life?
If you asked questions like this, not only would most Democrats be progressives, but so would a lot of Republicans.
Taken in this light, do you want someone more progressive than Hillary, about like Hillary, or more conservative?
26 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
More progressive | |
24 (92%) |
|
Hillary or the equivalent | |
2 (8%) |
|
More conservative | |
0 (0%) |
|
WHO is Hillary? | |
0 (0%) |
|
OTHER (please explain) | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |

bowens43
(16,064 posts)Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)I guess I am just a malcontent and expect better from our leaders and representatives.
However not everyone has my high standards and will accept any dreck as long as they have a (D) after their name.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Democratic party membership has been dropping, from a high in November 2008 of 39% down to 28% currently. Who are those that are now independents? A good number of disillusioned liberals who still likely tend to vote for Democrats.
So this kind of poll does not really represent a complete view.
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)I see that in the next few years the Democratic Party will be the new Conservative party
Things change.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)They live in a bubble. They could easily shift gears and go progressive populist. It would take some convincing but the party would turn around.
The Republican party should have been almost completely destroyed by now. It was all "ours" to lose. It has been amazing the disconnect.
So instead of listening they try and battle the traditional left out of their core values. Sending foot soldiers out to all the sites to tell half the party they are full of shit. Just amazing.
Johonny
(22,691 posts)Start sticking progressive bills on their desk and if they veto them then I imagine that number would grow.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)more conservative.
In California, Dems have super-majorities in the legislature and a Democratic governor, but they have deviated very little from what they did when Republicans had the votes to filibuster everything.
and that's what the problem is. They hide behind "we don't have the numbers", even when they do. It's a farce.
Johonny
(22,691 posts)For the record in California they passed some pretty liberal stuff until they lost the super majority. Nancy Pelosi passed many a fine liberal policy. I merely state again what I said; make a liberal legislature and I have a feeling they will be more liberal. Obama's legislature had a lot of Dems yes, but hardly a super majority of liberal dems and we all know it. We hardly kept the pressure on leadership by wisking in Teaparty crap into congress.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)my community in the name of their sky God. 'We Are Christians, They Are Sinners' is their constant chant. Hillary used to go on and on with claims that marriage has been, since the dawn of time, a commitment between one man and one woman. 'It must always be so'.
I'm used to it. They are all backward, stilted fakes who'd just as soon stab you in the back as wish you a good day.
Not once have I been able to vote for a National Candidate with no record of speaking venom against people like me. Not once. And I never expect to be able to do so. I see how DUers are, and most of them are so right wing I'm sure they are not Republicans because the red ties don't match their shoes and no other reason.
LostOne4Ever
(9,617 posts)Its about what I don't want.
I DON'T want anyone more conservative than Hillary...AND I DON'T WANT THE RETHUGS TO KEEP A HOLD ON THE SUPREME COURT!!!
yurbud
(39,405 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,617 posts)Maybe one day you will believe it
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And it is possible for Democrats to fight for positive principles while combating the GOP.
LostOne4Ever
(9,617 posts)And making sure we get the SCotUS out of the republican's hands is a large part of that!
frylock
(34,825 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,617 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 19, 2014, 04:23 AM - Edit history (1)
If that means tracking to the left, so be it. If that means sucking up to the middle so be it.
Getting as strong a hold on the SCotUS as the republicans have had for the last few decades will help immensely. No more Citizens united rulings, no more prayer rulings, no more backtracking on civil rights laws, and so on.
Otherwise everything we get passed will get struck down again and again.
frylock
(34,825 posts)then what have we won? you think a party that continues to chase the right is going to nominate an SCJ that is fair and represents the left when every decision made is done to not piss off the nutjobs on the right?
LostOne4Ever
(9,617 posts)then the american people have rejected our platform entirely. This is still a democratic republic.
But that is not the way things are going:
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
Democratic party is moving more and more to the left.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Keep telling yourself this is working.
The Republicans have trashed themselves and still we are losing membership. The disconnect is truly amazing.
It is unfortunate, because indeed the Republicans are worse, but the tactic is wearing people down and the party is bleeding members. That is plenty of evidence that the party needs to listen and change their direction.
LostOne4Ever
(9,617 posts)11% of democrats does not equal 11% of the public. More like 3-4.3% of the public.
That said, independent identification with the democratic party is also on the rise.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx
And most americans want more compromise
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
I am all for going further to the left if it works (I would be ecstatic about that in fact), but I am results oriented; and you don't get any results you want if you don't win seats.
Bottom line for me:
NO MORE REPUBLICAN MORONS!!!!
newthinking
(3,982 posts)But if they were with the Democrats they would actually be democrats.
A reduction from 39% to 28% is more than 25% drop. In terms of the drop in the size of party membership.
I would say that is a pretty strong indication that the current tactic is not working. I would argue (respectfully) that we are not getting results from the current pattern, that it is an illusion.
Personally I wish we had a parliamentary system at this time. The fact is that over time parties tend to change, and people need a way to continue to be represented, and with a parliament there can be a better ebb and flow as collations can be kept together to maintain power through a fracture. We would be in much better shape if the party, which is severely divided (just look at progressive sites this year, they are in open rebellion), what would happen in that case is another party would form, then it would form a government together with the existing party and both liberal and more conservative voices would be franchised.
LostOne4Ever
(9,617 posts)And if both parties keep on hemorrhaging members that might be possible some day.
I agree that the current tactics don't seem to be working. I am more than open to changes (and believing it or not I would jump for joy if it meant the party moving more left), I just want them to be effective. The republicans are just completely intolerable to me in every way.
I never said I didn't want someone MORE liberal than Hillary...I just don't want anyone more conservative than her and I want the supreme court back.
I am soooo sick of republicans and the tea party....
Anyways, thanks for the polite conversation!
JI7
(91,299 posts)Lesser evil.
But I have said many times if I felt that way I would have left the party.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)And even on global warming, he baled cap and trade instead of cap and punish.
tblue37
(66,179 posts)perfectly well (as does he) that Bernie could never get elected president. He plans to run only to shape the dialogue and to push the other candidates further left.
I think EW could possibly get elected, but I also think that we need her in the Senate, holding the money-jerks responsible and making big noise.
Our side (especially our voters, but our governors and legislative representatives, too) seems to think only the presidency matters, and that is one reason why even though we win the presidency, the Republicans are able to block progressive policies and appointments despite being the minority party.
We need strong progressive Dems in the House and Senate, not just in the WH. I think Hillary has a chance to be elected, and I also think that if we have strong progressive Dems in Congress, she could be forced leftward, just as she is being forced a bit leftward in her public pronouncements right now because it is clear that the American people are moving in that direction and getting fed up with the conservative policy preferences of so many of our Dem officials.
I want Bernie to run, to shape the conversation, but I also want him to stay in the House, where he fights the good fight and keeps the spotlight where it needs to be. I also like having EW in the Senate. Like Ted Kennedy, she can do great things there. Keep in mind that he didn't become the "lion of the Senate" until he stopped running for president and instead re-focused his attention on his legislative role.
Because Dems over-focus on the presidency and don't pay enough attention to local and state offices or to national legislative offices, we end up with too few strong candidates in the pipeline for our big national offices. The Republican Party knows that local city commissions and school boards, state legislatures, state boards of education, etc., are the offices that get candidates trained as effective politicians and that get them the sort of exposure that make them viable as national candidates in the long term.
Those local and state offices also allow candidates to network and to collect political debts from individuals and interest groups that they can then cash in as support when they run for bigger offices. And don't forget that they were able to gerrymander their dominance in the HOuse specifically because our side largely ignored the races for state legislatures.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter whom we nominate or elect if we don't back our candidate up with strong support in the House and Senate. Obama can't even get his nominees for the federal bench or for major appointed positions confirmed because of the Republicans in the Senate!
Besides the whole gerrymandering debacle, we also need to have state legislatures and governors in our column, because they can screw things up even if we do get stuff passed at the national level. Look at how the right wing governors and legislatures in Republican-controlled states screwed up the implementation of the ACA and prevented the expansion of Medicaid so that so many people who should be able to get subsidies have been excluded from coverage.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)tblue37
(66,179 posts)has wrought here in Brownbackistan (Kansas).
GusBob
(7,710 posts)You should really work harder at getting the results you want
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)No option for "I'm progressive and I'd be happy to have a President Clinton in the WH again." I am so sick of this crap...as if any President can devine legislation into existance to be signed. Especially when we all know that this Republican majority is not going to offer up any legislation that would make progressives/liberals/Democrats happy.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Post celebrating that poll
Armstead
(47,803 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)before she moves back towards the right to try to scoop up all those "undecided" voters.... Only to get in office and basically do whatever pops up in a given week.
Ahhh, American politics.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)When someone suddenly changes long-standing positions while on the campaign trail, it's not "personal evolution," it's vote-grabbing strategy.
If I had a dollar for every close-race personal epiphany achieved by American politicians, I would buy you a mansion with a nice pool.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)just went to the poll and voted more progressive. We need more progressive people in ALL elected positions. But i like most will probably settle for the sorry choice of lesser of two evils.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)for less progressive than we can get, unless they don't support more progressive policy stances?
newthinking
(3,982 posts)bring about a catastrophe.
Trouble is that is a circular argument. The party does not support a populist platform, which makes it hard for populists to win. But yet all the polls on both the left and right show that people want a populist. Just the fact that some Republicans have already told polls they would vote for warren is one indicator of what is going on out there.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Bit not the policies she is likely to enact.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)want someone more liberal than Hillary, bullshit, it is more than that.
Second, until we manage to ALL show the fuck up and
V O T E
WE wont be able to mobilize an actual liberal agenda...To think of simultaneously this November there will be millions of us who want to vote who will find it VERY Hard to do so and millions of others who can vote, and wont.
https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote
We must get every single non rightwinger to the polls THIS NOVEMBER...or, we just might as well shut the fuck up because if we allow the right to get any power, they will take it and use it to destroy everything.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)still tend to vote democratic.
We can no longer win without independents. The party is down to 28%. So polls like this, to be accurate, should include left leaning independents.
The party has become more conservative because liberals have been feeling unwelcome.
I mean how many times does one need the party and the President to insult half the party before we were to see this happening? Yet nary a word. Fingers in ears lalala and all that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)From what i've seen this includes quite a number of DU'ers.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I'm not calling you a liar, but it would be nice to see some proof of this. I have never seen a DUer trained to hate the word "liberal".
You said quite a number of DUers are trained in this way.
Surely providing proof won't be too difficult since it's "quite a number".
Thank you in advance.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"It's Democratic Underground.. not Progressive Underground"?
One example from a poster that we'll call, oh, ChocolateCantata to avoid a call-out, goes like "I dont think this forum is called Democratic Principles Underground is it?"
How many times have you seen liberal "purists" accused of getting Bush elected? or of wanting to get Rand Paul elected?
historylovr
(1,557 posts)or "you far-leftists" or "far left fringe." Seen that quite a bit over the years here.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)So you see one member (out of thousands) saying this isn't Democratic Principles Underground and that's your evidence that there are quite a number of people here trained to hate the word liberal?
I'm sorry but that's not evidence of anything.
You're big on allegations, but short on evidence. The fact is that DU is left of center and vast majority here support liberal policies.
A few people out of thousands is not "quite a number". You're pretending as if there a hordes of conservatives here bashing liberal policies. That just isn't the case.
Sorry.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Of course if you had, you certainly wouldn't be saying so to me, either. Soooo... Consider yourself privilged to be blithely unaware of the goings-on around here.
You're right though. A few people out of thousands isn't statistically significant.
But try convincing them of this fact
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)surely you can provide evidence of that.
So far you have been unable to. You claimed there were a lot of people here trained to hate the word liberal, but you can't back up your claim.
If you're going to assert something like that, you should be able to back it up.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Even when I cite an example from a thread you've participated in.
I'll keep you in the loop, though.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I honestly have no idea what you're referring to.
Were loads of DUers engaged in liberal bashing in this thread you're referring to? I assume this is the thread where a bunch of people were trained to hate the word liberal?
You're being so cryptic.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)tech3149
(4,452 posts)My problem is I don't think any particular candidate for any office can affect any major change in policy. Since the 60's I've had an understanding of the concept of "deep government". The cover for it is the whole "both parties are the same" BS.
Think about all those people who are in and around Washington who are always the go-to guys without regard to how often they have been wrong in the past.
I'm sure you can all think of a dozen or so who always have face time on TV or get column inches in the biggest fishwraps in the country.
For every one of those you can bet there are a thousand others flying under the radar doing the same thing in a smaller market.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)But some of the more vocal (loud & obnoxious) posters here believe the best way to get there is attack every major Democratic politician in the country, and to promote the RW Libertarian Party line.
I don't.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)So I'll do it for her. (him? Sorry, I don't know)
Got some links to posters promoting the Libertarian party on DU?
historylovr
(1,557 posts)I want someone who will work for both social and economic justice.
BootinUp
(49,302 posts)They will do everything they can to deliver on their campaign platform.
We can't afford another 2000.
antiGOPin294
(53 posts)Hilary is a good candidate, but she's still too conservative for my taste. After all, she voted for the Iraq War back in 2002.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,376 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)agentS
(1,325 posts)Hillary's not perfect and I wasn't a fan of hers during 08. I'm not expecting her to be a Kennedy- BUT if she wants to try and hit moon shots, then hey I'm down with it.
However, if she doesn't run for whatever reason, then I'm not worried. We have a MUCH deeper "bench" than the Repubs do right now. They have NO one that can match Hillary. Who do we have on our bench?
Warren
Sanders
Castro (Mayor of San Antonio, now head of Housing)
Sebillus (Was head of Health)
Biden
Patrick (Gov of Mass)
Booker
Schweitzer? (Gov of Montana)
Gillibrand (Sen of NY)
Wendy Davis (Texas)
We have a deeper bench with less baggage than the Repubs. Our guys are either well-known, can compete or carry big states, have big-money donors (or can get them), have records to run on (and not as much "from" and aren't hated by the base.
Who's on the Rethug bench?
Christie
Romney
Ryan
Bush
Paul
Carson (crazy surgeon)
Cruz
Walker
Rubio
Perry
Jindal
Huckabee
All of these guys will raise money, but money doesn't protect you from a bad record or controversies (Eric Cantor, anyone). Cruz, Rubio, and Carson are their minority big-hitters, but they're not going to match up well against Patrick, Booker, Castro or even Warren. Romney probably won't run again. Bush has to run against his brother and run against Clinton at the same time- its not a great position. Paul is the most difficult of the bunch because of his weird positions and libertarian appeal, whereas Ryan and the others are not well-known enough to beat him in a primary- unless he screws up royally. Against a liberal Dem or minority, Paul is their best shot. Against a less liberal Dem like H. Clinton, Ryan or Christie is their best shot. By best shot I mean "competitive" not "Win" or "Place".
Note: there are no women on their bench that can go toe-for-toe, or even compete with any of ours, that have expressed interest in running. Clinton or Warren vs Bachmann? Please! After 1 debate you could see the roadkill from space!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I support the Democratic platform, and those candidates which also support it.
To some idiots, that makes me a RW nazi; to some half-wits, that makes me a radical communist. However, as my votes are cast with the collective good of the nation in mind, I can only tell the half-wits and idiots, "bless your little hearts..."
yurbud
(39,405 posts)most of us take the speed limit.