On a scale of 1 to 10, how representative of the Democratic Party is DU?

[YoungDemCA]

With 1 being "not representative at all" and 10 being "very representative."

I'm kind of curious about what DU'ers perceptions are in regards to this question.

[unblock]

1. 4. i think we are what the party would be if elections were publicly funded.

it's the influence of money in politics that pulls the party away from its rank-and-file.

[Fumesucker]

2. Maybe a two or a three

Long term DUers tend to be much better informed about political events and history than the average person, average Democrat. There are so many things I can say here that people instantly understand but if I say those things in the real world I get blank looks..

So no, not very representative

[closeupready]

9. +1. I no longer get bothered by topics here that once did.

I either ignore/trash those topics, or I laugh at the stupidity/blindingly obvious double standards.

[antiquie]

3. Very representative.

DUers are all over the place, just like the Party.

[el_bryanto]

4. This is an interesting question

People do demographic polls on occasion, and issue polls, which could give us a good idea of how where people are in relation to the issues. The problem with the issue polls is that they often seque from asking the question of where people are to people arguing about where they should be. Take gun control - according to a poll by CBS News/New York times, about 17% of democrats think that gun control laws should stay as they are. If you tried to poll DU on the issue though, well, it would be interesting. And combative.

Off the top of my head, though I'd say it's about 6 to 6.5 of the party as a whole, 4 to 4.5 of the party leadership. But the Democratic Leadership skews a bit right compared to the base.

Bryant

[JaneyVee]

5. 7.

[n2doc]

6. Ideologically, probably 6-7

But DU'ers are far more up on the issues than the average voter, D or R. They may disagree vehemently on interpretation, but they (at least those who post) know what's going on.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. A rather complicated question, actually.

A lot hangs on what you mean by "Democratic Party." If you're talking the paid professional politicians, for the most part they're to the right of DU. If you're talking the local activists down at my county party meetings, they're on the left side of DU's mainstream. If you're talking about the bull sessions that occur around my UU Church, those people are more like the local party people (in fact, many of them ARE the local party people) than like the paid professionals.

As a short illustration of what I mean, I would point out that people like the paid state Chair opposed the Wisconsin rebellion, while the local party people & the UUers formed the backbone of that movement.

[Scuba]

17. A mirror image of my experience here in the east central part of the state.

[Jackpine Radical]

25. That's quite interesting.

Of course, my impression is that the whole area has a sort of rightward tilt. This isn't far from Tailgunner Joe McCarthy country, after all.

[Scuba]

50. Yes, the right is well represented here, but I find those on the left to be far left ...

... of those who claim to represent the Democratic party in Washington and especially Mike Tate here in Wisconsin.

[Jackpine Radical]

62. Then I totally misunderstood what you meant by a "mirror image."

[whatthehey]

8. I'm more experienced in the former than the latter

but I'd have to say so far "not very". Maybe a 3. I routinely attend precinct meetings, volunteer for campaigns, caucuses etc. I have barely ever, in 3 decades of that in several states, seen any Democratic party worker or volunteer seek to end or revile capitalism, utterly disparage a sitting Democratic president at every turn, pretend there is no difference between the parties, or threaten to withhold votes if the most heavily supported potential candidate gets the nomination. Oh sure some gripe that Obama should have negotiated more fiercely, or traded a different bargaining chip to get things done. They may wish HRC was less quick to support Israel or military intervention, but not remotely, even for an exasperated instant, do they ever threaten to take their ball home and let the Republicans sweep everything just because our most likely standardbearer does not want to govern like Eugene Debs.

It depends whether you think the real base is here or with those folks. I hope the latter. I think the latter too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. +1,001 ...

Well stated and my experience as well.

And here is my pique ... never, in my 30+ years of political involvement, have I heard Democrats rank income inequity above racial equality (i.e., Classism over Racism).

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. Wouldn't fixing income inequality most help

racial minorities? Every statistic I ever remember seeing shows minorities being the ones who are getting the shaft economically, more than anyone else.

In terms of getting more of the entire populace onboard in reducing inequality, talking in terms of economics seems a lot easier way to get changes made that help minorities without having to spend most of your time fighting against racists to create actual change.

Is the rhetoric of change the most important thing, or the actuality of change?

(Edit: And, btw, probably the reason you're hearing things you haven't heard in 30+ years is that we're back to levels of income inequality in the country that haven't been seen in 80 years. Economically, we're talking gilded age inequality.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. No ...

While fixing income inequality would increase everyone's income, in practice, it serves to reinforce the racial wage disparity. For reference, see the union wage fights ... despite fighting for increases in everyone's wages, those increases did not address the disparity between white and Black (or Brown or Female) workers, nor did it address Black (or Brown or Female) folks being locked out of union jobs.

Is the rhetoric of change the most important thing, or the actuality of change?

It's not about "rhetoric of change" and it can't be about "actuality of change" because what has changed for me (Black/Brown/Women/etc.)

In terms of getting more of the entire populace onboard in reducing inequality, talking in terms of economics seems a lot easier way to get changes made that help minorities without having to spend most of your time fighting against racists to create actual change.

IOWs ... and I feel comfortable phrasing it this way to you, as based on other discussions we have had, I believe you will take in the spirit intended:

"Black folks (and Brown and Women) wait on your equality until there are no more poor white (male) folks ... then we will get around to addressing your inequality issues ... We promise." (again, see the union wage fights)

ETA:

(Edit: And, btw, probably the reason you're hearing things you haven't heard in 30+ years is that we're back to levels of income inequality in the country that haven't been seen in 80 years. Economically, we're talking gilded age inequality.)

And yet, the relative Black/Brown/Female economic disparity remains unchanged.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

68. I actually have no idea what

IOWs means.

As far as reducing inequality goes, things like higher minimum wages, or even minimum guaranteed incomes should reduce the gap, but you're going to have the overall gap until you also start throwing in things like reparations and addressing housing and educational issues. Taking local funding out of the equation and moving schools to fully state/federal funding would go a long way towards eliminating the causal link between segregated neighbourhoods and poorly funded schools.

You're never going to get rid of it with any single 'silver bullet', it's going to take a large range of linked policies.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. IOW = In Other Words ...

You're never going to get rid of it with any single 'silver bullet', it's going to take a large range of linked policies.

I completely agree; but what I am saying is we, the left, need to start using A bullet; rather than, telling (Black/Brown/Women) folks that us boosting you (white, males) will solve our (Black/Brown/Women's) problems, when you mean it will solve your (white, males') problems ... and once those are solved, we'll (white, males) will get around to our (Black/Brown/Women's) problems ... maybe.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

79. Hm

I can certainly see how you could go there, but I think when you reduce problems that pretty much everyone has, whether male, female, white, black, yellow, etc, that's still fewer problems for me and you both.

Say I have 3 problems, you have those same 3 problems, but you also have 2 more. Would you rather have 5 problems or 2 problems, even holding the worst case assumption that other people like me (aka middle aged white guys) then won't do a lick of work to help out with those remaining 2 problems?

Worst case? You've got 3 fewer problems to deal with. Best case? People who now don't have problems can pay attention to more than just themselves, and some of them are going to help you with those remaining 2, even if some won't.

Now if I said 'Come solve problems I have that you don't have', or 'Come solve problems that only white males have', then I can see why you might say 'No thanks'. (Especially since that's exactly what you're positing people like me will do when you say the same thing.) But when I say 'Let's work on problems we ALL have', who wins if you say no? We can't even work together on shared problems? Sounds like a winner for the rich folks who want us all to keep on being peasants.

[whatthehey]

63. It's changing a bit for me.

I've never lived in a racially balanced or minority/majority area though. I've spent my life in the "nicer" suburbs of various Midwestern or prairie state cities, where even among Dem activists minorities are...well, minorities. That doesn't mean we haven't cared about or supported racial equality, far from it. It does mean we have had relatively little participation from those who live and breathe that question on a first person level. I do perceive a bit of blase deprioritization in the last few years there to be honest. Not that anyone will ever say or even think "screw minorities, we're over that" but I do think the hopes for postracial society have kind of become happy imaginings that we're already there in some cases so I am indeed seeing a bit more emphasis on economoic issues in recent times. Does that mean an overall vote would rank income over race as a priority, even there? I really don't know, but the arc is moving that way I believe, in areas such as mine that are say < 25% minority areas.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. That's honest and I suspect, to a degree, valid. eom.

[Marr]

10. I think it's fairly representative of the activist base. Maybe an 8 there.

It's not at all a reflection of the party establishment, and perhaps a 4 when it comes to Democratic voters in general. That's not to say that Democratic voters in general would disagree with the positions taken on DU-- just that, for whatever reason, they aren't priorities for them or they aren't aware of those issues.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. depends on where you are from. du is somewhat right of my friends but probably far left

of people in non-urban areas

[Zorra]

12. Most Democrats in the general population are largely out of touch with reality.

Since DUers are generally more informed than the general population of Democrats, DU contains a much higher relative percentage of reality based Democrats.

That's why so many DUers are hoping that Bernie Sanders, or some other reality based candidate, will vie or the Democratic Presidential nomination. This at least gives us some hope of ending the the illusion that those still living in the "Matrix" see as reality.

[gopiscrap]

13. 6.48317

[Dirty Socialist]

61. Exactly

[Arugula Latte]

67. I got 6.4832, but I rounded up.

[gopiscrap]

80. Nothing like a bunch of smart asses on DU

[Arugula Latte]

81. Guilty as charged.

[leftynyc]

14. 3 - absolutely no higher (n/t)

[tk2kewl]

15. I like pi

3.14159265359

that being said i think we are more representative of the geral population that we are of the party.

mainstream party politics is way off to the right from us and most americans.

[FrodosPet]

44. Mmmmm..... Pi!

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445
923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938
446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229
489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091
456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066063
155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204
665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117
931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298
336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392
171762931767523846748184676694051320005681271452635608277857713
427577896091736371787214684409012249534301465495853710507922796
892589235420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099605187
07211349999998...

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. If you mean rank and file consistent Democratic voters - probably about 5-6. Just look around

Most people who always vote Democratic or almost always vote Democratic are liberal on social issues. They want to expand social services significantly. They would prefer single payer or socialized healthcare of some sort for all. They would want to reduce military spending and would be skeptical of most foreign military interventions. That is the general drift on DU. Although DU probably tends to be less supportive and sympathetic to religious belief and patriotic sentiments than your average group of loyal Democrats. Those who would actually advocate overthrowing or eliminating capitalism and replacing it with a full-fledged socialist system would barely exist among ordinary Democrats - They are a minority on DU - but there is a fair number of them.

[merrily]

20. A fair number of DUers advocate government ownership/control of the means of production?

I haven't seen that on the main board. Does it happen in one of the groups?

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual peo

ple and companies

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. Tony Blair calls himself a socialist and so do the leaders of most left parties in the rest of the

western democratic capitalist world - so simply calling oneself a socialist has not meant that one supports a totally socialized economy for a long, long time. I am sure most DU members who call themselves socialist do not mean that kind of socialist. But there is a handful who do.

[merrily]

31. It's bad enough when the right uses the word incorrectly. The left should use it correctly.

A Socialist wants government ownership of the means of production. No one else is a socialist. Believing in government that provides street lights and assistance to the poor is not socialism. It's simply recognition of how civilized society operates and should operate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. that is not what the word has meant all over the world to the vast majority of people who call

themselves socialist. It certainly is not what the 2nd International means by socialist. I think I will stick with the accepted definition in its current international usage - not some orthodox definition of the word that has not been relevant for at least 60 years or more.

[merrily]

34. Dictionaries are updated just about yearly; wiki just about daily, maybe even hourly.

What good do you think you do yourself or Democrats by using that word to mean something other than its correct definition?

I can see why the right wants to throw it around willy nilly, but not why the left would want to follow the right's example.

BTW, what do you think the correct definition is and what is your basis for thinking that?

BTW, Blair is a centrist, not even a leftist, let alone a socialist.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. I call myself a socialist the same way the leaders of most left parties in the western democratic

world call themselves socialist. The way the leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada or the Labor Party in Australia or Sen. Bernie Sanders calls themselves socialist. It is kind stupid to say something that nobody means anymore is its definition.

[merrily]

37. What you call yourself does not tell me what you think the correct definition of the word is.

Nor does it tell me why you think throwing the word around loosely helps the left in any way, rather than hurts it.

It is kind stupid to say something that nobody means anymore is its definition.

Insulting my post and Merriam Webster's and wiki doesn't tell me what you think the definition is, either. Nor does it say a lot for your ability to address issues.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. Oxford Dictionary:

socialism
Line breaks: so¦cial|ism
Pronunciation: /ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə m

/



noun
[mass noun] 1A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

More example sentences
1.1Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

More example sentences
1.2(In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.



The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

[merrily]

41. Again, how do you think it benefits the left to equate regulation with socialism?

Before you reply, think how much time, money and energy the US and other countries have spent trying to convince the world that socialism is their worst nightmare.

And doesn't everyone believe in regulation of some kind? So, where do we draw the line?

And the OED does mention Marxism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. I use the term that is used by leftwing people and even most center-left people in almost

all left and center-left parties in the western democratic world. I use the term as defined by the most recognized English Dictionary - the Dictionary of Record, the Oxford Dictionary. I find it hard to imagine what is so hard to understand about that.

[merrily]

45. Again, how you use the word does not answer the questions I asked.

The questions were:

Since everyone believes in some kind and some degree of regulation, where do we draw the line between regulation and socialism?

And, how do you think it benefits the left, instead of hurting it, to apply the word "socialism" to what we have now? Because, clearly, we have lots of regulation now. Not always enforced, but we have loads.

I disagree that you use the word the same way everyone else does, but that it irrelevant.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. I do (advocate such), but I don't see a lot of others advocating such. nt

[merrily]

42. Thanks, Erich. I don't see a lot of it on DU, either.

I believe it cannot and will not happen without violence, perhaps not at all.

Do you think it can be done without violence?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

47. Depends on the balance of power in Congress.

I think, for instance, that we could wrap part of it up in patriotism, cost savings, and lowered tax burden.

If the government owned the factories that manufactured the ammunition, weaponry, vehicles, and so on used by the military, surely there would be major cost savings to the government, slashing defense spending without ever degrading the capabilities of the troops.

From there we could go into office and other supplies used by government at all levels.

In any other sector, government would have to be competitive - states or municipalities could run businesses, but they would have to be self-sufficient. They wouldn't be propped up by taxpayer money. Indeed, they would be used to provide profits to allow for the reduction of taxes on the general public.

[merrily]

49. That is a good point about starting with the military.

But, I don't think anyone like to go to Congress any time soon wants to go down that road.

And, we seem to have less and less say about who our elected reps in DC are.

The DSCC and the DCCC and the head of the Party decide who runs, who gets funded, who gets popular Democrats to appear on their behalf, instead of attacking them, etc. They've sold us on the meme that the incumbent President should never have to suffer a primary. For the past two years, they've been trying to sell us on the meme that Hillary should not have to face one, either. And, if all else fails, the Super Delegates can overrule even primary results. They don't want to be that blatant about it, of course. They don't want to make it that obvious. Hence, the selling us on memes that having Democratic primaries = electing Republicans.

[Stallion]

18. I Give it a "2"

seriously Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for President?

Not only that but many actually believe they can win

[Tweedy]

71. Are you sure?

Anecdotal to be certain, yet I know folks in Kansas, Michigan, Indiana and even Texas, who would love to see Warren run so they could vote for her. Incidentally, most of those folks don't know anything about DU and a few of them call themselves republican. Don't get caught up in the beltway bubble. As aspiring senate candidate Weiland recently said they "don't know South Dakota."

Even the most rabid teapartiers I know want the cap lifted on social security if needed to save it. Wierdly, they believe the GOP is for this while democrats want to defund social security, though. Conversations can get bizarre.

[Puzzledtraveller]

77. That's why they come here.

The walls provide an excellent echo.

[merrily]

19. Hmmm. nt

[RussBLib]

21. 10

DU is just as chaotic as the Democratic Party.

There are traitors in our midst; there are purists; there are anti-capitalists; there are bleeding hearts; there are armchair policy wonks; there are grassroots organizers; there are some idiots; there are some very bright people.

You name it, DU and the DP have it.

[tblue]

26. Yep. 10. nt

[merrily]

22. On what issue or issues?

This is a question that begs for a knee jerk answer. Not intentionally, but that is the only way it can be answered with a number.

[FLPanhandle]

27. There are hundreds of issues and thousands of positions on how to address those issues.

I doubt anyone here or in the general Democratic Party agrees with anyone else on every single of the many issues.

Each of us also has issues that are more important/emotionally invested that probably doesn't align with many others exactly.

Overall, though most people here are more informed than the general population so I'd give us a 8.

[NCTraveler]

29. The party platform....

Or a combination of all elected members? Or some other metric. Not being argumentative, the answer would widely vary according to what metric is used when defining Democratic Party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Party labels are becoming more and more irrelevant to the way people vote.

Democratic Party members vote for Democrats, some vote for Republicans, some vote for 3rd Party candidates, a lot of them don't vote at all.

Registering with the Democratic Party allows one to vote in the Democratic primary...and that's about it. Open primaries are even dissolving that imperative.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. 1 or 2, I suspect. DU is a fringe of a fringe.

Like practically everyone else, DUers tend to massively overestimate the extent to which other people agree with them.

[dembotoz]

38. depends on what you compare with as your universe

reference du and dem party only--not the much maybe a 4

reference du and dem party with reference being the wisconsin voter base as a whole--maybe an 8.5

we tend to nitpick differences but when you look at the whole voter base du is so much closer to the dems than to say the tea party thugs....


sometimes we forget that

[NRaleighLiberal]

39. Today's "Democratic Party" needs to be defined before I

Could even possibly answer.

[djean111]

52. My sentiments exactly. As far as I can tell, these days it is just a "D" after a name.

All principles have been sold to the highest bidders.

[brooklynite]

46. 2/3

Fare more active and far more progressive than the average voter.

[Egnever]

48. if the 2008 primaries were any indication then <4

Edwards consistently polled higher here than any other candidate by a large margin yet in the real world he ended up with less than 1%

[hootinholler]

51. Depends entirely on your ignore list n/t

[liberal N proud]

53. 10 - just like the Democratic Party DU is wide open to all

Just don't expect much to change in a short amount of time.

[hobbit709]

54. Which part-the rank and file of the party or the DC clowns?

[on point]

55. 8 real Democratic Party. 1 DLC turd way fake democratic republican party

[DrDan]

56. 2

[CK_John]

58. 1/2

[GOLGO 13]

59. 1 and that's a maybe.

The DP is filled with older people. Not to the extent that the repukes are for sure. But the DP needs a infusion of young blood.

[Fumesucker]

70. DU runs pretty damn old too..

I suspect the average age here is in the mid fifties.

[0rganism]

60. Somewhere between 2 and 3

From what i've seen, we're a lot more liberal than the current Democratic norm.

[stevenleser]

64. Depends in what way...

In terms of the sentiment toward the party and it's elected officials versus other grassroots Democrats, a 2 or 3. Polling shows grassroots Democrats much more happy with the party and it's elected officials than folks on DU.

In terms of overall ideology, 7 or 8. I think most folks who identify as Democrats have very similar beliefs on the issues.

[woo me with science]

65. I think a more important question would be,

Given a possible total representative power of 10 points, how many points does the party spend representing ordinary Americans, and how many points do they spend representing Wall Street?

Jimmy Carter: "America no longer has a functioning democracy."

Princeton Study: US now an oligarchy, not a democracy
Citizens have virtually no input into policy anymore
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-us-no-longer-democracy

Eric Holder’s Legacy: Failing To Hold Wall Street Accountable
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025180463

Too Big to Jail? Obama/Holder at the top of bankster fraud.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025180463

More greatest hits of Eric Holder: Monsanto, drugs, CIA spying, envt., transparency, strip searches
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025586874

[LittleBlue]

69. 3 or 4

Many fringe ideologies are used in conducting DU litmus tests.

OMG how can you want capitalism? Ur not a Democrat!

[Quackers]

72. I would say a 6. nt

[HereSince1628]

74. With more folks from the conservative end of the spectrum more than it was

Some days that raises my heart rate.

Well, that IS NOT HONEST.

It usually raises my heart rate. But being bradycardic it's ok to get the old heart rate above the mid-40s

[eridani]

75. Hardly at all

And that seems to make more than a few very happy, cheerleading for people who don't follow policy issues and don't vote consistently.

[Puzzledtraveller]

76. 3

[corkhead]

78. a better question is "how well does the Democratic Party represent members of DU"

I would say 2; to leave room for the Republicons at 1 or even zero if allowed.