Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

tonyt53

(5,737 posts)
1. Not at all
Sun May 1, 2016, 09:44 PM
May 2016

The party changed in no way. Real Democrats go out and voted. Real Democrats will decide what changes if any will happen, not a bunch of bandwagon jumpers.

Fresh_Start

(11,330 posts)
9. The democratic party was stable under clinton
Sun May 1, 2016, 10:07 PM
May 2016

the real damage was done under Reagan

http://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/

essentially democrats had abandoned most progressive ideas

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
3. Of course it changed.
Sun May 1, 2016, 09:50 PM
May 2016

This is historical fact at this point.

Look up Al Fromm, the DLC, neoliberalism, Third Way triangulation, and compare policies under the Clinton administration with those of Republican ones - drug war, welfare reform, banking de-regulation, free trade, LGBT civil rights, etc.

Fresh_Start

(11,330 posts)
4. It changed most under Reagan
Sun May 1, 2016, 09:52 PM
May 2016

as many Democrats became Reagan democrats...mostly so they could shit on people in need
Basically the middle class abandoned the democratic party to become republicans

Clinton tried to recapture the middle class which had already abandoned the democratic party

The republican party basically painted a picture that most people in need were in that condition due to
either gaming the system (the single mom with 6 kids and 5 baby daddies)

or

needed to be incented to improve their condition because living on the dole was too easy


So yes the democratic party changed...in order to recapture some influence other wise it was destined to be a minor party

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
8. And that is it right there. Reagan did so much damage that we still suffer under Reaganomics.
Sun May 1, 2016, 09:56 PM
May 2016

They pretended government is the problem and not the people running it (which was them), worked like a charm. The media copied this idea and it was a race to the bottom after that.

StevieM

(10,500 posts)
5. I would be interested in seeing Dukakis's tax plan from 1988 and comparing it to what
Sun May 1, 2016, 09:52 PM
May 2016

Clinton passed in 1993. I would be surprised if the Dukakis plan was any more liberal.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
10. Yes. Clintonism republican lite has done lasting damage.
Sun May 1, 2016, 10:10 PM
May 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=8899

We need to bring Dems back to being FDR's Party for the People, not the Clintonism's Party for the 1%, who give US progressive BS campaign pitches to get our votes & then work for the 1% in office.

The Democratic Party itself has become Democratic In Name Only, thanks largely to Bill & Hil. If the DNC can't be Democratic, which this election has proven, we need a viable new third party.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Did the Party change unde...