The Democratic Party has been Sinking for Decades

[Tom Rinaldo]

Both literally and figuratively. Literally in that the percentage of Americas who identify themselves as Democrats has spiraled dramatically downwards. Literally in that Democrats now struggle to win majorities in Congress with Republicans more often than not there ascendant. Literally in that Republicans now win most of the governorship in America, and overwhelmingly control the majority of state legislatures.

Figuratively in that today's Democratic Party more often than not now advocates policies that the Republican Party was championing 25 years ago. Figuratively in that today's Democratic Party is more beholden to Wall Street than it is to Organized Labor. Figuratively in that today's Democratic Party struggles to hold on to even a sizable minority of working class voters in most elections.

So the movement that Bernie Sanders is now spearheading is about something much larger than the 2016 election alone. It is about our entire political future, which is controlled by two establishment institutions, the Republican and Democratic Parties, that increasingly represent the same narrow economic interests. When checkbooks held by roughly a dozen families and individuals are capable of funding most of the costs associated with a national political campaign, it is extraordinarily difficult to organize a force capable of countering that influence. Bernie Sanders has effectively been doing exactly that over the course of the last year through the means of his presidential campaign. It is a movement being built to last far beyond November. The largest state in the Union, California, is just starting to become directly engaged in that campaign, but some say it is time for Sanders to stand down, tone down, and/or send down instructions to millions of his followers that they need to immediately fall into line, again, behind a sinking Democratic establishment.

Were Sanders to do something of that sort now, as opposed to waiting for the Democratic Convention to gather and discuss the future of both the Party and our nation, some argue that could make the difference as to whether Hillary can defeat Trump. Can we pause here for just a moment and simply ponder that statement? Just how utterly pathetic is it to suggest that Hillary Clinton can't win an election in America against someone as vile as Donald Trump if Democrats are allowed to give full throat to important differences among us during this, the primary season? How terribly sad, not to mention alarming, is it to suggest that Americas below the age of 45 will desert the Democratic Party in droves to either back Donald Trump or stay at home if Bernie Sanders doesn't become a cheerleader for Hillary Clinton RIGHT NOW? How deeply unnerving is it to consider that an arrogant Billionaire like Donald Trump may win the support of a majority of working class Americans over the standard bearer of the Party of FDR if Bernie Sanders doesn't start to prop up Clinton RIGHT NOW?

That is the real story. The establishment of the Democratic Party dutifully lined up behind Hillary Clinton before this primary season even began, and they never budged. They adamantly refused to change course though the Party has been sinking now for decades on the course it is set on, kept partially afloat on the Presidential level only in recent years by "the Obama Coalition" formed behind the America's first African American President who also strongly appealed to the hopes and aspirations of America's youth. Now the young are increasingly disaffected, and in classic shoot the messenger form the establishment wants to blame Bernie Sanders for that. They refuse to be accountable for their own actions.

If this were only about the Democratic nomination then this would only be "about the math", but it isn't of course. If those who know that the Democratic Party needs to change course for America were to stand down now, before using every opportunity to mobilize offered by a slowly moving presidential campaign that ultimately sweeps into every corner of our nation, this moment will be lost rather than seized. It's not about one election only, it's the forest not one tree that it is essential that we see, because the Democratic Party has wandered off the path and increasingly stands lost in a wilderness of hollow values.

[JCMach1]

1. All parties have been sinking, plus Millenials hate parties as a group...

Trump's nomination is a good example of how weak parties have become.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. A political party can reprsent a movement, and inspire real loyalty by doing do

On the other end of the spectrum it can simply be a patronage machine and a means for personal advancement for those willing to do the bidding of those who hold true power. The Democratic Party elicits little true loyalty in recent year except as an alternative to forces people fear more.

[JCMach1]

10. In the US, the parties served as places where movements where assimilated into broader political

culture. At least that's how it worked for almost 100 years.

Now, that may be falling apart.

[RKP5637]

39. Millions are now seeing the political machinery that served some well for the

pass 100 years or so is falling apart as it's more and more controlled by the oligarchy, who it appears wants to throw many citizens of the US into a dystopia. We have two leading candidates with the most unfavorable ratings in decades. IMO the party structure in the US is obsolete for the 21st century and it seems many millennials, holders of the future, agree. And I don't blame them.

[JCMach1]

45. The Progressive movement completely upended the political party structure in the Gilded Age

There are many similarities to where we are now in that comparison...

[RKP5637]

46. Definitely!!! n/t

[silvershadow]

2. When there isn't much difference between the two parties, people tend to vote for the

authentic ones.

[RKP5637]

28. Basically what is happening when TPTB of the democratic party decided to be

republican-lite with the DLC/3rd-way.

[silvershadow]

36. Yep. And then they throw stones at us regular Democratic types, FDR types. It is sick. nt

[RKP5637]

37. It's absurd, creepy and sick. I am ever so fed up with it all. n/t

[silvershadow]

38. This election year is a watershed moment for the party. I am hopeful it will yet

work out the way it should.

[RKP5637]

40. I am hopeful too, but I have serious doubts. And, I find that sad. It's yet another symptom of

disaster capitalism.

[silvershadow]

41. Yep. Naomi Klein sounded the alarm. I think she's mainstream enough that it is getting out

to the masses now (to the extent they are engaged enough, which as we know is sadly lame).

[RKP5637]

43. So often the masses are so damn DUH. It's like many vote on the last commercial

they heard and how much money was spent on them. I often think back to what they did to Kerry, and the inane fraction of the masses fell for it. They often never look behind a curtain to see who is pulling the levers of distortions and propaganda.

Maybe it's a turning point, maybe more are engaged some since Trump has turned it into a Jerry Springer show. And issues often don't get intelligently discussed by the candidates. It's become more a contest of who got the last outrageous snark, and Trump is a master of that. And now many republicans are coming to grips with Trump as the nominee, and some democrats saying, well, we can work with him as president. WTF!

I'm embarrassed that someone like Trump has risen so far in the presidential hopeful arena. Like just what does that say about the US.

And the democratic PTB ignore a huge opportunity IMO to engage in a collective way the millions of disgruntled people in the US of lost jobs, lost everything. In fact IMO many interested in Trump would have been supporters of the FDR democratic party. IMO the democratic establishment has turned their back on millions and millions of people. To me, Bernie is one of the few that could get this country back on track trying to serve the majority of the citizens.

I'll stop here before I start rambling on.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Yet we've won the PV for the presidency five of the last six tries

And the only way we lose this time is if too many people let their butthurt get the best of them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Death by malnutrition or death by firing squad

Most (though not all) will chose the former. I'm with the majority, I believe in staying alive to fight another day, so I am glad when our current enfeebled Democratic Party wins the Presidency against the Republicans. But I am not in denial about the trajectory we are on as a nation. Sure I will "unite behind Hillary" after the Convention is she is our nominee. But right now this is that "other day" and I am fighting for it, and won't stop after November no matter who wins the Presidency. IMO, we will need the movement Bernie now is helping strengthen no matter who becomes our next President, even if that were Bernie Sanders.

[BeyondGeography]

7. I agree with all of that, Tom

And I don't worry about wise old heads like yourself. I do worry about the average voter's propensity to over-consume pessimism on the Internet, and my major beef with Bernie is that he doesn't leaven his analysis of our system with enough language to keep gloom and helplessness from being the major takeaways for too many of his followers. His campaign's reaction to the Nevada result, which has a microscopic impact where the race stands in real terms, was a debacle on that count.

[Armstead]

15. Bernie has been giving an optimist positive solution -- Problem is the Democratic Estab is intent...

on smashing it.

Had they been content with trying to make a positive counter case, and argue issues on the merits, the Clinton campaign might have been able to at least make Sanders supporters feel welcome. But instead, they chose the ususal tactic of "otherizing" Sanders and his basically traditional liberal/progressive populist message and goals.

They formed a wall and refused to listen to the people who support Sanders except in condescending lip service. Instead, they insulted the Bernoebros and dismissed his message as "not realistic" and "too far left."

And, worse yet, they tried too paint the extremely progressive Sanders as "having a problem with African Americans, women, Lationos...(fill in the blanks)" in order to personally demonize him.

Had the Democratic Establishment chosen to actually engage on a reasonable basis -- and even acknowledge the trusth he is speaking about our corrupt system -- chance are the rift that currently exists would be narrower, and Sanders supporters wold be more inclined to feel they at least have a place in shaping things.

Instead, the Democratic Party said to its potential future "Go Away. You bother me."

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Bernie's ability to "help Hillary" dpends on authenticity

The Clinton team has too often mistaken Bernie's support as a "fan base" rather than a movement. John Edwards and John Kerry had strong supporters, but there were never literal movements behind them, just large numbers of passionate people who thought they would make great Presidents. Bernie Sanders harnesses both the continuing anti-war movement in America and growing economic populism that gave rise to the Occupy movement. He also is the strongest voice in America against the corruption caused by the injection of big money into our political system. which is another growing movement. And there is another thread to a movement related to election transparency dating back to all the uproar about Diebold Electronic Voting Machines, that is aligning now with Sanders as well.

No one else, with the partial exception of Elizabeth Warren, has really been harnessing the anger felt within those movements for Democrats to tap into fully. Bernie Sanders no more created it than he molds it now. He channels it in part but he doesn't control it. Sanders is so widely trusted and supported by his base because he has so clearly and directly confronted the issues they care about without trying to sweet talk anyone into being rah rah Democrats.

To the extent that Bernie does not dilute the central integrity of his message heading into the Democratic Convention, his integrity as a future messenger advocating pragmatic unity for the sake of a larger cause will remain intact, and he would be in a good position to make the case for supporting Hillary should it come to that even to those who are disinclined to do so.

I fault the Clinton team for Nevada, not Bernie. Sanders supporters, with some good reasons, do not trust the impartiality of Democratic Party leadership during this primary campaign. If Hilary has been as confident as her team and media spokespersons claim about "the Math" then they didn't have any reason to play machine politics "hard ball" at the Nevada Convention controlling the Chair and convention dynamics with an iron fist to ensure that Hillary won the maximum number of delegates from that state. The backlash was entirely predictable. That, after the fiasco of the initial national debate schedule, and stacking Convention Rules committees overwhelmingly with Clinton supporters etc. created a process issue that Sanders had to take a stand on. Ultimately he will be of more value to the Democratic Party in general for maintaining his credibility on these issue flash points now, when they really need him.

[JRLeft]

6. What have the people really won. Upwards mobility dead, income inequality expansion,

growing health insurance rates, banks screwing the people, more war, privatization of public schools, and militarized police. If that's winning what's losing?

[BeyondGeography]

11. You must not be on food stamps

or any other form of basic federal assistance that would be gutted under an all-Republican government. With SNAP, how about drug tests as the price of access? That's what Paul Ryan's House keeps pushing.

If that doesn't work for you, there's always the markedly lower potential for the world blowing up under a Democratic President, but, judging from your post, you're probably a lost cause on that issue.

The Supreme Court should go without saying, but you never know on this board thse days.

[JRLeft]

12. No, but I'm related to people who are.

I guess it's OK for both parties to continue its dismantling of the middle class. Every day under both parties we move closer to 2 classes the rich and the poor. At this rate there will be no middle class in 20 years.

[Jester Messiah]

27. If the trend continues we all will be.

That's why we can't stomach any more of these corporatists in Dem clothing.

[Dawgs]

8. Sure, but we're getting our asses kicked everywhere else.

A Democratic president can't do shit if the rest of government is run by the GOP.

[Fumesucker]

14. You say that like it's a bad thing

Remember how the Democrats acted when they had a veto proof majority in the Senate? Holy crap was that a hot potato they couldn't get rid of fast enough before it burned their fingers.

Plausible deniability demands that neither party have an overwhelming upper hand, then the base starts wondering why they aren't delivering on their oh-so-heartfelt promises.

[uponit7771]

9. No, the DNC is learning who the new base is and its not whiny privileged people

[JRLeft]

13. DNC is privileged people.

[mmonk]

16. Bravo.

[Florencenj2point0]

17. Suspect opinion..... since Obama served to terms

passed the ACA, we have held off the total take over of the senate and Hillary is almost surely going to be president, sweep in a senate majority and a larger house. Of course you all can vote republican out of spite and make me a liar. That's up to you. I don't think you will be spiteful Tom but I can see some others punishing the poor to teach them a lesson and bring on the great and glorious revolution.... kind of like when Stalin starved 7 million Ukrainians for force them into collectivism.
I exaggerate, but then there was a jerk on dkos this morning threatening Barbara Boxer with his pitch fork.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. What we have to worry about is working class voters going to Trump wanting "change"

...not spiteful progressives punishing "the poor". Maybe there will be a few thousand total of the latter nation wide, AT MOST, almost all of them very vocal on the internet making it seem like there may be hundreds of thousands of them. Meanwhile we rally need to worry about potential millions of working class voters choosing Trump because he is posturing as an economic populist, in many ways posing to the left of Hillary on that count.

[CrispyQ]

18. Labor has no voice.

A lot of people don't want to think of themselves as labor. I have friends who work for a living, but because they make six figures, they don't consider themselves labor. Seriously, some of these people are just barely in the six figure range & think they are the 1%. That's how skewed people's perception of economic equality is. I tried telling a room full of engineers that if they make most of their income via labor vs. investment, then they are labor. Doesn't matter if you're making six figures. They weren't having it.

[Dem2]

19. Headline is a complete fabrication

Both literally and figuratively. Literally in that the percentage of Americas who identify themselves as Democrats has spiraled dramatically downwards.

How can you pedal something that's completely untrue?

Literally the percentage that declare or lean Democratic hasn't changed in decades.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. I was refering to Party registration. Independents are now the largest grouping...

If you force the public through a two party prism and include "leaners" with one or the other, Democrats may seem to be in better shape, but "leaners" are not reliably partisan. What is happening on the state and local levels is a very troubling trend.

[Dem2]

31. Sorry, the 1st plot I showed included Independents and shows that Republicans are the big losers

Democrats have literally only lost one percentage point since 1992 to Independents, Republicans 5%.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. This full story is worth a read

"NERDSCREEN: Rise of the Independents"
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nerdscreen-rise-independents-n386911


"Independence Day comes once a year in the United States, but in politics we are witnessing the rise of an "independents' era." And that unaligned group is reshaping the way we understand the two-party system...

In Florida, always a crucial battleground state, the number of people registered as "other" has grown by more than 1 million since 2005 - far outstripping the growth among Democrats, about 300,000, or Republicans, about 200,000.

In Colorado, another important swing state, "unaffiliated" registrations have grown by about 280,000 since 2005 to become the largest group of voters in the state. That growth is double the increase in Democratic registrations over that period, about 139,000, and far greater than the growth in Republican registrations, which have only climbed by about 1,000.

In North Carolina, the number of "unaffiliated" registered voters has grown by about 700,000 since 2005. Registered Democrats have grown by about 100,000 in that period and Republicans are flat. In New Hampshire and Iowa, two big early primary states, "undeclared" and "no party" voters are the biggest groups...

...Only 29% of those in the Silent Generation self-identified as "independent" in 2014, according to Pew. But the number was 35% among Baby Boomers and 40% among those in Generation X. Among Millennials the figure is enormous, 48%."

I would hold that during a sustained decades long period during which working class and middle class incomes have remained stagnant or more often fallen, while wealth has shifted tremendously to the top 1% of Americans, that the failure of Democratic Party to win increasing numbers to its banner is deeply troubling, particularly among the young who represent the future of the nation.

[BernieforPres2016]

20. Democratic Party officials haven't been sinking

People like Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt have shown the new business model for Democratic (and Republican) politicians is to cash in as lobbyists after they retire from Congress or are voted out. And there is are lucrative revolving doors to Wall Street and other industries for Congressional staffers, Cabinet members and senior employees of government agencies. Simon Johnson wrote a terrific article in 2009 titled "The Quiet Coup" that demonstrates how industry has captured our government.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/

I believe it will take a 3rd party and a people's revolution of the type Bernie describes to throw these parasites out of office and to create a government that works for the 99%. Neither of the 2 parties will do it voluntarily as long as their members are getting rich at our expense.

[Skwmom]

22. Bernie will not be able to prop up Clinton. That has been their plan all along but some things

just aren't fixable. To think that Bernie getting out of the race now would help Clinton is laughable.

And it is not only the youth the Democrats have to worry about. Democrats of all ages are leaving this party.

[BootinUp]

23. The flaw in your analysis really comes down to perception versus reality, and don't get me wrong

at times my perception is similar, usually when there was legislation I thought was righteous as hell that didn't get through our grand political system. What I am saying is that just because people feel that way about the D party and politics it doesn't follow that it is a fair representation of why (edit I mean the facts). I will start off by pointing out that we electorally and vote percentage wise kicked the crap out of the pukes the last 2 times. How does that fit with the D party has been sinking? Clearly it does not.

Here is a simple explanation for the Independent phenomenon. A right to left political scale does a piss poor job of representing all the different issues and what people think about them. It is impossible for any one party to take positions that everyone in the party is satisfied with let alone independents. Bernie, by greatly emphasizing economic issues gets around that, but only temporarily. As soon as he would actually have to govern, that reality would return.

I notice that you don't acknowledge anywhere that the two remaining Democratic candidates are quite close with their platform positions. It has been said in different ways by many who analyzed them, that they are very similar, that Bernies positions are stretching just a little bit farther than Clintons. Of course this is not true on every issue, I am talking in generalities. So what is my point? My point is that both candidates and all Democrats for that matter, are more liberal than we have seen since 1984. You see, it has not been true that the D party has been represented by people who do not share the aggregate belief of Democrats and people who vote, no. The people who vote believe slightly different things depending on what is going on that year, that decade etc. And they always end up selecting someone who best represents them, and they compromise on some of their core beliefs! Yes voters compromise too! This year we have the excellent opportunity of selecting from two candidates who both are fighting very hard on the same economic issues. They have taken slightly different stances based on their assessment of what can attract the most votes when all is said and done, both at the voter booth and in the Congress.

You see, it is Americans that want more liberal policy on economics and it was Americans that in 1992 wanted less liberal economic policy. That's just how it works. You can say they were brainwashed by right wing propaganda and maybe THAT would be closer to the truth than just saying that the D party is the bad guy.

Both candidates have in their own way proposed that the influence of money MUST be addressed. It is hardly the case that Sanders has a far more progressive stance on that. I am talking about actual details in their platforms, I am not going to type stuff that you can look up yourself.

There is very little to be gained by the Sanders campaign's increasingly negative tone other than perhaps, a few more delegates in a primary. Not enough delegates to come anywhere close to changing the race mind you. And lets talk about why he might gain a few. ITS JUST A PRIMARY. A lot of people aren't even paying attention. He has shown he can energize people who are mad. I am not saying that is a fair description of all of his supporters, but it is one important dynamic. How does getting people mad about politics in a primary help us defeat Trump months later in a general election? It doesn't.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I differ in that I see a clear general rightward econimic drift in both Parties sice the late 70's

Demonizing the role of government has gone on for almost all of that time, not at all times in all cases, but a definite trend line. It has helped fuel the dismantling of progressive taxation structures under the argument that the government wastes our money and it is better returned to the people (with almost all of that coincidentally ettig "returned" to the rich). The privatization movement has made great strides during that time, and periodically has come close to making even greater break throughs than it has on the national level, while doing so often on the state level.The number of "Right to Work" states keep growing. The influence of big money in politics invariably moves the economic political agenda to the right. There has been a massive transfer of wealth from the working and middle class to the very upper class going on continually for thirty years regardless of which party controls which offices.

The electorate has become more "liberal" in very recent years in large part because younger Americans are overwhelmingly breaking in a progressive direction. But younger Americans in general do not have significant power within the structures of our political parties.

I do not spend my time personally making an anti-Hillary political case. I see clear areas of agreement between her and Bernie at stark contrast to the wold view of the Republican Party. I do see however see significant differences between Hillary and Bernie that you may not judge significant yourself. Personally I don't think Bernie gets anyone mad who isn't mad already, his candidacy provides a safe public channel to express that anger and to frame and guide it to a progressive rather than reactionary agenda. In times of great stress when the left fails to represent the people the right harvests their discontent instead.

[BootinUp]

30. I don't dispute the facts about the Reaganomics era, I dispute that the D party is at fault. nt

[brooklynite]

29. ...and Bernie only felt the need to deal with it now?

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Huh?

If nothing else Sanders has been consistent about the issues that mattered to him throughout his entire career. I'm sorry, but what percentage of Americans at any given time are acknowledged nationally as political leaders? The man took positions long dismissed by those in power as outside of the mainstream and got himself elected to Congress and the Senate. Now he is among a small handful of national political leaders, and that is testimony to his authenticity which s what attracted so many to him.

[Demsrule86]

32. Spare me the delusion

The Bern has shown his true character.

[Orsino]

35. We let money vote...

...and then act surprised when it only votes for itself.

[beachbumbob]

42. I must of miss the part on Obama not getting elected and stopping

Conservatives in their tracks...On the other hand extreme leftist and radicals gave us 8 years of bush/Cheney..THATS THEIR CLAIM OF SUCCESS.

[tabasco]

47. You must be getting paid

to post nonsense like that.

[jwirr]

44. We started falling when we turned our backs on Jimmy Carter

and elected raygun and we have never turned back - until now.