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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
In Honor Of Our Nov. 2015 Dem Implosion...
This is a big group of voters—at least 20 percent of Americans—who could be swayed by Democratic policies. Yet both parties leave their votes on the table.
If true... any thoughts on why this would be ???
*****************************************************************
How the Democrats Could Win Every Election
The Democrats are getting populist, which is nice. But will it be enough to lure the millions who don’t vote to the polls?
Monica Potts - DailyBeast
1/15/15
The Pew survey asked people questions about their overall financial security, including whether they’d ever received food stamps or Medicaid and whether they had retirement savings, and then about political preferences.
The most financially secure participants were strongly Republican, which is no surprise. The least financially secure were much more likely to prefer Democratic policies. That included the mythical “white working class,” a group liberals have worried about the Democrats losing because of social-justice issues like race and gender relations. Even though white voters overall were more likely to tilt Republican, support for the GOP declines as we move down the income scale, and the poorest whites were more likely to say they liked Democrats better. Will this finally end the myth that the nation is full of poor whites voting against their economic interests?
The least financially secure group was more likely to say that the government should do more to help the needy, which might indicate support for a proposal like Van Hollen’s. But the bigger problem is that people who were the least financially secure were also the least likely to vote. On top of that, few of them ever wrote to their Congressperson or knew much about the current Congress or the current political field.
This is a big group of voters—at least 20 percent of Americans—who could be swayed by Democratic policies. Yet both parties leave their votes on the table.
Why might lower-income and lower-wealth Americans be so disengaged? The Pew survey didn’t make any claims, but noted that the least financially secure surveyed were less ideologically consistent than the better-off participants, so maybe they don’t strongly identify with a party and that keeps them from feeling moved to vote. Indeed, the least well off were more likely to say they had no preference between the Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2014 elections.
It could also be that, until now, the Democratic Party seemed as friendly to the big banks at times as the Republicans. See above: Warren challenging Obama’s Treasury nominee for being a Wall Streeter.
I think this group doesn’t see Democrats doing much to enhance their economic security. Even these voters know the game is rigged against them and don’t seen many politicians of either party rising to be their champion. Democrats seem ready to cede lots of ground on policies that will hit Americans with the lowest incomes the hardest, like raising the Social Security retirement age and cutting benefits.
The lives of low-income, financially insecure Americans are busy, insecure ones. They are less likely to be well educated and more likely to have a disability that keeps them from working full time. They are more likely to be women who have never been married, which means many are overwhelmed single mothers. The least well-off financially likely includes men who have spent some time in the criminal justice system, which means they are literally disenfranchised or believe they cannot vote even if they live in a state where they could.
The most financially secure participants were strongly Republican, which is no surprise. The least financially secure were much more likely to prefer Democratic policies. That included the mythical “white working class,” a group liberals have worried about the Democrats losing because of social-justice issues like race and gender relations. Even though white voters overall were more likely to tilt Republican, support for the GOP declines as we move down the income scale, and the poorest whites were more likely to say they liked Democrats better. Will this finally end the myth that the nation is full of poor whites voting against their economic interests?
The least financially secure group was more likely to say that the government should do more to help the needy, which might indicate support for a proposal like Van Hollen’s. But the bigger problem is that people who were the least financially secure were also the least likely to vote. On top of that, few of them ever wrote to their Congressperson or knew much about the current Congress or the current political field.
This is a big group of voters—at least 20 percent of Americans—who could be swayed by Democratic policies. Yet both parties leave their votes on the table.
Why might lower-income and lower-wealth Americans be so disengaged? The Pew survey didn’t make any claims, but noted that the least financially secure surveyed were less ideologically consistent than the better-off participants, so maybe they don’t strongly identify with a party and that keeps them from feeling moved to vote. Indeed, the least well off were more likely to say they had no preference between the Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2014 elections.
It could also be that, until now, the Democratic Party seemed as friendly to the big banks at times as the Republicans. See above: Warren challenging Obama’s Treasury nominee for being a Wall Streeter.
I think this group doesn’t see Democrats doing much to enhance their economic security. Even these voters know the game is rigged against them and don’t seen many politicians of either party rising to be their champion. Democrats seem ready to cede lots of ground on policies that will hit Americans with the lowest incomes the hardest, like raising the Social Security retirement age and cutting benefits.
The lives of low-income, financially insecure Americans are busy, insecure ones. They are less likely to be well educated and more likely to have a disability that keeps them from working full time. They are more likely to be women who have never been married, which means many are overwhelmed single mothers. The least well-off financially likely includes men who have spent some time in the criminal justice system, which means they are literally disenfranchised or believe they cannot vote even if they live in a state where they could.
More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/15/how-the-democrats-could-win-every-election.html#
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
i.e. Not much gets done.
We will protect ourselves, and others... and find ways to foil the "system".
But it's damned important.
You have total permission from me.
Word !
Fear, Loathing, etc...
They come out in droves in even the most minor of elections.
We, to our pride (and to our shame), aren't so easily manipulated as they are.
Yet... if we cannot GOTV, except for the Presidency, we're screwn.
Seriously.
This is a list of Democratic party unpledged delegates, also known as superdelegates or automatic delegates,[1] who voted in the 2008 Democratic National Convention, the culmination of the Party's presidential nominating process that began with the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and caucuses.
At the time of Hillary Clinton's campaign suspension on June 7, 2008, the count was 246½ for her and 478 for Barack Obama,[2] with 99 still 'Uncommitted'[3] of the 823½ total then existing, although this number represents the realignment of around 50 superdelegates who switched their support from Clinton to Obama when he had gained the majority of delegates. Clinton released her delegates during the convention.
The breakdown by position for Clinton was 144 DNC, 52½ Representatives, 14 Senators, 17 Add-ons, 10½ Governors, and 7½ DPLs; the breakdown by position for Obama was 229 DNC, 157 Representatives, 34 Senators, 29 Add-ons, 20 Governors, and 9 DPLs; and the breakdown for "Uncommitted" was: 39 DNC, 22 Representatives, 1.5 Senators, 32.5 Add-ons, 1 Governor, and 3 DPLs.
At the time of Hillary Clinton's campaign suspension on June 7, 2008, the count was 246½ for her and 478 for Barack Obama,[2] with 99 still 'Uncommitted'[3] of the 823½ total then existing, although this number represents the realignment of around 50 superdelegates who switched their support from Clinton to Obama when he had gained the majority of delegates. Clinton released her delegates during the convention.
The breakdown by position for Clinton was 144 DNC, 52½ Representatives, 14 Senators, 17 Add-ons, 10½ Governors, and 7½ DPLs; the breakdown by position for Obama was 229 DNC, 157 Representatives, 34 Senators, 29 Add-ons, 20 Governors, and 9 DPLs; and the breakdown for "Uncommitted" was: 39 DNC, 22 Representatives, 1.5 Senators, 32.5 Add-ons, 1 Governor, and 3 DPLs.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008
I'm rooting for the radical.
We need a serious shake up.
And then spends the rest of it's money conning the rest of us.
Wow !!!
Bernie has had our backs for 40 + years.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.