Skip to main content

Democratic ideological self-identification

Democrats are becoming more liberal, and it isn't hurting them at all. This is objectively true, and I have two charts to prove it.

First, as shown in the chart at the top of this post, long-term polling trends from Gallup clearly show that an increasing percentage of Americans who self-identify as Democrats also self-identify as liberals.

In 2002—the year Daily Kos was founded—there were almost as many conservative Democrats as liberal Democrats, and moderate Democrats far outnumbered either liberals or conservatives. Now, there are actually more liberal Democrats than moderate Democrats, and conservative Democrats have become a small minority.

What's more, as Democrats have become more liberal, they have not lost any ground to Republicans, as this next chart from Gallup shows:

National partisan identification, with leaners

Over the past decade as Democrats have become more liberal, if anything they have improved their position relative to Republicans. They certainly have not lost ground.

The polls used in this chart have enormous numbers of participants, making even small, one percent changes statistically significant.

So there you have it. Objective proof that becoming more liberal doesn't hurt Democrats, not even a little bit.

Originally posted to Chris Bowers on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 09:54 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (245+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    George3, wader, DeadHead, JeffW, SolarMom, kjoftherock, ruscle, brainwave, kevinpdx, poopdogcomedy, susans, Onomastic, blueoasis, Chaddiwicker, Skennet Boch, terremoto, humphrey, greenbird, wu ming, GeorgeXVIII, Sapere aude, here4tehbeer, deepeco, rbird, jayden, basquebob, allergywoman, NJpeach, pierre9045, Free Jazz at High Noon, eeff, roses, lotlizard, SpotTheCat, stevenaxelrod, Nulwee, kurt, RUNDOWN, radarlady, golem, salmo, Lost and Found, 3rdOption, LeftHandedMan, Matt Z, theKgirls, isabelle hayes, Mark Mywurtz, dkmich, rapala, Curt Matlock, thankgodforairamerica, Involuntary Exile, deminva, TomP, MadRuth, BobBlueMass, cskendrick, maggid, Bill in Portland Maine, psychodrew, profundo, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, LynChi, petulans, jbob, LSmith, kharma, Habitat Vic, koosah, Dianna, Jazzenterprises, glitterscale, Tortmaster, BYw, Glen The Plumber, Loudoun County Dem, Rogneid, Desi, pioneer111, copymark, democracy inaction, oortdust, Buckeye Nut Schell, Ashes of Roses, lexalou, TexasLefty, nailbender, praenomen, jnhobbs, flowerfarmer, TheMeansAreTheEnd, hooper, mconvente, seefleur, Wee Mama, zerelda, angelajean, semiot, RunawayRose, DarthMeow504, NBBooks, SphericalXS, middleagedhousewife, JVolvo, J Ash Bowie, millwood, poliwrangler, CA Nana, Kevskos, MNGlasnant, BadKitties, Pilotshark, Sylv, Nailbanger, No one gets out alive, politically indigo, golden75, Simplify, CoExistNow, unfangus, JamieG from Md, Trendar, TracieLynn, tytalus, Bill Roberts, penguins4peace, TrueBlueMountaineer, pixxer, mdmslle, Jon Sitzman, implicate order, poligirl, sostos, Polly Syllabic, FutureNow, Odysseus, radical simplicity, jck, Siri, bythesea, blue aardvark, bobswern, Railfan, Glacial Erratic, MikePhoenix, bartcopfan, Laconic Lib, ord avg guy, Dvalkure, Dodgerdog1, nomandates, maggiejean, Shockwave, joegoldstein, bluesheep, slowbutsure, puakev, MKinTN, Assaf, J M F, sawgrass727, quill, flumptytail, annrose, muddy boots, La Gitane, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, The Jester, cybersaur, shaharazade, technomage, MJ via Chicago, Wreck Smurfy, vacantlook, LibrErica, Shadowmage36, markdd, greenomanic, pgm 01, quagmiremonkey, tegrat, Audri, belinda ridgewood, Marko the Werelynx, LuvSet, chuck utzman, jcrit, IndieGuy, marina, sc kitty, where4art, VTCC73, Arahahex, Calamity Jean, tofumagoo, Gary Norton, Dolphin99, TheHalfrican, anodnhajo, peterj911, ctsteve, thenekkidtruth, EdSF, camlbacker, RichterScale, amparo fan, rja, blueoregon, Brecht, fiercefilms, stevenwag, MarkInSanFran, Dumbo, CT Hank, Arkenstark, Eric Nelson, cpr4life, enhydra lutris, petral, thomask, Leftcandid, NYFM, groupw, redwagon, splashy, JuliathePoet, sciguy, DannyX, Lilredhead, ichibon, Aunt Pat, alice kleeman, cocinero, emal, politicalceci, defluxion10, daeros, SherriG, brillig, RJH, jbsoul, Liberal Thinking, Darth Stateworker, Catrina
  •  Nice (41+ / 0-)

    The yammering mouthpieces don't get it, but the proof is there.

    Something to build on.

    “Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.” -- FDR, 1936

    by SolarMom on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 10:06:45 PM PST

    •  Oh, they know it...they just don't want the (30+ / 0-)

      word to get out...

      The third way conservative blue dog republican democrats (aka centrist democrats) almost destroyed the Democratic Party, and it will take years to mend the damage they have done...now they need to pack up their lobbyist dollars, take Bill, Hillary and Obama and leave.

      Long live the populist movement...(if the planet survives).

      •  I'm waiting to see a real Dem populist movement (13+ / 0-)

        I'm very happy to see the likes of Warren, Grayson, and DeBlasio emerge.  As someone who volunteered on his '92 presidential campaign, I'm sorry to see Harkin leave.  I've donated to Sanders's campaigns dating back to his first House run, and I still miss Wellstone.

        Populists have, however, been in a distinct minority in the party since I first got involved in politics in the mid-70's.  They're still in a distinct minority now.   Plus, labor, which has to lie at the core of any populist movement, continues to take a severe beating.  EFCA never made it to the Senate floor in 2009-10, and right to work (for less) laws were adopted by IN and the UAW bastion of MI.  Public employee unions are taking a beating, and the Supremes may strike a telling blow.

        I'm being a wet blanket here, but I've had my hopes raised and ultimately crushed many times before.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:12:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  populism is a wild card (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Loge

          It's not right or left so much as it's anti-elite.  It's the political equivalent of "the customer is always right": whatever "The People" want is what the government should be doing, and whatever expertise or discretion officials possess must be subordinated to fulfilling the people's desires and demands.

          Populism is normative, exclusive, and majoritarian, and has little tolerance for any perceived minority (racial, religious, sex/gender, subculture, class, etc.) or alien (foreigners, etc.) being seen to thwart or dictate to The People.  Populism can be turned against intellectuals and public servants as easily as it can be turned against politicians and plutocrats.

          Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

          by Visceral on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 10:35:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Did someone forward this to Obama? (0+ / 0-)

        Because he needs to know this. He needs to tack to the left. He needs to REFUSE to sign any more bills, including the budget, that contain Teabagger poison pills. He needs to change his ultra-conservative ways. He needs to bring us the REAL change he promised us five long years ago. Because it will HELP HIM and the rest of the nation and his Party to implement policies that HELP ALL OF US.

        Or am I being naive? Probably. To the great delight of many of you paying the slightest bit of attention to my scribes, I am thisclose to completely giving up on politics.

        To paraphrase the immortal Gore Vidal in "Burr", Chapter 12: In the end, candor fails; dishonesty prevails. And Barack Hussein Obama told many, many dishonesties in order to win an election.

        It works every goddamned time. Not even The Mighty Kos can make a dent in THAT American fact.

        "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

        by DaddyO on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 07:54:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Dems have lived in fear too long. (0+ / 0-)

      Democratic party officials have been so afraid of being labeled "liberal" that they moved to what used to be the left end of the Republican spectrum.  This has lost them respect with true Democrats and everyone to the left of that.  It is no surprise that a re-liberalization of the party is having a positive effect.  The "new liberals", beginning with Obama, are inspiring people to get involved and to vote more than anyone else in the party has done since the party turned its back on Carter.  

  •  <====== This direction (43+ / 0-)

    It's good for the Party, and for the country.

    The more we move rightward, the more difficult it becomes for people who aren't already on one side of the aisle or the other to distinguish between Democrats and Republicans.

    As these charts show, we don't need to emulate assholes to be popular with voters.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

    by DeadHead on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 10:28:35 PM PST

  •  it's even more striking (31+ / 0-)

    when you break it down by issue. because a lot of liberals don't self-identify as liberals, because they consider their liberal stands on the issues to be mainstream.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 10:46:47 PM PST

    •  Conversely, a lot of folks self identify as (0+ / 0-)

      liberal when what they hold are merely mainstream centrist beliefs.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:35:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  One hypothesis: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    salmo, penguins4peace, gustynpip

    Americans are trending more liberal because the Republicans in trying to outdo each other and prove that they are the better conservative, keep moving the notion of "moderate" further and further to the right, therefore making those who are actually moderate appear "liberal".  It could also be reactionary; other then tea-partiers, few people want to be associated with the insanity that is the modern Republican party.  

    •  no change in "conservative" from 2000 or so (2+ / 0-)

      There was a slight increase in "conservative" in 2009-11, but mostly it has been pretty flat over the last two decades, never more than 2 points from 38%, where it is now. "Liberal" has trended up, from as low as 16% in 1995-96 to 23% in 2013.

      I think it's hard to disentangle what this says about people's (varied) perceptions of the major parties from what it says about the history of the label "liberal" itself.

      "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

      by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 04:13:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it's so much in the number (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, La Gitane

        of people who identify as conservative, but in the position on the political spectra. Someone whose viewpoints would have put them as conservative twenty years ago now days might put them in a more moderate position, as the idea of what "conservative" now has dramatically shifted.

        Undoubtedly, there probably has been some actual shift to the left over the past few years.  During periods economic depression,people tend to support liberal polices that provide for a social safety net, since so many people are effected by periods of unemployment and financial insecurity, while in times of more economic prosperity, most people support conservative polices, such as low taxes and small government since they want to keep as much of their money as possible.

        It will be interesting to see if this shift to the left remains somewhat permanent, even after economic recovery.  I think many people are becoming aware of the great amount of economic inequity that currently exists.  

        •  Yep - I'm convinced (0+ / 0-)

          that this country is trending leftward quickly...  within the next few election cycles we're going to wind up seeing blue dogs on the other side of the aisle, and that is just fine with me.

          I'd rather have to compromise with a blue dog than a Steve King or Louie Gohmert...  there's a lot that we would be able to get done!

          "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

          by La Gitane on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 09:45:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The only thing stopping the Democrats is .... (20+ / 0-)

    themselves. Being  wishy washy is not a way to instill confidence or get the majority of people on their bandwagon!

  •  yay ! and furthermore, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    salmo, isabelle hayes, shaharazade

    your profile pic looks like you gave birth naturally !!

    w00t !!

    so glad to see that eventually happy and smart and progressive AND LIBERAL will at last be recognized as the only way to live.

    TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes? -- Addington's Perpwalk.

    by greenbird on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 10:51:37 PM PST

    •  Lovely sentiment— (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbird

      and Chris is a great guy who should be better known for founding the Open Left website. (Btw, Chris, if you're reading this, will that last OL post ever be closed to comments?)

      At the same time, all that profile pic establishes is that he once stood next to a four-month-old baby.

  •  the "leaders" want to be what they are (14+ / 0-)

    They know that the electorate is fairly liberal. They choose to go their own way as they try to convince us that they can't win if they govern as liberals.

    If they run as liberals and win they double-cross us by saying they have to represent all the people and not "just" the people who voted for them. In other words, they occasionally win by saying "this is what we'll do" and then, after winning they say "but it wouldn't be fair to do that".

    As we all know...

    Dear NSA: I am only joking.

    by Shahryar on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 11:48:54 PM PST

  •  Depends on how you define hurt. (10+ / 0-)

    If you mean at the ballot box then yes, they aren't hurt. If one considers corporate support for their candidacy then I suspect they probably would be hurt by being more liberal.

    That's why we need to corporate money out of politics.

    I still wishing for a candidate too liberal for me.

    The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

    by TiredOfGOPLies on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 11:53:24 PM PST

    •  Better elites, please (9+ / 0-)

      I got all the way to the end of the comments before someone wrote what I was thinking.  The Third Way/DLC crowd always made a half-hearted show of covering their principal interest - getting corporate cash.  Their argument is that we have to appeal to the big money donors to be competitive at the ballot box.  There is little doubt that voters fall predominantly on the liberal side of issues, but the way our politics are funded allows the very small fraction of the population that contributes the bulk of the campaign cash to set the range of the possible policies well to the right of the electorate's preferences.  It seems to me that in a real democracy, political elites would see that as a problem, not an opportunity to cash in.

      •  Exactly right (6+ / 0-)

        This is why we must get money out of politics.  It isn't the rank and file that dictate the defacto ideology of the Democratic Party.  It is the carrots and sticks of money that big donors leverage that drive that ideology.

        If Democrats weren't beholden to their donors and afraid to do the right thing for fear of losing their election funding, the Democratic Party would naturally be more liberal than they are because the party's base is far more liberal than the party itself whereas the big money donors are almost always more conservative.  So if the party were more beholden to their base than they are to their wealthy paymasters....you get the idea.

        Money is the problem.

        Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

        by democracy inaction on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:05:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Third Way is the real Third Party (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gustynpip, salmo, Calamity Jean, cslewis

        That's why I don't buy this argument that anyone with a D on the ballot deserves your vote.  If they're running to represent corporation X which may not even be located in my own state, why do I want to vote for that?   I guess some figure that they'll get a bone thrown their way on social issues but it's the economic and war issues that are motivating me these days and identity politics or pot or whatever aren't distracting me.

        •  3rd way might as well have been Second Mile (0+ / 0-)

          for the way the leading D candidate for Gov in PA
          jettisoned them this week.

          A progressive democratic executive and or a progressive democratic majority legislature will go farther to move these ideas forward than a 3rd party which will only dilute the majority as much as if they were blue dogs.  

          And God forbid that CoreButt gets re-elected.

          "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

          by jakewaters on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 04:47:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Corporate support (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, cslewis

      is by-partisan they have it covered regardless of which party wins. They also have the primaries covered in the fact that they pretty much pick who we get to ratify with our vote and our 'support'. Looks like Hillary who is not liberal but a Goldwater girl is who they have decided is next in line for the trending liberal Democratic voters to ratify. The Third Way corporate Dems. seem to be the ones who own and run our party.

      How can a liberal Dem. even become a serious contender when the money and support is withheld within the party from the get go. Instead we get fake populists who limit liberalism to no vagina probes with your austerity. If a real populist liberal does make it through the gauntlet once elected they have no power. The power stays in the hands of the corporate global machine, those multinationals who 'rule the world'. As my neighbor a liberal Dem. says 'what choice do we get?        

      •  Don't like Hilary all you want, but do you really (0+ / 0-)

        have to use sexist references to demean her?  "Goldwater girl".  Really?  I hate to break it to you, but Hilary is a woman, not a child, regardless of what you think of her politics.  

        I just don't get the mindset of so called liberals who have no problem with being sexist.

        •  okay (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greenbell, Calamity Jean, cslewis

          how about a 'Goldwater woman' or a Margret Thacher/Madeline Albright woman? Sorry for the sexist reference as it did distract from my point. HRC is many things but she is definitely not a child.  I'm not a sexist. I don't believe that breaking corporate glass ceilings and being a 'bad ass' endless war promoter is what feminism is about. Don't gimme that crap about being sexist if I happen to notice that Hillary does ot work for global or domestic policy or an agenda that promotes women's rights or thier common good globally. Ask the Pakistani women or the Chinese women workers or even the Wal Mart women employees about what her policies and agenda does to their villages and their lives.            

          •  Using sexist words is being sexist. It's no more (0+ / 0-)

            okay to use sexist references when you disagree with someone's politics than it is to use racist or other unacceptable references.  But I think you recognized the problem, so I'm happy.

            Except that I do think breaking corporate glass ceilings is part of what feminism is about.  The rest, I'll agree with.

            •  You do realize, don't you, (4+ / 0-)

              that the term "Goldwater Girl" was coined by the women themselves (or at least, was claimed by them) back when Goldwater ran for President?

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 11:50:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So how does that make it any less sexist? (0+ / 0-)

                Back then, women were so used to being marginalized and childized that they frequently participated in it.  That doesn't mean we still have to.  Most of us have moved far beyond that.

            •  Here's what (0+ / 0-)

              was going on in the feminist movement nationally in 1964 while HRC was busy being a member of Goldwater's Girls. This was a org that was named Goldwater Girls. The conservative Republican's of that era we're sexist just like they are now.  This is PC that is ridiculous. It's like blaming the lefties for demeaning the mentally ill when they report on or repeat Rahm's nasty slur 'fu**ng re***ds. Don't blame me if Hillary in her youth joined this org. and supported the real sexist's.

              Here's part of what was going on in 1964 on the Democratic left side of politics.....

              President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

              A prohibition on sex discrimination was added to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, along with race, color, religion and national origin.

              The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was established to enforce the Civil Rights Act. It began operations the next year.

              Betty Friedan's bestselling book and feminist classic The Feminine Mystique came out in paperback.

               Activist and civil rights leader Fannie Lou Hamer helped to organize the Freedom Summer in Mississippi.
               

              •  This is why I hope Warren runs. (0+ / 0-)

                Anyone who criticizes HRC who who does not have female parts runs a huge risk of being labeled sexist. Here on a progressive site, you accused someone of using sexist language by highlighting two words from their comment.

                Please run Sen. Warren so we can have a debate about ideas and not about identity politics.

                New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                by AlexDrew on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 03:12:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Talking isn't doing...Obama broke the camel's back (9+ / 0-)

    I don't think I've listed to a Presidential speech since Clinton.  He was the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party.   After Obama's boondoggle, passing Hillary off as some sort of populists is going to be a miracle.  

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

    by dkmich on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 03:55:13 AM PST

    •  It's an Overton thing (9+ / 0-)

      Even faux liberals can help by talking liberal and making it more mainstream to a public and party that aren't used to it after decades of media-aided attacks by the RW and LieberDem concern trolling.

      The fact that faux libs are pretending to be liberal is itself an indication that it's become more acceptable and even desirable to be seen as a liberal.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 05:01:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What happens when they con the public and (7+ / 0-)

        then betray them?   It will be "liberal Democrats" who get the blame instead of the Wall Street Democrats that are lying to them.  

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

        by dkmich on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 05:03:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Many of them have been doing this (6+ / 0-)

          Is there evidence that's it's worked out that way, blame-wise? I see the public gradually shifting leftward despite its instinctive RW tilt and faux lib lying.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 05:21:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can't remember the last time "liberal" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade, Laconic Lib

            was allowed to exist.  I think it might have been the 60s.    

            What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

            by dkmich on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 05:25:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Psst, it's safe to come out of the woods again (7+ / 0-)

              Many people use "progressive" instead these days, but in much the same way. A long time ago I used to be a bit defensive about being a liberal, but not for years. Now I wear it proudly and defiantly, and it takes some people aback. I think that the key is to reject the self-loathing they've gotten us to internalize and stop apologizing for being liberal. It's like getting back in shape again.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 05:42:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Progressive is what people use when they (5+ / 0-)

                are trying to hide from the word liberal.    

                I don't have a clue where my politics fall.        There are some things liberals do that are the mirror image of the GOP/Tea Party.  After Clinton and Obama,  I absolutely refuse to call myself a Republican or a Democrat.  I am a populist with socialist leanings, and I call myself an eclectic Independent.

                All I know is that our country currently sucks, and it is fault of the 1% and their owned D and R politicians.   Until things change, I am encouraging my daughter and grandchildren to leave the country so I can leave too.   If they run Hillary, omg, nobody will show up to vote.

                What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                by dkmich on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:02:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Where would you go? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheHalfrican
                •  I have told (0+ / 0-)

                  both my sons, ages 18 and 31, that they should figure out how to get out of this country.  I hate having to say that.  My father was a history teacher and we spent our vacations during my childhood at most every historical place south and east of Ohio, What this country should be is a big part of who I am.  But, unless there is a pretty quick turn-around in this country, they would be better off to make their lives elsewhere.

                  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment

                  by TracieLynn on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:49:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  lol really? (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't understand this thinking at all. Sounds like surrender to me. Why should I let those assholes chase me away? Racism does pretty well for itself in Europe, too. If the worst Climate Change possibilities happen, there won't be anyplace to run anyhow.

                    No, I'll stay. Civil War 2 will be fun. 2 civil wars in 300 years? Dude most countries would kill for that kind of stability. Its like Clemenza said in Godfather: "These things gotta happen ... Helps to get rid of the bad blood."

                    "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

                    by TheHalfrican on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:55:45 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The truth is, most of the people (0+ / 0-)

                      on this blog hate America and come here to bitch about it instead of helping to fix it. Halfrican, use are being to kind when you said "Racism does pretty well for itself in Europe, too". In some ways, it is worse.

                      Some on this blog should look at what it takes to move to France, Norway, Germany and Denmark. It ain't easy, mostly because they have a strong safety net that they know would be an incentive for immigrants.

                      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                      by AlexDrew on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 03:19:20 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Next up: "socialist" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shaharazade, FutureNow

                Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

                by Simplify on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:14:13 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  What? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Laconic Lib
            I see the public gradually shifting leftward despite its instinctive RW tilt and faux lib lying.
            What exactly do you mean by "instinctive RW tilt?"  Is that your way of saying that we're really a center-right nation?

            Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

            by democracy inaction on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:09:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  For a long time a plurality of Americans polled (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo, cybrestrike

              leaned more right than left when asked to self-identify, even if they continued to prefer liberal over conservative policies, especially ones that affected them.

              This wasn't because they actually were more conservative than liberal, but because decades of GOP propaganda, aided by an eager to help and fearful of being accused of liberal bias media, made them believe that they were.

              This appears to finally be changing.

              Btw, compared to most other developed countries, we're still way more conservative, in terms of our views on abortion, gay, women's and minority rights, evolution, global warming, science, education, health insurance, social welfare, regulation, etc. We're also less culturally sophisticated. We continue to operate on an early 19th century, traditional rural agrarian mindset, even though we're a 21st century technologically dependent urban society.

              That has to change. Just not too fast or else we risk another conservative backlash like we're just now emerging from.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:26:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Bear in mind (10+ / 0-)

    That the "most librul president evah" (according to conservatives) is still the one we are criticizing for Snowden, Manning, drone strikes, TPP, and such, none of which strike me as particularly liberal bits of policy. And yes, there is some good stuff from him that I am happy with (ACA, etc), but I think very few liberals right now are thinking that Obama is "too liberal".

    So as the commenter above said, the population being more liberal doesn't do much unless we get people elected who actually follow those values.

    •  Trash him if you must, but Obama has ushered in (6+ / 0-)

      a new tide of liberalism.  Just like he said he wanted to do, back when many misinterpreted his comments about admiring Reagan's transformational election, as being supportive of the bastard's policies.

      How?

      - He brought in a new generation of young voters, who studies show will mostly stay with the Democratic party for their lifetimes and give us a 25-30 year leftward tilt.

      - He built the most powerful grassroots-ish political operation we've seen in decades, maybe ever.  In my little town of 17,000, for example, we can consistently turn out 20-30 volunteer canvassers for good Dems.  Before 2008 all we did was hold signs.  We now have an electoral GOTV army, trained and ready-to-go.

      - He threw off the Dems' rep as anti-military and has shepherded Republicans into despicable, unwinnable positions on almost everything.

      - Even his failures/frustrations will I believe help us in the medium term.  The yearning for more progressivism has only increased during his tenure - via dissatisfaction - while the RW backlash has largely been confined to Republicans.

      Obama does have some repair work to do with those many young voters who are disappointed, but I believe he knows this and will take steps.  His recent comments on weed are a great start.  And those young voters have gotten a hell of a political education over the past few years.  

      Now if we can only nominate someone worth supporting in 2016.

      •  Aside from support for weed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cslewis

        you don't list any policies and weed is not liberal, it's just a lifestyle drug and identifying Democrats with drugs isn't going to do a thing to convince Americans to support unemployment benefits or food stamps.  It's more likely to associate unemployment with weed.

        •  It's a top issue for millenials. It'll help beat (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean, Sixty Something

          back the tide of naive libertarianism among the young, I think.  

          Obama has done good things for youth...taking the banks out of college financing, for example.  He's done some good things for everyone (youths included) like advancing civil rights for gays and women, and trying (blocked by Repubs) to advance his jobs program, pushing UI, minimum wage, etc.  

          But he isn't going to tackle the 2 big ones head-on, finance capitalism (not just jobs) and The Empire.  We'll get some regs on Wall St and some military cuts but not fundamental change.  

          For that imo we need real progressive populist leadership.   My point above was that we're much more likely to go that way now that we were before, under Clinton or Bush.

        •  LOL. Identifying Dems with drugs. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean, AlexDrew

          Damn. I knew I should have continued buying into the false meme that marijuana is a dangerous drug that we must, at all costs, oppose.  Alcohol?  Well, not so much.

          Legalizing marijuana is much more than a "lifestyle" issue, and your making that statement simply reflects that you've failed to give the matter much thought.  Legalizing marijuana is a reduction in minorities with criminal records and the resulting negative impact on job opportunities, huge savings in policing, legal proceedings, and incarceration costs, a reduction in the funding for private prisons, a reduction in the easy justifications for invading our privacy, and a reduction in the ability of police departments to take citizen's property without due process.

          Your comment is so typical of the way people have justified the Dems moving so far to the right on other issues.  Oversimplifying and then casting it in a negative light.  You know, we shouldn't be in favor of lazy people who don't want to work, we shouldn't stand up for perverted people, etc., etc.  So sad.

          •  I'm just framing it the way Republicans will (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry, but been there done that.  It's exactly the kind of thing that helped enable Reagan Democrats.  

            I'm sorry however much hard working folks may like their beer and even their pot, they're more concerned about their taxes than about making sure their kids have easy access to weed.  And you can try to see it otherwise, but the image of someone lying around smoking weed instead of looking for a job is just too easy to paint.  

            I know, I'm getting old, but I'm worried about war in Iran or cuts in Social Security or increases in property taxes to fund schools and instead we got to talk about legalizing pot.

            •  sure (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gustynpip, Calamity Jean

              but hooper is talking about appealing to millenials, not their parents.

              •  Well Pot Smoking Boomers thought the same once (0+ / 0-)

                upon a time and it seems that what happens is when you start paying taxes and having your own kids your priorities change.  And those generations that you were going to sweep out of your way?  Well, just like my WWII era mother, they just keep on voting.  

                Granted, the idea is more popular now  I'm not opposed to the issue but it's not how you want to define a political party.  

                Democrats have to win on kitchen table issues and that's where we have to make liberal good for the whole family and every generation in it.

            •  You must be getting old if you don't realize (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Calamity Jean, hooper

              that it's not people worrying about their kids' access to pot, but people who worry about their access to pot who are most of the voters now.  It's not so easy to paint the picture of someone lying around smoking weed rather than looking for a job when so many of the voters are people who work long, hard jobs and smoke a little weed in their off time.  

              Who cares what the Republicans will say?  The Dems just need to say it their way.  And that way is to point out that taxes can be reduced if this farcical war on drug is eliminated.

              And most voters can actually walk and chew gum at the same time.  They can worry about Social Security, education, wars, and pot.

            •  Your pov is not everyone's, and we need 51% of (0+ / 0-)

              everyone to win.  Weed is a #1 issue for those who are the future of the Dem party.  We need them and their votes too, not just those of us old enough to be concerned about SS.

      •  Hey, I wanted someone cold blooded. n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

        by TheHalfrican on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 01:11:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I really think we need to re-evaluate the (2+ / 0-)

    terminology we use. "liberal" has been turned into a dysphemism by the Cons (short for conniving, contrary, convoluted, etc.) and the effort of reasserting its true meaning in the context of mobile organisms entitled to be at liberty and roam freely is probably not worth it. Better to find another, more accurate word, like generous.
    Democrats are generous; Republicans are stingy.
    The generous party vs. the used Tea Bag Party.
    Spendthrifts vs. Skinflints

    That these concepts come readily to mind tells us that the difference is both real and has always existed. "Conservative" is a euphemism that's supposed to remind us of conserves and jam. "Christie's jam" turns it into a dysphemism. It's the very opposite of the trajectory of "Obamacare"

    We could do a poll. "Which would you rather have, Obamacare or Christie's Jam?"

    Obamacare at your fingertips: 1-800-318-2596; TTY: 1-855-889-4325

    by hannah on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 04:22:49 AM PST

    •  But we also need to make sure (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade, blueoasis

      'liberal' does not become co-opted by centrist Dems, examples being: social security, wall street, Privacy, security and net neutrality.

      "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

      by LieparDestin on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 05:11:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It already is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell

        co-opted by the Dems. who have actual power. I don't call them centrist as they are the ones who have defined a mythical center that is not the center of anything other then global oligarchical collectivism. Actually they are not even in the center of the global neoliberal/neocon's. They are the Third Way a way forward that is not in country's 'national interests' other then the viscous anti-democratic entities that as the trader from GS said rule the world.          

    •  Liberal means generous (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gustynpip

      If you look at the origin of Liberal as a political label, at least in mid 19th century England, the term was adapted from a synonym for generous, in phrases like "a liberal helping of pie".

      The Free Dictionary gives the older usage as a secondary meaning to the political ones.

      1.
      a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
      b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
      c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
      d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
      2.
      a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
      b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

      There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

      by Gary J on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:48:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "probably not worth it" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade

      C'mon, hannah, that's chickenshit. See the Truman quote above. Let's stand up and fight, for once!

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:16:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Generous doesn't work (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gustynpip, Laconic Lib, Calamity Jean

      People see right through that and figure you are being generous with their tax dollars.  

      Liberal is about good government for the common good.  

      It's not about being generous.  It's not about taking from person A to give to person B.  It's about making life better for both person A and person B and convincing person A that being taxed to support the public good benefits person A.  

      We can't confuse taxation with charity because we lose that argument.  We must convince people that their own quality of life improves if their community is clean, healthy, safe, educated, and without a rootless, unemployed underclass.

  •  Yeah but David Brooks disagrees (4+ / 0-)

    So who am I to believe, statistical charts or Mr. Applebee's Word Salad Bar?

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 04:57:25 AM PST

  •  Great! What's the plan? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Simplify, shaharazade, Calamity Jean

    How are we going to make Democrats more liberal?

    •  The usual plan, of course (7+ / 0-)

      Bitch, gripe, moan, and then vote for whoever has (D) after their name because the only alternative is the one with the (R). We buy into the system wholeheartedly because we are constantly told that if we don't, "they win".

      As long as we only have two parties, and at such ideological disparity, neither has to worry about defectors to the other side and really just has to tailor a message to appeal just a little bit more to moderates than the other guy does.

      For instance, Bush the candidate talked the talk when it came to being anti-abortion, but after getting elected, having a conservative majority in the Supreme Court and majorities in the House and Senate for several years, nothing happened on the issue. The red-meat Republicans would vote for him anyway, and he did not want to drive away moderates. Democrats do the same thing, and we yowl for juicy red meat with the same vigor as Republicans do.

      And as long as we only have two parties, they each have a vested interest in preventing a third from arising and have the power to keep it from happening.

      Catch-22.

      •  On the ballots, there are usually more than (0+ / 0-)

        two parties, and the major parties often have more than one candidate on the same ballot. So, the problem is not just that the two major parties dominate, but that the electorate, for the most part, is too afraid to go with the non major party anointed candidates.

        The also-ran Democratic candidates might actually be the "better" Democrats, according to the credo of this site, than the party funded picks, but the mindset of voters seems to favor the Democrat that has the best chance of winning, rather than the Democrat who shares their values. As we have seen, this doesn't necessarily equate with a liberal in office.

        Party support seems to indicate a more conservative and donor indebted candidate whose loyalty is at odds with the voters. If voters focused on the best non-party-funded candidate instead, that candidate would be more beholding to the voters than the big donors. People need to realize that if they want to take money out of the election, they have to stop supporting the "major" candidates. They are only "major" because the major parties have deemed them so. If people vote for these major candidates then they are voting for keeping money in politics.

        Where there is a choice, the candidate with party backing would probably be the candidate not to support or vote for. Too often, major candidates talk like a liberal to get elected and legislate otherwise. It is time to stop supporting big donor party backed candidates who are not really liberal. It is better to pick a small donor supported Democrat who shares liberal values and will more likely legislate accordingly. If the majority of voters would realize this and vote accordingly, then the dreaded split ticket issue that causes so many to vote the lesser of two evils could be avoided and a more liberal candidate could be elected.

        If people want money out of politics, then they need to stop voting for the big donor backed candidates. Small donor candidates can be elected instead. It is the voter mindset that has to be changed. As we have seen, "more" Democrats doesn't necessarily mean "better."

    •  Primaries. The purpose of this site is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AlexDrew, JeffW

      "more and better Democrats".  The time to work on "better" (=more liberal) is during primaries.  Once the primaries are over, work on "more" by defeating Rethuglicans.  

      "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Sen Carl Schurz 1872

      by Calamity Jean on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:27:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmmm (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cardinal, joe from Lowell, AlexDrew, VClib

    This data mostly reflects the fact that many conservative Democrats...not to mention liberal Republicans, are now calling themselves Independent.

    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

    by Pi Li on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 05:19:23 AM PST

  •  Now if I can just convince (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JVolvo, blueoasis

    Sen. McCaskill!

    ALL of our institutions have been hollowed out by the greed ethos. There are none left with heart intact or souls for that matter. So the zombie is all around us - me

    by glitterscale on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 05:19:36 AM PST

    •  She doesn't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glitterscale

      need convincing she is well aware of where she stands. She's a honorary chair of The Third Way. She may have a D after her name but she like most of the current lot of machine Dems has no interest in democratic let alone liberal governance. Pretty hard to convince any Democratic Third Way'er that they should actually be democratic and populist. They do a good job of convincing the D liberal voters that the new Democratic way forward is moderate and that liberal policy and governance is far left.

      They could not get away with this if not for the lunatic theocratic RW waiting in the wings. Corporate 1% imposed austerity and endless war on terra is the agenda of both parties. They don't call it the Third Way for nothing. Take ACA it's touted as liberal and a step towards national affordable decent health care when in fact it's the Heritage Foundations plan from way back.

      The partisan DC kabuki continues once these so called Dems. are elected and we the people are the marks who are forced to vote for lesser evils. Our choices boil down to the Koch Bros. vs Goldman Sachs and the tragedy is we get a 'two for' regardless of which party wins.            

  •  You could argue (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JVolvo, gustynpip, Calamity Jean

    that Democrats becoming more liberal has made them more effective in winning larger battles.

    The one that springs to mind is gay rights - where polling has completely shifted over the last 15 years.  It is also true that opposing military intervention is more popular among the general public than the DLC/TNR position.

    It is less clear to me what this means on economics.

    What would be interesting is to see if the perception of the word "liberal" has changed among the general population.  

    •  Gay rights is an example of external leverage (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gustynpip

      The impetus for gay rights didn't come from the party.  The party only embraced it when it became publicly acceptable.  If liberals had the focus and commitment on economic issues that gays have had on marriage equality we might have more influence on the party.  That's a problem for the left because we usually go all utopian like Occupy WS and fail to come together on an attainable but liberal economic agenda.

      •  How was Occupy WS utopian? It's easy to (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, demjim, Calamity Jean

        pin labels on someone, but let's stick to facts. Occupy Wallstreet had a huge impact and deserves a large portion of the credit for enough politicians to step forward and voice liberal positions that there can now be charts showing the effect.

        Occupy Wallstreet got a new conversation going.  It brought new people into the political process.  It made being a populist acceptable again, because it brought the inequality into the public's mind.  The MSM certainly fought that hard, and they managed to marginalize Occupy Wallstreet.  But they didn't succeed completely and the movement grew legs anyway. It might not be continuing under the name OW, but that was its genesis.

  •  go left! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

  •  When people are hurting (0+ / 0-)

    They tend to come home to the party that tries to help peopel in need.

    When the economy is robust, a horrible "Where's Mine?" mentality takes over and people tend to vote for the more radical anti-people party.

    "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

    by nightsweat on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:52:31 AM PST

  •  "Objective proof"? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell, skymutt

    . . .More like circumstantial data that isn't inconsistent with your theory.

    Democrats could be gaining favor because they're more liberal, or despite becoming more liberal (because Republicans are moving even farther from the center). There's no way to sort out those competing hypotheses with that data.

    Also, as any scholar (and many commenters here) will tell you, ideological self-identification is a problematic measure with limited applicability to these sorts of questions.

    I'm glad we're re-embracing the label, and I'm glad we're doing well vis-a-vis Republicans. But don't stake any strategic considerations on this limited set of evidence.  

    You won't believe what this gay dolphin said to a homeless child. First you'll be angry, but then at the 1:34 mark your nose will bleed tears of joy.

    by cardinal on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:56:39 AM PST

    •  Yes, this is about the label. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus, Simplify, cardinal, MKinTN

      I would say those charts demonstrate that the Dukakification of the word "liberal" is coming to an end. Liberal is no longer a dirty word.

      But does that correlate to growing support for liberal politics? And what do people mean when they say they are liberals?

      Those are complicated questions.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:26:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You're making the Masters of the Universe angry! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, blueoasis, Shockwave, MKinTN

    The Democratic Party leadership does not welcome their hatred.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:19:05 AM PST

  •  Define your terms. What is becoming more liberal? (0+ / 0-)

    These self-identification polls don't correlate to policy positions very well.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:23:46 AM PST

    •  The policy positions (0+ / 0-)

      of both party's do not in any way reflect what the people want or even vote for. In theory the Dem. party offers liberal policy but once in power they implement the same policy and agenda positioned and parsed as moderate. The only difference being that they are not theocratic lunatics and offer liberal sops that counteract the ass backward Republican RW extremist's. Even the liberal policy regarding GLBT rights, women's rights or any issues that are about equality or the common good are measured out in drops and used as bartering chips in the implementation of policy that means us and the planet harm. Victories for compromise that in the end result in policy that is decidedly anti-democratic and serves the owners of the place.            

      •  Right, just look at all the health care reform... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean, jdsnebraska

        the Republicans passed.

        Or all of the air regulations under Bush.

        Or their National Labor Relations Board appointees.

        Or the Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights.

        Or the CFPB.

        Yeah, really, there's very little difference between the parties on economic policy.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 10:22:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think that what thsi demonstrates (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gustynpip, blueoasis, Shockwave

    rather clearly is that the failures of Wall Street and the massive income inequality have caused a shift in opinion. Not just among Democrats, but among the population in general. Both middle class and lower class people are in huge trouble, and it's becoming everyone's self interest to defend themselves.

    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

    by martianexpatriate on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:55:37 AM PST

  •  This isn't news. They know that.they are only hurt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave, Fredamae

    with big donors.  They are more afraid of not getting that $$ than doing right by the people.  

  •  And one more chart from Gallup (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chris Bowers

     photo 748b1073-4109-42c9-856c-1480c2b551f3_zpsb5fa7f15.jpg

    http://www.gallup.com/...

    As you can see, since 1992, when Gallup began measuring ideology in its current format, at no time have more Americans identified as liberal.  Just ten years ago it was 40% conservative to 19% liberal, a 21 point spread.  Today it's 38% conservative to 23%, just a 15 point spread.  If that trend continues, in another ten years we're looking at possibly a difference in the single digits.

    "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

    by puakev on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 09:28:42 AM PST

  •  A final plot to nail this would be by AGE. (0+ / 0-)

    My guess is that ConservaDems are mostly an aging predominantly-white population segment, and that an actual majority of Democrats under age 40, maybe even under 50, are liberal/progressive.

  •  You also need to consider the Overton Window (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    What does it mean to be "liberal" in an environment that is shifted so far to the right?

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 10:08:45 AM PST

  •  its all about demographics (0+ / 0-)
  •  Your charts don't really indicate the ability (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, The Dead Man

    to solicit donations from billionaires upon "becoming more liberal."

    Which is essentially about all that is important in politics these days.

  •  Won't help me much. (0+ / 0-)

    Or any of us in super-gerrymandered states.

    When lots of people show up to vote, Democrats tend to win.

    by Audri on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 10:41:43 AM PST

    •  Not really. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW
      Won't help me much.
      Or any of us in super-gerrymandered states.
      There's two styles of gerrymandering.  One is for incumbent protection; each district has solid majorities of one party or the other so that districts seldom change parties.  Unless there's a big primary fight, the incumbent gets re-elected until retirement if s/he wants.

      The other style is for legislative domination; a few districts have huge majorities of what's intended to be the minority party in the legislature and a lot of districts have thin majorities of what's intended to be the majority in the legislature.  Because the majorities in these districts are small, the districts are easy to flip.  This second style of gerrymandering is what dominates most states today.  

      "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Sen Carl Schurz 1872

      by Calamity Jean on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:40:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  liberal (0+ / 0-)

    The word liberal is based upon the idea of generosity.  As more and more people come to realize that simple fact, they turn this way, especially in the face of Republican selfishness.  Yeah.

    Forty Percent Of U.S. Workers Make Less Than What A Full-Time Minimum Wage Worker Made In 1968.

    by jcrit on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 11:18:52 AM PST

  •  Public sentiment sure, but it hurts "donations" (0+ / 0-)

    of the large dollar amount

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:42:07 PM PST

  •  Not necessarily so (0+ / 0-)

    You can't say that this "objectively proves" that Democrats aren't even slightly hurt by becoming more liberal, because you do not know what would have happened if Democrats had remained as they were, or had become more conservative.  It is possible, for example, that Democrats may have made greater inroads into Republican ranks if they had not become more liberal, and therefore were hurt by becoming more liberal.

  •  I've always been very proud (0+ / 0-)

    of my liberal credentials!

    "The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?”---Bob Marley

    by lyvwyr101 on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 01:41:00 PM PST

  •  It is so interesting to see that (0+ / 0-)

    Gallup is all of sudden relevant on DKos this week. Why is that?

    New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

    by AlexDrew on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 02:54:24 PM PST

  •  I'm just sick and tired of "Democrats" (0+ / 0-)

    asking for support, but don't articulate what they stand for other than "I'm running and the Tea Party is out to get me".
    AND I'm sick of organizations who cast a large net to "elect Democrats", and support Blue Dogs.
    I want the names and voting records of ANY candidates who thrusts their palm in my direction, whether directly or via some liberal-sounding organization.
    My response for donations -
    Here are 40 "Democrats" stinking up the party by (reportedly) actively undermining diplomacy with Iran:
    SENATE
    Begich    Mark    D    AK
    Blumenthal    Dick    D    CT
    Booker    Cory    D    NJ
    Cardin    Ben    D    MD
    Casey    Bob    D    PA
    Coons    Chris    D    DE
    Donnelly    Joe    D    IN
    Gillibrand    Kirsten    D    NY
    Hagan    Kay    D    NC
    Landrieu    Mary    D    LA
    Manchin    Joe    D    WV
    Menendez    Bob    D    NJ
    Pryor    Mark    D    AR
    Schumer    Chuck    D    NY
    Warner    Mark    D    VA
    HOUSE
    Miller    George    D    CA-11
    Pelosi    Nancy    D    CA-12
    Waxman    Henry    D    CA-33
    Becerra    Xavier    D    CA-34
    Sanchez    Linda    D    CA-38
    Waters    Maxine    D    CA-43
    Hoyer    Steny    D    MD-5
    Cummings    Elijah    D    MD-7
    Van Hollen    Chris    D    MD-8
    Michaud    Mike    D    ME-2
    Levin    Sandy    D    MI-9
    Conyers    John    D    MI-13
    Peterson    Collin    D    MN-7
    Thompson    Bennie    D    MS-2
    Velazquez    Nydia    D    NY-7
    Crowley    Joseph    D    NY-14
    Engel    Eliot    D    NY-16,
    Lowey    Nita    D    NY-17,
    Slaughter    Louise    D    NY-25,
    DeFazio    Peter    D    OR-4,
    Brady    Robert    D    PA-1,
    Clyburn    James    D    SC-6,
    Johnson    Eddie    D    TX-30,
    Smith    Adam    D    WA-9,
    Rahall    Nick    D    WV-3

    I'm working on other lists for other issues, too.  NSA, TPP Fast-track, Citizens United Amendment, etc.

  •  Corruption thrives on the Right (0+ / 0-)

    This may be a bit off topic, but it should be observed that the more liberal/left, the less corruption, the more conservative/reactionary, the more corruption.   I saw that first hand in the Labor movement.  Now we see it among the governors.   There are exceptions of course, but as a rule of thumb, this holds true.

  •  Ummm... well... (0+ / 0-)

    I don't mean to toss some cold water but... you have to take into account a huge trend toward people becoming Independents -- leaving both the Republican AND Democrat parties.  So what you're "potentially" seeing is everyone except "more liberals" converting to Independent.  To be fair, the equivalent would be true of the Republicans.  Everyone except "more conservatives" converting to Independent.

    Now while that doesn't invalidate the stats or conclusion, it does have repercussions politically.  If all the moderates have become Independents and they are increasingly controlling the outcome of elections, then a "very liberal" Democrat facing a "moderate conservative" Republican is likely to lose the moderate Independent vote to the Republican.  Likewise, a "very conservative" Republican facing a "moderate liberal" Democrat is likely to lose the moderate Independent vote to the Democrat.

    Bigger Corporations = Smaller Individuals

    by Smeagel4T on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 09:46:32 PM PST

  •  I think "prove" is a bit overstating it, (0+ / 0-)

    and the term "liberal" is left undefined, so it's hard to see how that would relate to policy.

    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 04:27:00 PM PST

  •  As jobs are lost to automation, (0+ / 0-)

    off-shoring and efficiency, I think more and more people will come around to Liberal, or even Socialist belief.
    I look for a real push for minimum income legislation in near future.
    If the rich continues to get richer and the poor get to be the norm, somethings got to give, either we have revolution, or the haves will see it's in their best interest that people need money in order to buy their products.
    I predict some interesting times for my my grandkids.

    Severely Socialist 47283

    by ichibon on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 04:27:13 PM PST

  •  CHARTS AND GRAPHS AGAIN....... (0+ / 0-)
    Democrats are becoming more liberal...
    AND the basis for this tatement is what?

    because thirty years late some democrats support full rights for gays and legal pot??

    "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 04:33:30 PM PST

  •  Fox News.... (0+ / 0-)

    Of course Fox news and those are ready to help Democrats by giving them advice on how bad it is to be liberal.

    " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 04:52:03 PM PST

  •  Charts Proving No Harm (0+ / 0-)

    I express no opinion on your conclusion, but you are quite wrong that the charts prove anything of the sort.  It is abstractly quite possible that the Democrats would have gained even more ground had they not become more liberal.  And by the way, the self-described part is a problem, since it throws into question whether they have really moved that way.  What if, as discourse has moved to the right, they wrongly perceive themselves as more liberal?

  •  No, the rwingers are so right they make the (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats look more liberal. The Progressive Dems are liberal, but the moderate Dems are right of center. Look at what they vote for.

  •  We Live in a Liberal Democracy (0+ / 0-)

    As Gen. Wesley Clark once put it (roughly) there's nothing wrong with being a liberal, we live in a liberal democracy.

    The vast majority of people in the U.S. favor liberal policy, usually by majorities of 60-70%. The only reason we don't have liberal policy in the Democratic Party is because the money largely comes from very wealthy people and large companies, and none of them benefit from liberal policy.

    Democratic voters need to fix this by concentrating their time, money and votes on liberal candidates. They should simply ignore the others and let them get their time, money and votes from Wall Street. That means they need to accept that they are liberals and act accordingly.

  •  Your premise is flawed (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats have embraced corporate conservative policies at every turn. signing on to Republican health care reform, reforming welfare and trade policy to suit conservatives and now embracing cuts to food stamps and social security while promoting murder by drone, the police state and spying on every person in the world.

deminva, Thumb, paradox, Sylv, chuck utzman, nofundy, Bill in Portland Maine, Odysseus, MadRuth, Brainwrap, copymark, Trendar, glitterscale, Liberal Thinking, dfarrah, RunawayRose, greenbird, Emerson, Shockwave, wu ming, LynChi, donna in evanston, Wintermute, genethefiend, Hope Despite All, eeff, LeftHandedMan, gjohnsit, MarkInSanFran, dpeifer1949, Creosote, redwagon, susans, TracieLynn, cskendrick, brillig, wonkydonkey, annrose, whenwego, boadicea, roses, vmckimmey, Bill Roberts, ctsteve, splashy, Alna Dem, abs0628, wader, jdmorg, kharma, TexDem, Eyesbright, brainwave, defluxion10, loisquick, dkmich, econlibVA, peterj911, zerelda, Curt Matlock, Mosquito Pilot, jcrit, TexasLefty, Paul Hogarth, vacantlook, vivadissent, Armand451, oortdust, sawgrass727, WCFoster, Brecht, nailbender, Skennet Boch, humphrey, radarlady, ichibon, democracy inaction, sc kitty, Simplify, ajsuited, basquebob, stagemom, Laurence Lewis, Kevskos, Gary Norton, FutureNow, where4art, lotlizard, markdd, RichterScale, ord avg guy, Tool, minidriver, Rogneid, mightymouse, Alan Arizona, soyinkafan, kovie, Dolphin99, esquimaux, golem, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Kingsmeg, cybersaur, Mr Bojangles, profundo, dopper0189, seefleur, raincrow, kck, blueoasis, SherriG, bren, NBBooks, praenomen, MJ via Chicago, StrayCat, JVolvo, el cid, middleagedhousewife, thenekkidtruth, CA Nana, blueoregon, kurt, shaharazade, bstotts, bartcopfan, tegrat, ammasdarling, Sapere aude, pgm 01, BeninSC, hooper, Habitat Vic, Loudoun County Dem, camlbacker, EdSF, psychodrew, puakev, flumptytail, mommyof3, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, deepeco, Shadowmage36, jayden, TrueBlueMountaineer, bobswern, jnhobbs, pioneer111, CT Hank, Wreck Smurfy, TomP, MKinTN, thankgodforairamerica, mconvente, JeffW, MikePhoenix, poligirl, Sixty Something, Involuntary Exile, bythesea, Buckeye Nut Schell, Calamity Jean, tofumagoo, petulans, 3rdOption, BYw, JamieG from Md, SolarMom, maggiejean, Rhysling, J Ash Bowie, J M F, bleuet, Glacial Erratic, bsmechanic, socal altvibe, rbird, LibrErica, followyourbliss, MKSinSA, RJH, politicalceci, kevinpdx, stevenwag, sfarkash, Tortmaster, Leftcandid, ruscle, Railfan, smileycreek, FogCityJohn, The Jester, NJpeach, piers, kjoftherock, angelajean, LOrion, Polly Syllabic, Lost and Found, pixxer, rja, MsGrin, ericlewis0, cocinero, Oh Mary Oh, fiercefilms, stevenaxelrod, Michael Langenmayr, slice, tgrshark13, TheHalfrican, theKgirls, Onomastic, MidwestTreeHugger, Jazzenterprises, slowbutsure, sostos, implicate order, La Gitane, lexalou, GypsyT, CoExistNow, thomask, muddy boots, LSmith, IB JOHN, enhydra lutris, shevas01, poliwrangler, VTCC73, blue aardvark, Red Tom Kidd, Auriandra, allergywoman, No one gets out alive, quill, anodnhajo, isabelle hayes, DeadHead, Siri, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, belinda ridgewood, Free Jazz at High Noon, radical simplicity, Arahahex, New Minas, tytalus, Glen The Plumber, George3, Windowpane, ShoshannaD, GoGoGoEverton, kestrel sparhawk, Ashes of Roses, nomandates, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, koosah, jbob, remembrance, poopdogcomedy, alice kleeman, Aunt Pat, howabout, Jon Sitzman, BadKitties, marcr22, amparo fan, martianexpatriate, Frank Whitaker, DarthMeow504, Mark Mywurtz, RUNDOWN, Tronsix2, Dodgerdog1, pierre9045, luerwulf, jbsoul, Gurnt, joegoldstein, LilPeach, Darth Stateworker, hbk, Arkenstark, PrefersaPension

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site