Democrats in the U.S. Shift to the Left
Source: Gallup
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Democratic candidates for the 2016 presidential nomination face a significantly more left-leaning party base than their predecessors did over the last 15 years. Forty-seven percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now identify as both socially liberal and economically moderate or liberal. This is compared with 39% in these categories in 2008, when there was last an open seat for their party's nomination, and 30% in 2001.
This combined group of Democrats consists of 25% who are pure liberals -- identifying as liberal on both social and economic issues -- and 22% who are social liberals but moderate on the economy. At the other end of the ideological spectrum, a scant 7% of Democrats are socially and economically conservative. Most of the rest of Democrats have more mixed ideological leanings, with 18% moderate on both social and economic issues, and 12% socially moderate or liberal but economically conservative.
These data are from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll, which since 2001 has included questions asking Americans to rate themselves as conservative, moderate or liberal on social and economic issues. The trends for the entire country show a shift toward more liberal self-identification, and that trend is even more pronounced among Democrats on social issues. More than half of Democrats (53%) describe themselves as socially liberal at this point, up from 35% in 2001. On the economic front, Democrats remain most likely to say they are moderate, but among the rest who don't call themselves moderate, economically liberal has become a more frequent self-label than economically conservative.
Read more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183686/democrats-shift-left.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles
...and a good chunk of them like Hillary Clinton.
geretogo
(1,281 posts)swilton
(5,069 posts)appalachiablue
(41,147 posts)Enough is enough!
K & R!
marble falls
(57,114 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)More liberal is better for both, but much better for Bernie, if people start to understand the reality of our situation.
brooklynite
(94,607 posts)By DU standards perhaps not. By real-word Democratic standards definitely yes.
frylock
(34,825 posts)brooklynite
(94,607 posts)Last time round, Hillary Clinton got as many votes as Barack Obama, so either a good chunk of liberals like her as well, or there are far fewer liberals in the Party than you'd like. Either way, that's a problem for Benrie.
Add to which, polling has shown that Hillary's leads over Bernie don't drop when you look at self identified liberals:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/07/no-hillary-clintons-does-not-have-a-liberal-problem/
frylock
(34,825 posts)that was 2008, before we were royally skull fucked by the very people that are bankrolling Clinton's campaign. People are righteously pissed off, and are they done with the status quo. So while you're hobnobbing with like-minded individuals at wine socials and $2700 per head conversations, social media is blowing up for Sanders.
I'd also like to remind you that despite getting as many votes as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton still LOST.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Obama "campaigned" as a liberal to the left of Hillary, convinced enough that he was sincere...and he won. Of course AFTER the election he was all like "liberal what?", but you get the picture.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)he had the fucking tea party to deal with
Jumpin Jack Flash
(242 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Maybe in Bizarro land.
brooklynite
(94,607 posts)...was from her Senate campaign, before she ran in 2008. Didn't stop people voting for her then.
brooklynite
(94,607 posts)Now all you need to do is explain to 18+ million Democrats who don't hang out on political blogs who that is and why they should care.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)That is worth fighting.
brooklynite
(94,607 posts)Unless you've got hard evidence, I'm guessing that's not the same as the "many of them" who vote in the non-blogosphere world.
on point
(2,506 posts)The need is not for people to convince others that HRC is not liberal, but for her to convince people that she is through policy positions and repudiation of her right of center economic positions.
I'll grant that she is slightly liberal on social issues, but slow to move. Does she now support ending the drug war, especially for Marijuana? Does she support prosecuting the Bush War crimes for torture and the invasion of Iraq? I don't think so.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Bernie is going to eat her lunch in the debates.
She will be in front of millions...if she sings, dances, give wishy-washy answers or just will not give a straight yes/no answer...it will show clear as day.
Bernie will have clear, concise, honest and authentic answers to all questions...she can't do that.
No more Corprotists.
brooklynite
(94,607 posts)I'm not worried.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)and we won't need him to explain why he was for "it," before he was against "it". I hope she will have her stances straight by debate time.
He won't just do well...he'll do great.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)between the dem debates and the rep debates. It will be night and day. I may watch the rep debates just for the entertainment value. So far we have three decent candidates- they have about 30 clowns.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Do you think we'll know, after the debates, if she approves or disapproves of TPP? If she approves of Medicare cuts? If she will consider raising the ss cap?
Of course not. She'll be protected by the moderators.
Beartracks
(12,816 posts)... Those damned talking point responses to questions. The ones that spinmeisters have to explain were "clear" and "bold" visions in hopes that you forget the confusion you felt when you heard them.
=====================
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)The Wizard
(12,545 posts)to shift the center to the far right. Democrats are moving back to the center. Since when did common decency and common sense become leftist?
We have to take back the language and define ourselves. We cannot be passive and expect reason in the face of a propaganda assault by the radicals who have seized the Republican Party.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)and coming back - but there is still a very wide gulf. I've not changed my views in a long time, but the easily swayed, TV gobbling followers sure lurched away from me as they were advertised at and told to for many years.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)But Faux. which on the FCC license (keep getting likes on facebook for pointing this out) is an Entertainment organization , they aren't a news channel. So people of the Conservative belief have been thinking what they believe is king. Which it's really BS.. and there's only so much BS people can take before theres a revolt. The righties are getting a weird civil war alright but not the one they were thinking (race war) more like a 4 way war. Liberals vs Conservatives in the Democratic party and Koch Brothers Vs The GOP in the Republican party. and voters caught in the middle.
brooklynite
(94,607 posts)...it's a cable channel; FCC has no jurisdiction.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)brooklynite
(94,607 posts)mpcamb
(2,871 posts)I think it was the leadership and their moneybags sources that pushed the discussion to the right.
Weak-willed, weak-kneed dems sniffed the air for money and then followed.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)We have too many Conservatives in the Democratic party. and some of us have been trying to get people to wake up and see that. Would seem that some of this is paying off. (go Bernie) ie I doubt Bernie would have worked in 2012 but now people are starting to understand at least Democrats. that someones playing a game and they don't like it one bit well politics has always been a game but it's usually been rather fair .
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Go figure
brooklynite
(94,607 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)No, I meant Supply Side Clinton.
brooklynite
(94,607 posts)You knew that Hillary Clinton voted against the Bush tax cuts, right?
And then voted to rescind them in 2007?
Do you in fact have ANY evidence that she opposes progressive taxation?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and what the political system gives them.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)and it's happening to THEM more and more
blackhawk2415
(10 posts)Interesting Read, Definitely good to know.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)No matter who it is. What's the point?
brooklynite
(94,607 posts)...I fully expect the Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton in the General Election. My point was that a lot of liberals will be supporting her in the Primary, notwithstanding what the anti-Hillary people have been saying about Liberals demanding a "real" Democrat.
Beartracks
(12,816 posts)... if they have to, since the alternative is "not liberal AT ALL."
Seriously, no one should pack their marbles and go home. Unless your plan is to SUPPORT the Republican, then -- yes -- hold your nose and vote for the Dem candidate that might not have been your first choice. Your vote will at least counter a Republican vote, so take some cheer from that.
Stump for Bernie throughout the primaries; BUT if he doesn't get the nomination, then start stumping for Hillary even if she's a corporate Democrat. I really cannot fathom that a corporate Democrat is NEARLY AS BAD as a corporate Republican who will be kissing the Tea Party's ass all the time.
Then again, I could be wrong.
============================
Fearless
(18,421 posts)brooklynite
(94,607 posts)...and feel free to explain your scenario where Sandrrs wins the national Primary process
Fearless
(18,421 posts)brooklynite
(94,607 posts)1. Her ability to get votes: 18 million in 2008 running against one of the strongest candidates we've had in decades (no no, Bernie Sanders is NOT Barack Obama)
2. Her ability to raise the funds that will be needed after Iowa and New Hampshire, when States become larger (making retail politics limited in effectiveness) and multiple States (many less liberal than Vermont) are in play at the same time.
3. Her CONSISTENT level of support as reflected in polling. In 2008, Clinton polled 25-30% nationally, allowing Obama to shot past her. This time around, Clinton has been consistently polling 60% for the past year. Whenever Sanders has gone up, Clinton hasn't gone down. Add to which the same scale of victory has been seen in State polls in Pennsylvania, Florida and South Carolina.
4. Her CONSISTENT ability to poll at or above the levels of her likely Republican opponents, increasing voters' confidence that she'll be a strong nominee in the General Election.
Okay, your turn.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)brooklynite
(94,607 posts)Thanks.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)brooklynite
(94,607 posts)Bottom line, she got as many votes as Obama did, and Sanders is not a competitive as Obama was.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)At this point in the race.
Bottom line. SHE LOST!
yurbud
(39,405 posts)and their ideas have not worked for the vast majority of Americans.
Now it's time for them to step aside and let the FDR Democrats drive the bus. The DLCers will be just fine in their new jobs on K Street.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Beartracks
(12,816 posts)Was there some kind of Obama backlash or something?
====================
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)So great in the polls I might be concerned. Hillary is running a great fifty state campaign, she is giving her stand on the issues and in the last few days she is very much in the right position.
Red1
(351 posts)Wouldn't believe any information, statistic or piece of data from that org.
mahina
(17,669 posts)It's about damned time.
Beauregard
(376 posts)Well, that explains a lot of the illiberal, authoritarian, right wing comments here on DU. It also explains why we have two right wing parties in the US, just like the UK! Sad, isn't it?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I don't understand who that 7 percent of Democrats would be.
Beauregard
(376 posts)That's what they are called.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)The way all politicians do it. Just say what you think the population expects (not what they will get). And say it in a nice folksy way. Just watch Obama. The TPP. From the official website:
https://ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives
The Obama Administration is pursuing TPP to unlock opportunities for American manufacturers, workers, service providers, farmers, and ranchers to support job creation and wage growth.
Easy Peasy.