Base, schmaise... I keep seeing all this talk about a "base"...

[TreasonousBastard]

one for us and one for them.

But does a "base" really exist, and does it mean anything if it does?

When I was growing up in NYC, Tammany Hall still counted. The "base" was the city itself, and organized by an army of ward heelers who made sure everyone voted the right way and didn't complain. Reform Dems came in and threw out the old party hacks, but not so much the established ways of doing things.

Does "Mayor Daley" mean nothing any more? Huey Long? Have we forgotten that for a hundred years the "base" of a large part of the party was the Klan?

The Plains states may have had most of what we now think of as progressive Democrats. Most of them ran in the Progressive Party, though, and the tiny Democratic party tended to support the Progressives. William Jennings Bryan was the biggest of them all, but we all know how he ended.

When I lived in Elizabeth, NJ, we actually had 3 Democratic Parties. Republicans were nonexistent, so all the fighting and power plays were internal.

Where I live now, I am a member of both town and county committees, but I'm occasionally the last to know about any decisions and I'm far from alone in being an outside insider. I don't go to the county annual committee meeting any more because it starts with a few speeches, awards to people I never heard of, and then a half hour of discussion we can't really hear bout things we never heard of, and then we vote. Amazingly, everything passes, and we are invited to the annual dinner that starts at a thousand bucks, and we adjourn.

My point in all this?

As much as I complain about the party, somehow we have managed to come up with some damn good candidates (most of the time, anyway). I have almost never had a problem voting or campaigning for any of them. At least not any serious problems.

I have rarely heard any talk about "electability" through all of this. Even when I ran for office one year (I lost-- not that electable after all). Somehow, we always move the conversation to who can do the best job in the office.

That's how I look at next year's election. Not who is high on primary polling, but who is actually capable of running this place-- hiring competent people, having the proper connections for advice and counsel, and having a powerful, yet pleasant and informed persona...

Who do I trust, not who can win.

My top three for that trust are Biden, Harris, and Klobuchar, not necessarily in that order. If there is still any question of electability, it is not against Trump, which is a given, but against whoever else may run in his place.

[NurseJackie]

1. "Base" is not a synonym for "furthest possible left"...

"Base" is not a synonym for "furthest possible left"... it is used to describe LOYAL Democrats who support the party by volunteering, canvassing, donating, envelope-stuffing, manning phone-banks... and the "base" will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS vote for Democrats.

The "base" doesn't try to hold the party hostage. The "base" doesn't need to be persuaded to support the party's nominee. The "base" doesn't sit-back and wait to be validated. The "base" doesn't try to sabotage Democrats. The "base" is practical and willing to compromise. The "base" respects all viewpoints. The "base" understands that without compromise, then there can be no progress. The "base" doesn't indulge their vanities and pride by promoting an "all or nothing" philosophy. The "base" doesn't pout and vote third-party. The "base" are mature enough to accept losses and move on without needing to "punish the party" by withholding support.

[The Mouth]

3. Well said

There are several different descriptions, ranging from 'vote blue no matter who' to all sorts of purity tests, but your definition is the best I've read on D.U.

[Demsrule86]

8. You hit a home run...nurse!!

[treestar]

9. +1

A good description.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I never said it was. Actually, my point is that there is no real "base"-- it's a moving target...

We may be speaking at cross purposes-- I'm not dissing party loyalty, or commitment to principles, just that the term "base" has been abused to where doesn't have all that much meaning.

[NurseJackie]

14. ...

I wasn't making an accusation or correction... I was just observing and elaborating.

[Hortensis]

17. But the Democratic/liberal party base has been remarkably STABLE

and consistent over not just decades but centuries. You're being mislead by pernicious attempts by scoundrels to hide that and push divisive and demoralizing agendas by claiming our base is whatever they say it is from election to election, or just article to article.

Remember what the word "base" means -- it's the heavy solid thing, in buildings the foundation, that provides stability and keeps the rest from from falling over. In parties it's all the people who stick, who can be counted on. They're all who vote reliably.

Although the name under which the liberal bases of various eras gathered have sometimes changed, both in our short term as today's Democratic Party and over the life of our nation, those in new generations who became our base have always believed in essentially the same liberal principles, ideals, and kinds of goals that were held by those who joined the original liberal party established by Jefferson and Madison.

That wonderful stability and commitment comes from liberalism's long and strong intellectual tradition, as well as from our own personality-based orientations to equality and other liberal ideals. People truly committed to equality don't go off in a snit because a white woman or black man was nominated or because a socialist wasn't. Ours is the party of equality, of those who believe all men are entitled to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, of those who believe in government of, by and for the people. Our base is all those who stand up for that every election.

Btw, this is very unlike the reactionary founderings of the base of the conservative party, who lack an ideological anchor and thus can be lead far astray from what should be conservative values by harnessing their fearful reactions to almost everything.

[Cha]

22. Exactly.. that's the opposite of "base".. The base

are the people who are always there for our party.. volunteering, making calls, sending out information. knocking on doors.. etc etc..

It wasn't our "base" who stayed home in 2010.. that's for damn sure.

Our base looks at the big picture.. like the Planet, SCOTUS, people getting enough food to eat and shelter.

Well said, Jackie.

[beachbumbob]

2. supporting a person who has no chance in winning is a fools errand filled with

wasted time and effort. May work if you an idealist but doesn't work if you want a trump not be elected or reelected. Just saying.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Where did I say it isn't? the last thing I would want to see is a suicidal campaign where...

supporters are all full of piss and vinegar supporting the perfect candidate-- perfect for that 10% of the population that sees that perfection.

Nope. A reasonable shot at winning an election is a starting point-- but just a starting point.

[brooklynite]

4. Back in 1984 I was absolutely certain Mondale could run the country...

...and I was absolutely certain he couldn't win. The first baseline has to be who can get elected. Within that group, you're then welcome to pick on any basis you want.

[DownriverDem]

5. Why labels?

I can't stand the label progressive when it means we are against the Democrats. I am a proud member of the Democratic Party (Elected precinct delegate, member of the executive board of the 12th Congressional District - Michigan). We don't need division and yet I get attacked for being a proud Dem. I don't get it. They come to the Democratic Party and attack us. Why?

[Demsrule86]

6. Yeah that has been our strategy but consider the results...not working out so well...only

a person elected will have an opportunity to do a good job...you must consider a 50 state strategy and a big tent approach. It is the only way, we have ever held majorities...the Senate map clearly shows this and trying to elect a progressive in a senate race in a purple states is madness...you field a candidate who can win in that state. It is our only path to a Senate majority and to hold the house...and to win the presidency as well. A president will never be our 'savior'...we need to save ourselves by making good choices.

[mcar]

10. The base of the Democratic party is women, primarily WOC

You really want to "base, shmase" us?

[oldsoftie]

11. Trump is making the mistake of playing to HIS "base".

The "base" on either side is not enough to win the election. You have to get the folks who describe themselves as "independents".

[efhmc]

16. I actually thought this OP was going to be about the GOP "base".

I found some very interesting opinions and thoughts about our party. My PO is a changing combination of several of those opinions and thoughts. I love our candidates, but have my favorites. As a feminist, I thought we would have a strong woman as president by now. But being burned by our misogynistic country so badly in 2016*, I have very strong doubts that a female can/will be elected in my lifetime, (Calm down. I am old) or ever. This scares me to my core. We cannot have DJT back in office. People still say things like, "no woman would be able to deal with strong male leaders of this or that country". Sure they can but there is some inbred prejudice in many including other women which just does not see that capability in a female. Of course, the pres could just make them their buddy like the big white guy who "won" in 2016 did and does.
(* Yes. I know Hillary won by 3 million plus and voters' suppression kept even that number down but the vote for her would have been a super landslide if this country were not so backward.)

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Huh? "no woman would be able to deal with strong male leaders..."

Who is so ignorant to not have heard of Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel?

(Or Nancy Pelosi, for that matter)

[efhmc]

23. What can I say? These people are idiots. We have a large pool of them in our country.

[oldsoftie]

21. The polls for several years show that the US is very open to electing a woman President.

But it wouldnt be just ANY woman. Just like, before Obama, people used to think we'd never elect a black president. Colin Powell polled very high in both 96 & 2000. I think if he had run, he could very well have won.

There have been many women in charge of major countries. And dealing with violent male leaders of OTHER countries too

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. I don't think there is a monolithic "base" among Democrats as there is

with the GOP, which seems to have a hive-mind, Borg mentality by which they agree about everything. Democrats don't agree about everything. I don't think the so-called left or progressive wing can be regarded as the base, although that seems to be a common assumption, because a substantial number of Democrats don't fall into that description (as is evident by the amount of support for candidates other than Sanders and Warren). As far as I'm concerned, the candidate I'll support is the one who is most likely to beat Trump, and I care not at all where that candidate falls on the ideological spectrum.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. That's pretty much my point. Remember Will Rogers' famous words...

"I am not a member of any organized political party -- I'm a Democrat"

[loyalsister]

19. I dislike the term

I think it's ambiguous, arguable and not a very useful term. I understand the intended meaning of "base" to be a description of a group of voters.

I would like to think it means voters who see themselves most represented in a party platform. But I think there is too much subjectivity for it to be applied that way. People decide their self interests for themselves, while outside sources (media and political parties) try to impose objective definition. So it isn't very effective in that context.

When I want to describe voters, I try to focus on their actions. I would call the people you described- loyal supporters.