Allow me to inject some reality into the endless squabbles about who's a "real Democrat"

[brooklynite]

First, let's be honest. "Democrat" is a self-definitional term. Absent a formal membership program, anyone who self-identifies as a Democrat is a Democrat. In States with partisan registration, anyone who registers as a Democrat is Democrat.

Second, and more importantly, "Democrat" is a political term. There is a "Democratic Party" which exists to engage in the political process by advocating for policies and getting self-identified and nominated candidates elected to various offices. And thus, anyone who is elected as a Democrat is a Democrat. They may as liberal as Elizabeth Warren; they may be as conservative as Mark Pryor.

Folks here can (and apparently will) argue endlessly about what defines "real" Democrats. But, to be blunt, debates on a blog site are likely to have almost no influence on who voters select in Arkansas, Louisiana or, for that matter, Massachusetts. The "real" Democrats are those who step away from their computers and engage with "real" Candidates and "real" voters.

[RC]

1. You're saying Joe Lieberman is/was a real Democrat?

And actual center to left of center politician?
Ah, don't think so.

[brooklynite]

2. Yes I do and yes he was...

He considered himself a Democrat.

The voters in Connecticut considered him a Democrat.

He organized with the Democrats in the Senate.

And more importantly, my point exactly. The fact that you DON'T think so, as posted on a blog, has what impact on the real political process?

[ReRe]

16. Is a person a Democrat....

... if they appear on stage at a Republican National Convention? Like Zell Miller or Lieberman? I don't think so.

[RC]

24. And what is the purpose of DU?

And more importantly, my point exactly. The fact that you DON'T think so, as posted on a blog, has what impact on the real political process?

So we just shut down Democratic Underground?

That (D) in no way means someone is a Democrat. The applies to 3rd Way, New Democrats, Blue Dogs, corporatist, or any other Right or Center person that enables the Republicans and Conservatives, over, "We the people...".

Where a person is in the political spectrum is much more important than any (D) or (R)

There are not enough Democrats on the Left side of Center and it shows.

[Cleita]

7. In retrospective, he seems to be slightly

to the left of the guy we elected.

[psiman]

18. Don't be Daft

Seriously, blurts like that make you sound dumber than those Teabagger morons over at Freeperstan.

[Cleita]

27. ...

[RC]

25. And therein resides the problem.

We didn't get who we voted for.

[steve2470]

3. +1 nt

[frazzled]

4. Reality, yes ... but don't make further assumptions.

Somehow, DU has decided that Elizabeth Warren is the most liberal senator. I'm not sure where that's come from, given her brief tenure ... but if we go by the traditional rankings handed out by the National Journal (and we don't have to go with them: but at least they have a method for going by actual votes in the Senate), she's far from that: at 73% liberal ranking, she's 31st most liberal senator this past year. Now I'm not saying that's exact, or fair, but here was their explanation.

This year, the vote ratings of another Massachusetts Democrat are eye-catching, but for the opposite reason. Elizabeth Warren, the newest liberal icon, is not the most liberal member of the Senate, according to this year's National Journal vote ratings. Warren's composite liberal score of 73.2 places her as the 31st-most-liberal senator. How could that be?

For starters, she broke with President Obama on a very significant piece of legislation, voting to repeal Obamacare's medical-device tax—a core element to the funding of the Affordable Care Act. Many manufacturers are based in Massachusetts, so this is an instance of her voting her constituency over her party. She didn't stop there, joining with many Republicans to "repeal or reduce the estate tax" if done in a fiscally responsible way. Warren even irked consumer advocates by opposing a measure that would have allowed states to mandate labeling of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. Those differences gave her a liberal percentile score of 75 on economic policy.

...

On foreign policy, Warren received a liberal percentile score of 54 . . . voting with almost every Senate Republican against an amendment to limit the legal rights of Guantanamo detainees brought to the United States.

...

On social issues, Warren lived up to her reputation, tying with 26 other Democratic senators as the most liberal.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2013-vote-ratings/why-elizabeth-warren-isn-t-the-most-liberal-senator-20140206

I know I'll get pilloried for printing this ... and it's not that I don't like Elizabeth Warren. I do. But I want to point out that this game of "who is the most liberal" is a losing battle. It can't really be defined. And if we're going to have accusations of "Obamabots," for instance, on this board, then I guess we should also start using the term "Warrenbots" for people who will defend her despite any vote.

Let's just take issue by issue folks, admitting that none of our politicians are perfect--and neither are we. We all have inconsistencies, exceptions to our own rules, occasional poor judgment, etc.

[joshcryer]

11. And she gets a 63/100 on That's My Congress, hardly liberal.

Or the same score as Third Way Mark Udall!

http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/legislative-scorecards/

Senators vote with their constituents, it's why we have Democrats who support crap like SOPA, why we have Democrats voting for MIC spending, etc.

[psiman]

19. Facts and Evidence: I Like That in an Argument

Warren is great, I just love her and I voted for her as many times as I was allowed (*)

But you are absolutely correct: she is no more the leftie saviour than Obama was, and if one places that burden on her then SHE WILL DISAPPOINT YOU.

As to the GMO labelling, the people of Massachuestts tend to be quite liberal but we are not stupid. There is no broad based support for such a useless program, and here again Warren votes the interests of her constituents rather than the service of some faux radical agenda.

But I really like the work she is doing in consumer protection, and in going after the banksters. That is why I want to to stay in the Senate, where she is a good fit and will accomplish a great deal, rather than chasing mirages in the White House.








(*) Once. For the benefit of our lurking Freeper and Red State brethren, this is what we call a joke.

[dreamnightwind]

23. Thanks for that post

though I think somewhere a very important point is being missed here.

Labels are funny things, I'm no expert at their exact meaning, if there is one.

For one thing, I welcome anyone posting honest info and examining Warren's record. Though I am a Warren supporter, I still feel I should learn more about her. In large part I seek an alternative to the DLC/Third Way Dems, those who prioritize corporate needs over citizen or even human needs.

Warren was a Republican, something that does bother me.

The important point being missed may not fit well into traditional left-right metrics, I don't know. It has to do with relation to power. Is a politician willing to, and do they have a proven track record of, opposing powerful wealthy interests to better the lives of the rest of us?

How does that fit into the National Journal's ratings? I could do the research, not much time though and it isn't my main point. But I'm not so sure the liberal/conservative thing is the whole story, or is being measured with the right criteria.

Maybe Warren isn't that liberal but is a fearless champion of the 99% (I'd need to take a closer look at the estate tax issue to see if her position on this is being accurately represented, but I have seen her make many very bold and courageous stands against the powerful interests where I am quite certain Obama and Clinton would not).

To me a real Democrat is someone who fights tirelessly for the little person.

Sanders is of course not a real Democrat but fits my criteria better than any Democrat I know of. So perhaps the real Democrat concept is not worth much, hell perhaps being a Democrat is not worth much, if they won't fight for us.

Populist?

[1000words]

5. The central premise of the OP is the rejection of labels ...

And then you undermine it with the last sentence.

Sorry, your body of work, up until this point, demands I find a 50 pound sack of salt.

[psiman]

20. Huh?

"Get off your dead ass and go work for victory" is a fine summation to the OP.

Perhaps you are not aware, but we have an election coming up in seven months and there is a very real possibility that the Republicans might take the Senate and make the gridlock in Washington that much worse.

Blurting out stupid comments on some leftie blog accomplishes exactly nothing towards advancing the left agenda.

Working with the candidates, the real candidates that we actually have as opposed to the fantasy candidates that we might like to have, and reaching out to potential voters in the community is the key to victory.

[Jamaal510]

6. This reminds me of

what the RWNJs were doing in the 2012 GOP primaries, where people like Texas Governor "Oops!" were accusing others of not being true conservatives. In reality, he, Romney, Santorum, Bachmann, etc. all ultimately support the same agenda. Just like how the Democrats and others on the left side of the spectrum are (overall) supportive of the same agenda. At worst, we usually have the Blue Dogs agreeing with everyone else about maybe 70% of the time, but even then, that is still not too bad.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. I suspect that those who demand only "real Democrats" hang out here or...

run for office...

aren't real Democrats themselves.

They point to FDR, but happily forget the machines in New York City, Boston and Chicago and the Yellow Dogs down South who Lyndon Johnson chased into the Republican Party.

"Real Democrats" spent a large part of our history as real scumbags.

[flamingdem]

9. I don't think people who insult Obama on DU are interested in "real Democrat"

arguments. They see themselves as above day to day politics.

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. A big "D" Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party in one of these states of the United States.

A little "d" democrat is someone who believes in the ideals of democracy such as government elected by the people. Small "d" democrat is self-definitional. Big "D" Democrat is a member of the party. What defines the Democratic Party is it's platform. The Platform changes from election to election.

2012 Democratic Party Platform

1964 Democratic Party Platform

1944 Democratic Party Platform

1856 Democratic Party Platform

The fact that the 1856 Democratic Party Platform looks remarkably like the Tea party is one of those historical oddities. Over time, parties change.

[joshcryer]

12. And it's ratified at the convention, by the delegates we select.

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. Delegates selcted by big "D" Democrats, yes. Members of the party elect the delegates.

It is the document that defines the party.

[joshcryer]

14. Delegates tend to be extremely diverse, too.

A true diverse representation of the American population and people who identify as Democrats. DU had an uproar because "God" was added to the 2012 platform at the last minute, likely because some of the delegates felt that they weren't being represented. Of course, there was little praise for the fact that gay marriage was added to the platform (and likely marijuana in 2016!), health care for all, no cuts to Social Security, workers rights, equal pay for equal work, stuff like that.

The Democratic Party Platform is increasingly liberal, I'd say it's 90% liberal if not more.

[Agnosticsherbet]

15. Ye, it has grown more liberal.

I think that occurred because the tides of history that made the country more conservative peaked with the election of Bush II and continues to recede. Extreme conservatism doesn't answer the needs of the American people, and became too extreme and self limiting with a population that has grown increasingly diverse and disproportionately poor.

My point about the whole argument of who is or is not a real Democrat is that, a member of the Democratic Party, even if that person does not share the Parties growing liberalism, is a real Democrat, even if that person is not a liberal. I know several people that vote predominantly for Democratic candidates, but are registered as independents. Those people may be democrats, but they are not real Democrats.

[davidthegnome]

17. A fair point.

There is no group that sits around and says, "Okay, this person can be a democrat and that one can't." There is no true definition or standard to go by to say that someone either is or isn't a democrat - other than simple registration or party membership. We've got a mighty big tent.

I think you underestimate the power of blog sites and forums though. A lot of ideas that take root here do make it pretty well up the chain, and a lot of what we think about and talk about here does have some kind of ripple effect. There are precious few places where you can talk so much about (and read so much about) politics, world events, general ideas and opinions. For the most part, this is now done on the internet, through blog sites and/or forums. The politicians, elected and hopefuls, might be the ones who ultimately write the legislation, but it's ideas and passion like we have here that gets them there.

Also, I'd like to point out that the members of DU are, generally, very "real" voters. We've even had candidates and elected officials here from time to time. We don't decide who is a democrat and who isn't, but we definitely have some level of significance on a grander scale.

[DeSwiss]

21. Yes, the term Democrat is amorphous.

Even this guy was a Democrat at one time:


Although most people remember him when he looked like this:


John C. Calhoun
7th Vice President of the United States
Political party Democratic
(1839–1850)

- Times change.........

[polynomial]

22. The real and imaginary complex domain of politics

There is an unholy element to current events in politics besides being a real Democrat and an imaginary Democrat, or the same for Republicans being real or imaginary.

Imaginary Democrats being called Blue dogs, or simply bought off creepy types that sell out to the best lobby bidder. Or Republican Rhino’s that sell out for more of the same. It’s no wonder

We have Pandora politics of third kind the third element in that candidates like McCain offer up Palin imaginations, or Bush with his horn mountain top bugler for smoking out the enemy dead or alive, Perry who worries about his boots in debates, all of them dance around the complex plane appearing as half man and half new age political peter pan.

Modern Journalism in hate radio, and cable relentlessly dumb down the electorate in those rhetorical perversions called political zoophobia. From my view this animal political essence of bestiality invites notions in role playing like “The eight canine heroes of the House of Satomi “. Suggestions as these could be physiological fiction, but incredibly passionate. That is a one percent tool to sift out chaos confusion while tapping the treasury.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Both of my Senators are more liberal than Warren. Why is she your standard for 'as liberal

as it gets'? Are you stating your spectrum as 'Pryor to Warren'? Why are you misrepresenting the composition of the Party?

[brooklynite]

28. She's not my "standard"...

....but many of the people here who complain that more moderate Democrats (say, Hillary Clinton) aren't "real" Democrats seem to gravitate to her as an preferred standard bearer.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Ah I mistakenly took your OP at face value, as being about election of Democrats

but it is in fact just more Meta bullshit about 'many of the people here'. I'm caught up now.

[polichick]

29. What's your point?

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. I'm a Democrat because:

a) I say so.
b) that's enough.

No one else is entitled to an opinion on that matter.