At what point is a self-proclaimed "Democrat" not a Democrat?

[MannyGoldstein]

Are there any bondaries to what constitutes a Democrat? If so, what are they?

Does being a Democrat require certain core beliefs and a track record compatible with those beliefs, or is politics just "color war" - choose a color and start fighting?

[MohRokTah]

1. Rule #1, there is no such animal as a DINO

Any and all are welcome as Democrats.

It doesn't mean their core beliefs are going to fully align with the goals of the party.

Will Rogers said it best...

"I belong to no organized party, I'm a Democrat."

[MannyGoldstein]

3. So if Ted Cruz or Louis Gohmert became Democrats,

you'd be down with that?

Doesn't seem right.

[MohRokTah]

11. Damned straight I'd be down with that.

It would mean their base would utterly abandon them.

And they'd have to accept the party is not going to move in the direction of the policy positions they held before joining the party.

Ain't gonna happen.

So for the two of them to join the party, a mighty revelation of how wrong they have been would have to take place, and that is a powerful thing. A big fucking deal, if you will.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

107. I'm sure we have members like them in the Democratic Party

not in our area but....

[Luminous Animal]

16. So, you would have voted for George Wallace.

[MohRokTah]

19. Nope

The Democratic Party of the mid-sixties, especially in Alabama, bears no resemblance to the Democratic Party from 1972 on.

[joshcryer]

51. If you reject the majority of the platform, you have no place.

You should either become independent or a Republican if you support the majority of their platform.

[Ken Burch]

63. At one point a few years ago, a Dem congressman from the South

announced that he'd vote for Boehner rather than Pelosi for speaker.

Wouldn't THAT guy be a DINO?

And what about the Dem senators who campaigned for Joe Lieberman in the fall of '06 against the actual Democratic nominee?

Or the ones who wouldn't vote for cloture on the ACA until everything that actually mattered was removed from it?

Or the Dem officeholders who endorsed the Republican presidential ticket in various years?

NONE of the above count as DINO's?

The Democratic Party has no right to expect any loyalty from its right wing, even as it DEMANDS it from the always-kept-out-in-the-cold progressive wing?

How d'ya figure?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

117. I seem to recall 'independent' Lieberman got a lot of support

from DC Dems, far more than Democrat Lamont.

And then, of course, that backstabber continued to get rewarded for his end run around the process. I think a lot more states could use those 'sore loser' laws that prevent you from running indy if you lose a primary.

[JDPriestly]

64. Does a Democrat support Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Does a Democrat believe in "right-to-work" laws?

Does a Democrat support getting rid of the EPA?

Does a Democrat want to privatize education?

Does a Democrat vote against a candidate based on race?

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. with the way that the parties are shifting right-ward, I call myself more a "liberal" than "Democrat

Odd - I've not really changed (well, drifted even more to the left)...but the playing field sure seems to have shifted!

[MannyGoldstein]

8. I hear you! nt

[bluesbassman]

45. I'm with you on that. I consider myself a Liberal who votes Democrat.

Simple as that.

[Michigander_Life]

4. Easy answer: when they vote for other-than-Democrats

[MannyGoldstein]

5. So it's basically color war?

Sounds like that's what you're saying.

[Michigander_Life]

6. No

If someone claims to be a Democrat but votes Republican, they're not a Democrat. It's not a color war. It's a simple answer to an easy question.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Seems like it's exactly color war

I fight for my team only because it's my team.

Or am I missing some nuance?

[Gravitycollapse]

13. It seems like that because that's actually the argument being made.

That what matters is if you vote one way or the other according to party ideology, not whether it makes sense outside of the context of the Party. This makes conflict meaningless.

Why do I disagree with Republicans? Not because they call themselves Republicans but because of what they believe and do. Labels are simply easy ways of identifying our general agendas. They should not be targets on your forehead.

[Ed Suspicious]

26. Right. So what makes a democrat? Is the only requirement "not republican?'

[Gravitycollapse]

30. What makes a Democrat is the party ideology.

And nothing more. It's a label.

[Ed Suspicious]

31. Right. I think the point of the OP might be that the tent is too big. Does the third way represent

democrats? Is fiscal conservatism a tenet of democratic philosophy?

[pampango]

77. One can be a liberal/progressive/socialist and vote for non-Democrats, but

it is hard to be a Democrat and not vote for Democrats.

[LWolf]

9. It's evolution.

Labels evolve with the rest of the language and with society. A Democrat is someone who is currently registered with the Democratic Party. Party ideology evolves in the perpetual battle for political power.

That's why, while I'm a registered Democrat, I'm not a partisan. My position on issues might evolve as I learn more and experience more, but they don't change for political expediency, and they don't evolve because the Democratic Party does. I have certain core beliefs that remain when the party tosses them under the bus. And, unfortunately, I, and my core beliefs, are currently under the bus.

[NRaleighLiberal]

10. Move over - I am under the bus as well...

[LWolf]

21. It's getting crowded under hear.

<scooting over>

Welcome to the crowd.

[liberal_at_heart]

12. I guess some are comfortable with the changing beliefs of the party. I certainly am not. I voted

straight democratic ticket for 19 years, but things have changed so much over the years I just can't do it anymore. I no longer consider myself a democrat. I consider myself an independent although truth be told I'm probably closer to being a socialist.

[SidDithers]

14. When they would have preferred that McCain had won instead of Obama...nt

Sid

[leftstreet]

17. What would have been different?

Not knocking Obama. He's a mediocre President, but probably a really nice guy

But what major policy differences would we have seen?

[seabeyond]

20. Supreme Court would look different. Nt

[leftstreet]

23. The SC that just said anti-abortion whacks can...nevermind

I see your point though

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. And we'd be fight 2 or 3 more wars. eom.

[seabeyond]

29. i think so. i do not know what will happen in iraq, but i think obama's history with these

situations are pretty good. tons way more confident than if mccain was in.

[seabeyond]

22. Aca, doma. Betcha Syria, Libya would look different. Iraq and afg worse. Nt

[leftstreet]

25. The GOP could NEVER have passed mandated health insurance

Never, never, ever, they wouldn't even have tried

Although it's certain they wouldn't have included expanded Medicare in their version of the ACA

[Art_from_Ark]

35. And yet, Romney got something similar passed in Massachusetts

Mandated health insurance to be purchased from private, for-profit insurance companies actually sounds like a Republican wet dream.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/11/13/romneycare-vs-obamacare-key-similarities-differences/

[leftstreet]

37. The GOP was hated in 2008

The Bush Wars, the bank bailouts, the bullshit. Their party was totally kicked to the curb by voters

They couldn't have passed mandated insurance on a national scale. No way

[Art_from_Ark]

40. And yet, the GOP bounced back in 2010

They were hated in 2008, but recaptured the House just 2 years later. If Romney had won in 2012, he would have had the House, and likely a Senate that would be willing to play along with him.

Forcing people to buy health insurance from for-profit companies doesn't really sound like a Democratic ideal to me.

[seabeyond]

43. i am sure those that have pre existing are not gonna really agree with you, you think? nt

[Art_from_Ark]

52. It's a pretty complex situation

I've heard about the good, and the not-so-good.

It's good to be able to get covered for pre-existing conditions. Who can argue with that? Every other country in the civilized world does that, so the US should as well. But if the health insurance has a deductible or other conditions that essentially render it unusable, what good is it?

[leftstreet]

48. Took the Dems 2 yrs to make 'em viable again

After the miserable failure of Reaganomics and BushOilMen Wars, the Democrats' inability to achieve decades-long permanent majorities is possibly the greatest political failure in our lifetimes

[Art_from_Ark]

55. Well, the Dems were able to establish 40 years of House control

and 26 years of Senate control starting in the "I Like Ike" years. They had a great opportunity to at least hang on to both houses of Congress in 2010, but they ended up losing 63 seats, and control, in the House of Representatives. Even Clinton didn't lose so many House seats in '94 when the Dems lost control for the first time in 40 years (although he came close-- 54 versus 63).

[MannyGoldstein]

41. It was cooked up by the far-right Heritage Foundation. nt

[KamaAina]

106. Don't ask, don't tell would still be in place

for one.

Besides, Caribou Barbie would have had someone smother him with a pillow in his sleep by now. Then we'd have seen some major policy changes.

[JDPriestly]

66. Right now, I prefer that Elizabeth Warren win, not Hillary Clinton.

In 1980, I preferred that Carter win, not Reagan. Same for Dukakis, Mondale, and I was a big George McGovern fan. I am a Democrat.

I believe that Democrats support Social Security, strong public schools, equal rights for all, labor unions, industrial jobs, public debates and trade treaties are being negotiated, peace rather than war, equal rights for people of different races, genders, sexual preferences, etc. That is just the beginning of the traditional Democratic values that I believe in. I believe in what traditional Democrats have believed in for a long, long time.

The Democratic Party is a big tent, but it is a tent, not just open air.

[Scuba]

69. +1

[Cali_Democrat]

96. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5158515

[winter is coming]

15. ...

[frazzled]

18. When they're actually just an agent provocateur?

Could that be the right answer? Who knows? As they say, ask a stupid question ...

[pnwmom]

27. When they never actually vote for Democrats and encourage other people not to do so.

[Liberal Veteran]

28. Zell Miller.

If you endorse the republican candidate for president, you can't really call yourself a democrat.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. So the NJ Democratic leadership who endorsed Christie...

Not Democrats?

What about President Obama, who refused to endorse Christie's Democratic challenger?

[Liberal Veteran]

34. A fair point, but Miller crossed the line. And not endorsing a candidate is beside the point.

IMO, not endorsing someone is probably as close as one can come without crossing the line. I might be forgiving of an outright endorsement if it was a choice between a republican and someone who is an obvious whack job (Satan, Hitler, the demon offspring of Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter running on a Democratic ticket), but Miller didn't have a good excuse.

[bvar22]

91. Would include Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

In 2008, she refused to endorse Democrats in Florida, and was seen at fundraisers for her Republican "colleagues".

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the co-chair of the Democratic Red to Blue committee at that time, refused to endorse of campaign for the following 3 Democratic challengers for Republican seats:

Miami-Dade Democratic Party Chair Joe Garcia

Former Hialeah Democratic Mayor Raul Martinez

Democratic businesswoman Annette Taddeo

All three had won their local Democratic Primaries, and were challenging Hard Core Republican incumbents with whom Wasserman-Schultz had become cozy.
Not only did the head of the DCCC Red to Blue Program REFUSE to endorse these Democratic challengers,
but she appeared in person at at least one (possibly more) Campaign/Fundraiser for their Republican opponents.

FL-18, FL-21, FL-25: Wasserman Schultz Wants Dem Challengers to Lose
by: James L.
Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 7:15 PM EDT
<snip>

Sensing a shift in the political climate of the traditionally solid-GOP turf of the Miami area, Democrats have lined up three strong challengers -- Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Joe Garcia, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, and businesswoman Annette Taddeo to take on Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, respectively.

While there is an enormous sense of excitement and optimism surrounding these candidacies, some Democratic lawmakers, including Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek, are all too eager to kneecap these Democratic challengers right out of the starting gate in the spirit of "comity" and "bipartisan cooperation" with their Republican colleagues:

But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. [...]

This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.

"At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant," Wasserman Schultz said.

Now, you'd expect this kind of bullshit from a backbencher like Alcee Hastings, but you wouldn't expect this kind of behavior from the co-chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, which is the position that Wasserman Schultz currently holds. Apparently, Debbie did not get Rahm's memo about doing whatever it takes to win:

The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1537

The bloggers also are furious with Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), who similarly refuses to endorse the Democratic challengers to the three Cuban American Republicans.

They are calling for Wasserman Schultz to step down from her leadership role at the DCCC. And they're not letting up, even after one Florida liberal blogger reported that the congresswoman seemed "frustrated" by the blogs and had asked to "please help get them off my back."

This prompted even harsher reaction from perhaps the most influential of the progressive political bloggers, Markos Moulitsas, a.k.a. Kos, founder of Daily Kos, who wrote on his blog Wednesday: "On so many fronts, the Republicans are standing in the way of progress, on Iraq, SCHIP, health care, fiscal responsibility, corruption, civil liberties, and so on. Those three south Florida Republicans are part of that problem. And she's (Wasserman-Schultz) going to be 'frustrated' that people demand she do her job?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903410_3.html

Here are Kos comments on the Wasserman-Schultz betrayal of the Democratic Party:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/20/480511/-DCCC-Says-Uproar-Over-DWS-Recusal-Much-Ado-About-Nothing



A lot of time has passed since 2008, but I don't take these kinds of betrayals lightly,
and don't forget them easily.

---bvar22
cursed with a memory

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. When they change their registration.

[quinnox]

36. All I know is anyone who says "you must do this to be a Democrat" is full of crap

Just because you are a registered Democrat, doesn't require you to vote for Democrats. Some apparently don't understand this. And the opposite is true too, a Republican doesn't have to vote for the republican, for example, in the presidential vote.

Loyalist types who say otherwise and other silly stuff are not the appointed party enforcers, and they can make up any authoritarian tinged rules they want to, but no Democrat has to follow any of them.

[Gman]

38. Mistake #1 is trying to define what a Democrat is

A political party is nothing more than a loosely knit coalition of interest groups that seek the support of others for their own cause. The party structure is characterized by anarchy because no one group can be held accountable for failing to support the party platform as a whole and cooperation is voluntary and based on an expected return for ones own agenda. Those not affiliated directly with an interest group/subdivision of a party have little power within the party. So while I have been a lifelong Democrat, for example, my first allegiance is to organized labor and their agenda to me is more important than the agenda of any other member group. If another groups agenda conflicts with labor's agenda I don't support it. If labor is ambivalent towards another's agenda, if they can get their support for labor's agenda on an issue in the future, labor may support it if it doesn't conflict with labor's agenda. If there is nothing to be gained either way, there is ambivalence.

So because everyone is in it for theirselves and those likeminded, and there is no penalty for not supporting the party's overall umbrella agenda there is no real definition of a Democrat other than to say it's those that support, in general, the party's platform but not necessarily all of it based in expected support for their own issues.

[BainsBane]

39. Not voting for Democrats

Or arguing against voting for Democrats.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. So the NJ Democratic leadership who endorsed Christie...

Democrats?

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

44. At what point

do you just give it a rest?

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Probably not until I take my dirt nap.

Something for some folks to look forward to.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

53. I wouldn't look forward to that, personally.

Yet somehow I can't help but think there are more propitious times for existential Democratic musings than four months out from an election, when primary season is (mostly) over and midterm campaigns ramp up for a Labor Day shift into high gear.

Yeah, the big tent is full of jerks and cads. Stop the presses. It's been imperfect, sometimes wildly so, my whole life, and I'm way, way into my fifties. It's been way worse, for whatever that's worth, but that's not much consolation for me and I don't expect it will be for you either.

Want to change the party? I hope you do. Me too.

Think this "discussion" is going to change it or anything else at this late date in an election cycle? What, precisely? It's just going to sow division here, as if any more were needed. If that's what you want, please proceed.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Seems like there hasn't been a propitious time for 30 years

I don't think that's worked out well.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

60. After the midterms four years ago was a very propitious time.

And IIRC, you availed yourself of the opportunity, which you're to be commended for.

I think you did the same thing before and after the 2012 election. Also commendable.

Cusp of July 2014? To what end? What do you think is going to work out well in the here and now?

[bluesbassman]

47. Four posts and Manny is already getting to you?

Cotton or wool?

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

59. You'll find my old journal here

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/JeffR

Member since early 2003, after DU accepted the first of several essays of mine for publication, back when they used to feature essays. Later invented and presided over the stupid DUzy Awards, though God only knows why. Old login didn't work anymore, so I made a new one. Your sock inference is thus a little lame,though I don't hold it against you.

The topic I raised was party navel-gazing so close to an election we need to win, when our candidates are essentially already a known commodity, as unfortunate as that may be in certain instances. I'd ask your thoughts if I were interested in them.

[bluesbassman]

61. I stand corrected and apologize for the jibe.

I certainly remember you and your past DU contributions, and appreciate the work you've done. I do take exception to your swipe at Manny and his post as I found it to be a legitimate question especially as we ramp up to the '14 midterms.

Anyway, glad you're back.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

62. I appreciate your kindness.

That wasn't a jibe I addressed to Manny, though from the way things seem to work hereabouts these days I can see how it would be read that way. My point was it's not just too late for this exercise, it's way too late.

Once again I have to face the ugly notion of voting for John Barrow again in the GA 12th, and I find him pretty loathsome. But he's the candidate, and I'd strangle myself with a sock, cotton or wool, before I'd ever vote for Rick Allen or any member of his benighted party.

It's go time, not "To be or not to be" time.

[Number23]

67. Hey Jeff!

That's a shame about your old login not working. That sucks.

[Puglover]

71. Jeff if you PM Skinner or Earlg

they should be able to give you the password or show you what you need to do to activate you original user name.

[LostOne4Ever]

49. When they register as something other than a democrat.

Democrats are a political party with all the pros and cons that comes with that. Nothing more.

At one time the Democratic party was the conservative party and the Republican (Whig) party was the liberal party. Times changed and so have the parties. It can happened again.

Currently they are the more liberal party. They could be become the more conservative party in the future.

In some ways politics is nothing more than a "color war" especially with partisans who will vote for their party no matter what. But to be completely honest politics is more than a color war in that people can vote against their own party or leave their party at any time for any reason. Sometimes they agree with their party completely, others they might have disagreements that might change their vote.

A more interesting question would be to ask at what point a self proclaimed liberal/leftist/progressive stops being a liberal/leftist/progressive. At what point should someone like that abandon their party and how much they should be willing to compromise for the greater good.

[joshcryer]

50. The moment they reject 51% of the platform.

This means you can have some uber conservatives on social issues but super liberal on economic issues, or vice versa (I'll note a lot of the "populists" appear to be anti-social bigots, but what am I to say).

Either way, my way of seeing it is whether someone supports the majority of the platform vs not.

[Cleita]

54. I'd say when you sell yourself out to the oil industry and Wall Street.

The Democrats were always the party of the working class, the union member, the immigrant and the upwardly mobile small business owner. When a party politician no longer represents those Americans, then they are no longer Democrats, IMHO.

[tularetom]

56. Took 54 posts but somebody finally got it right

If you're out there giving speeches to Goldman Sachs banksters at $250k a pop, I don't give a rats ass what you call yourself.

You aren't a Democrat.

[Thinkingabout]

101. Giving or not giving speeches to Goldmann-Sachs does or does not make one a Democrat.

[tularetom]

102. Well, it sort of works like this

Goldmann Sachs isn't going to pay you big bucks if you stand up there and bad mouth Wall Street.

But if you don't stand up there and bad mouth Wall Street when you are given such a perfect opportunity to do so, it implies one of two possibilities, either you're okay with what corporations and bankers are doing to what's left of the American middle class, or you think they're a bunch of crooks but you're willing to lie to them just to get their money.

If you're okay with what they're doing you aren't a Democrat, if you're just lying to get their money you're a whore.

I was being charitable.

[Thinkingabout]

103. Watch your language here and get past the name calling.

Ted Cruz doesn't give speeches to Goldman Sachs, are you in the party Ted Cruz claims. As I said it does or does not make one a Democrat.

[tularetom]

105. Watch my language and get past the name calling?

What are you, my mother?

Puttin a (D) after your name doesn't make you a Democrat either. By your actions you will be judged.

[Thinkingabout]

108. The name calling is over the top. Your actions judge you.

[bobGandolf]

68. Why did I know....

this thread was the same old thing. Fodder for the "Great Debate".

[Scuba]

70. +1

[Hippo_Tron]

109. They were also the party of segregation and mostly anti-choice

I'm not defending everything the Democratic Party has become, because we have gone unnecessarily far to the right on too many issues, particularly economic ones.

But it's extremely difficult to hold together a working class coalition when the vast majority of working class white people refuse to even consider voting for a Democrat because of social issues.

[Cleita]

110. That was and is unfortunately in the South.

Out here in the West the Democrats were for Civil rights and women's rights back in those days. I believe what you are saying is why the South turned from Democratic to Republican. Also, the most tea baggy granny doesn't want you to touch her social security yet our Democrats were considering chained CPI. They are not real Democrats IMHO.

[Hippo_Tron]

113. Abortion prevents us from being competitive in a lot of western states we used to compete in

It also killed us with pro-civil rights Catholic voters who kept places like Louisiana competitive for us in the post-segregation era. I'm not saying it wasn't worth it, but social issues are not just a problem for us in the south. Even in blue states, we don't have a lot of congressional seats we used to have because of it.

And even if Tea-Baggy granny tells a pollster that she doesn't want chained CPI, she's sending some seriously mixed signals by voting for a congressman who supports the Ryan plan (or thinks it's too liberal).

Yes, there's things we can and should do better. But at some point, people have to decide they're going to vote in their own best interest. The Democratic Party can't do that for them.

[Cleita]

115. They need to be informed, which means we need to get our media

to air opposing opinions, which they are not doing today. I live in a world where I can only get Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck on the radio and every public place has Fox News on. Sure I jump through hoops to get Thom Hartmann, MSNBC and Al Jazeera as part of my media. However, my neighbor is just getting the Rush/Glenn/Fox as they go through their daily routines and chores and then they turn on sports or the Kardashians or other nonsense to relax. When they vote, their ignorance shows.

[Hippo_Tron]

121. No question about that, many don't even have an internet connection

And there's obviously no New York Times or Washington Post delivered to your door. It's right wing talk radio and Fox News everywhere all the time.

[Puzzledtraveller]

57. DU would be a ghost town

[whistler162]

72. Obviously when they ask

when a Democrat is not a Democrat!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

73. Tough Question...

I've had friends who are 100% pro-environment but also 100% pro-life. Others who were adamantly pro-union, but who also supported (and still support) the invasion of Iraq.

Are they Democrats? I don't think it matters outside of election day.

Now if they decide to run for office, then I think its a matter of comparing your Democratic options and voting for the one that most closely fits your personal ideology.

In 2008, there was a website that asked your opinions on policy matters (using a 1-10 agree or disagree scale) and then asked you on a scale of 1-10 to rate how important that issue was to you.

On a 1-100 final scale, Hillary and Barack were within two points of each other. At least with regard to my personal preferences.

So for all the hair-on-fire screaming about Hillary or Elizabeth, I suspect that they're ideologically pretty close to one another.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. Doesn't lend itself to a crystal clear answer, but...

Maybe something along the lines of "when the clear majority of your former fellow Democrats renounce you for having betrayed your Party". Something akin to that I think befell the Dixicrats who backed Strom Thurman over Adlai Stevenson. In 1968 the Democratic National Convention refused to accept the credentials of a number of Southern State delegations and seated alternate delegates instead.

On the other hand, if a Democratic Party organization evolves away from what an individual Democrat believes are the values underlying the Democratic Party as they knew it, then it may be time to consider starting a new political party, or to launch a counter offensive to retake control the old one.

Democrats as individuals in Connecticut soundly rejected Joe Lieberman and made it hard for him to claim he still represented the Democratic Party.

[KoKo]

83. And, Jane Hamsher and FDL were roundly trashed for it....

The Dem(DLC) leadership was very angry...at what they saw was the "Left" trying to get involved with activism interfering with the Democratic status quo.


Democrats as individuals in Connecticut soundly rejected Joe Lieberman and made it hard for him to claim he still represented the Democratic Party.

[treestar]

75. When you say they are not

And have thus relegated the Democratic party to a small minority third party status.

[JoePhilly]

76. Beat me by about 2 minutes.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. So if we refuse to recognize those who want to bring back slavery,

say 0.001% of Democrats, the Party would be relegated to "a small minority third party status".

Sounds like things are pretty tenuous!

[treestar]

99. There is a shortage of straw in your area

There are no Democrats saying they want to bring back slavery. If you find one in an insane asylum, and they are calling themselves a Democrat, I doubt there's a really big problem here.

You're not talking about just eliminating those Democrats though.

[MannyGoldstein]

100. Oh, a mind reader!

Which ones am I thinking of eliminating, Kreskin?

[MineralMan]

78. That depends on who is asking.

The Democratic Party encompasses a wide range of specific political positions. That's important, because we have only two viable political parties in this country.

It's less a matter of specific issues than of general direction. The moment anyone begins to determine who is and who is not a Democrat, that determination is based on that person's own definition of the term. For many people, being a Democrat appears to revolve around some sort of central point, usually a single issue or a small set of issues. Defining who is and who is not a Democrat in that way sets up a formula for the Democratic Party being much smaller than it currently is.

So, you ask that question in your post here. Since it's your question, why don't you tell us your specific definition, in detail? I guarantee that definition will be different than the definition others who are also Democrats would use.

Political parties in a country as large as this one are broad-spectrum parties, out of necessity.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. A long history of being a Republican and supporting some of the most deadly ignorant policies

under the likes of Reagan and HW Bush always gives me plenty of reason to question a candidate. Any person who was part of that Party at that time was supporting anti gay, anti science positions, anti choice positions and racist policy, rhetoric and political strategy. I learned to demonstrate against Republicans at that time, so to ask me to vote for a person I once demonstrated against is a request that will be followed by interrogation. Make no mistake. Life is not all about markets and money. Apathy toward real people is a form of corruption in and of itself. Republicans of that era held others in utter disregard while they piled up the millions. It is a disgrace to have been a Republican at that time. It is very hard not to see such people as inherently conservative and basically bigoted. At best they are people who are comfortable with bigotry and racism, it is something they understand and relate to enough to associate themselves with it.

[MannyGoldstein]

81. Why are you in favor of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

You still haven't answered that question.

[Bluenorthwest]

84. You'll have to do better than that, Manny.

The question 'when is a Democrat not a Democrat' is very clearly answered with 'when they are a Republican'.
So point of fact, Warren voted for HW Bush. She was a Republican. That same day, Hillary Clinton voted for Bill Clinton, the Democrat who with all his flaws did in fact introduce a bit of intelligence and humanity into the picture. The election of Bill Clinton was wildly important, life or death politics. Liz voted for death. Those were the terms we spoke in then. It was not playtime. It was a funeral a week.
So you'll have to do better than that.

[MannyGoldstein]

85. Again: why do you embrace the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

Was it because you hated people in those countries?

Hundreds of thousands slaughtered, trillions spent: why do you think this is a good thing? It totally blows my mind.

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Your disregard for history and your snarky replies to extremely serious questions define you.

Look, Manny. You have a candidate you are promoting. Others here are doing the same service for Hillary Clinton. Both groups have a trait I dislike. They get very unhinged if their candidate is questioned about their actual actions and history. They respond to posts about actual issues with snarky bullshit.
Politics is for people who can deal with some questions. If they can't, they are not qualified for office. That goes for all of them. Hillary's boosters get unhinged if her 17 years of opposition to marriage equality is brought up. Warren's go nuts if you want to know why she was a Republican during the very peak of their social conservatism.
I have never voted for a Republican. I have opposed each and every one of them. Elizabeth Warren can't say that. I need to know why that is the case. She voted for an anti gay, anti choice right wing Party for years, and not just any years, for the years that were for many, the last they'd ever see due to Republican policy which she supported. Which she voted for.
If she is incapable of explaining that time in her life, she's not capable of being President. A primary involves vetting the candidates then making a selection. If you can't stand the heat, either get out of the kitchen or never be a Republican in the first place. If she had not supported horrible things, she'd not have to explain her support for horrible things.
In a Primary, I'm for the Primary. I treat the candidates like candidates. To do otherwise is a John McCain style dereliction of electoral duty.

Now makes some off topic, snarky comment which displays your actual views toward those issues so well. It makes your camp look very informed and ready for the game.

[MannyGoldstein]

89. If you voted for John Kerry, then you favor the Iraq and Afghanistan war, no?

Same goes for favoring Hillary.

Probably a death every minute.

I think that I'm using the same logic that you're using to attack Warren, no? If not, please explain where I'm wrong here.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. When did your question to me transition to an attack on me? I'm not standing for office.

You asked when a Democrat is not a Democrat. Answer, when they are a Republican. Your chosen candidate was a Republican for many years. As I said, she needs to explain why she sided with the racists and homophobes. I bet she can do that. You seem skittish about her ability to offer a narrative of her redemption. Thus far, she has not spoken about that.

And of course when I voted for Kerry he was the least culpable of the two candidates. I voted against GW Bush and against Republican policy. Is that what Liz was doing when she voted for Reagan and Bush, not really voting for them but against the Democrats and Democratic policy? Does that strike you as a reasonable thing?

Don't ask a question if you can't deal with the responses. And it is indicative of certain prejudices that you simply refuse to answer specific questions set to you by some people. It's always sarcastic, dismissive and nonresponsive.

[MannyGoldstein]

112. I'm dealing just fine with the responses, I think.

Seems to me that it's you who has difficulty applying the same standard to yourself as you apply to selected others.

[polichick]

82. At this point it's mainly a color war to make you think there are two sides.

[Romulox]

86. Modern Democrats are a powerful force for the economic Status Quo.

If you look out onto the vast world of capital and corporations and think, "it's our job to make sure Wall Street bonuses are paid!" then you are in the mainstream of the Party.

[LanternWaste]

87. the Democratic National Platform...

"Are there any bondaries (sic) to what constitutes a Democrat? If so, what are they?"

I'd imagine the obviously delineated and specific boundaries are all contained within the Democratic National Platform...


http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

[bigtree]

92. I remember when 'color war' meant something else

. . . aaachooobaiiit!!

[nilesobek]

93. Manny I'm wearing the blue bandanna

in the red bandanna neighborhood. Only because of what kind of chaos and injustice the red bandannas can perpetrate. More than that, there is a sense of urgency, team unity and camaraderie. I care about my fellow blue bandanna warriors.

[Cali_Democrat]

94. When they vote for Reagan....

Also when they constantly attack Obama and say they'd overturn his election in 2008.

[Marr]

95. It would be easier to mark the point at which they cease to be the left.

"Democrat" is little more than a brand name, like Coke or Levis. It is... whatever it is.

Our party establishment goes out of it's way to marginalize the left. That seems to be their primary function.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. When I see a person promote the idea that an anti choice, anti gay activist should be the pattern

for our Party, I think 'clearly not a Democrat, clearly a conservative Republican'. A person who sees anti choice bigots as the future of our Party must be confusing us with the GOP.

[yallerdawg]

98. If you self-identify as a Democrat...

I think you should have at least one identifiable attribute.

If you are a "social and fiscal conservative" as many Democrats in the Deep South are, just show me one thing, throw me just 1 bone and you're in!

If you are indistinguishable from every Republican out there, you lose my vote -- and how could you possibly be a Democrat?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

116. They can get your vote that way.

But they lose the youth vote. Young people need to see real differences between the parties, not just 'one thing' to make it worth their while to vote. And when we lose young voters, we lose Democratic voters. I'd rather chase the youth vote than the waffling middle.

[Maedhros]

104. A better way to phrase the OP:

At what point is a self-proclaimed "Democrat" not deserving of our votes?

Much easier to answer.

[MannyGoldstein]

111. Actually, that wasn't what I meant.

Although everyone assumes it is what I meant, so I clearly did not state it properly.

I was reading about some Democrats (pundits/academics - not politicians) who are still shilling for the Iraq war, and I got highly annoyed and thought "WTF? Democrats? Says who?"

It's still an interesting question when applied to elected officials, just not what I intended.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

114. According to many people,

as long as they have a (D) after their name, they will vote for them, no matter what, proclaiming that that one letter makes them 'far better than the alternative'.

Here in Ohio, we've seen (D)s every bit as corrupt as their counterparts at times.

I believe in voting for people I don't think are crooks or incompetents, and who are not constantly doing RW things. Sometimes that means I don't vote for a person who slaps a (D) after their name, because I feel that's a long term path to exactly where we are now. At a place where only 23% of young voters are planning to vote in 2014, because they 'see no difference between the parties'. When you invite in the blue dogs, you blur the lines, and make it easier for voters to 'see no difference'. Rather than trying to suck up whatever few pathetic 'middle' votes exist, we should hold strong to the differences between the parties (and yes, that includes labour and economic differences) so that young people CAN see differences, and will feel it's worth their time to vote.

[MannyGoldstein]

118. Do you happen to have a link for that polling on young people?

Yikes!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

119. Firefox is acting up on me, but do this google search.

"23% of youth planning to vote 2014" and take any of the top half dozen links or so.

[MannyGoldstein]

120. This gets me angry as hell

http://www.iop.harvard.edu/Spring-2014-HarvardIOP-Survey

They should be Democratic voters! If we give them any reason to be!

Thanks.