Is the Democratic Party Shrinking?
Last edited Tue Jan 12, 2016, 01:49 AM - Edit history (2)
Source: Yahoo News
- The number of Americans who identify as Democrats has reached a historic low, while remaining higher than Republicans, according to a Gallup poll published Monday.
The latest Gallup poll on party identification, published Monday, found that the number of respondents who identify as Democrats reached a historical low of 29 percent in the past year. At the same time, 26 percent of respondents identified as Republicans, and 42 percent as independents down one point from 2014, a record high year. Conducted annually since 1988, the Gallup poll sampled 12,137 adults, ages 18 and older, across all 50 states. The share of Republican-leaning voters has barely recovered from its lowest point in 2013, when 25 percent of Americans identified as Republican. The Democrats current membership is the lowest its ever been in the 27-year history of the poll, but earlier data points to the conclusion that the current 29 percent is also the all-time-low since 1951.
According to Gallup researchers, independent voters have nearly always outnumbered their partisan counterparts. In 1988, the share for each of the three categories was fairly close 36 percent for Democrats, 33 for independents, and 31 percent for Republicans. But by the start of the 1990s, the number of independents rose above the two others and except for the three years immediately following George W. Bush reelection remained so. Since 2008, the number of independents has quickly risen from below 36 percent to 43 percent in 2014. When factoring in the distinction between Democratic-leaning independents and Republican-leaning independents, an overall 45 percent of respondents said would be more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate. And over all, 42 percent of respondents are would be more likely to vote Republican. What exactly do these numbers mean?
The rising number of Americans who identify as independent voters can be in part attributed to frustrations with partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C. Other polls show that American discontent over the federal government has become a major issue in the past several years, as party favorability has decreased on both sides of the aisle. And despite the Democrats current low, the liberal party has more consistently exceeded its conservative rival in the past quarter-century. The highest point-advantage for the Democrats, 12 points, occurred in 2008, when President George W. Bush was highly unpopular in the midst of the prolonged Iraq war and the emerging economic recession, writes Gallups Jeffrey Jones.
In fact, some political pundits believe American policy is actually becoming more liberal.
In a sprawling cover story on Americas shift towards the left, The Atlantics Peter Beinart notes that the current moment in American history strikes an exceptional resemblance to the chaotic milieu of the late 1960s and early 70s. But instead of gearing to turn right as Americans did right before the Reagan era, America, including its liberal-leaning moderates, has been drifting left following George W. Bushs unpopular tax cuts and foreign policy, especially as Millennials come of age and minority populations continue to grow. But thats only half the story, Mr. Beinart explains: Because if George W. Bushs failures pushed the Democratic Party to the left, Barack Obamas have pushed it even further. If Bush was responsible for the liberal infrastructure that helped elect Obama, Obama has now inadvertently contributed to the creation of two movements Occupy [Wall Street] and Black Lives Matter dedicated to the proposition that even the liberalism he espouses is not left-wing enough.
Other experts disagree. Analysts at the Foundation for Economic Education, a libertarian think tank, postulated in July that America is not becoming more liberal, but rather libertarian.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/democratic-party-shrinking-191658860.html
6 hours ago.
LakeVermilion
(1,040 posts)that the party has moved away from its members. Personally, I don't see much happening that rewards or even addresses the issues of workers in the United States.
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)movement, and the Black Lives Matter movement formed from racism and police brutality have unfortunately called more attention to workers' many issues. For one, major income inequality that has been on the radar since the early 2000s and earlier of course with rising wage stagnation, Reaganomics, globalization and other inequities going back to the late 1970s.
At the end of the article, comments about the appeal of individual candidates' platforms rather than political parties is a benefit to 'outsiders' like Sanders and Trump, noted almost too well. I don't think we will ever experience anything close to the security that average Americans and workers had in the post-war years, Les Trente Glorieuses, 1945-1975 (The Glorious Thirty) the term the French use like economist Thomas Piketty and others. What will come who knows, but there are definitely some green shoots of positive change appearing and that's very encouraging.
trillion
(1,859 posts)TPP, wallstreet minion. Even the Republicans don't want one but they are actually blind enough to vote for trump who will give them all of that.
The dem party is completely out of touch with it's base. Bernie is in touch but Hillary is lip service.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)And nearly every politician was for the war, and in any case the war vote was 12 years ago. 12 years is an eternity in today's 24 hour news cycle, every moment means something society.
That was before iPhones, everyone was using Windows 2000 and Pentium 386's, and a myriad of other things have changed since then. I guess I'm saying the larger masses don't care about who voted what way over a decade ago on something that's over and done with.
Stuff that's important to us, as political activists / interested parties, doesn't necessarily mean jack shit to a shitload of people that will be voting next year.
trillion
(1,859 posts)melm00se
(4,991 posts)but is it the party moving from its constituents or are the constituents moving from the party?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)It does make it more difficult to know how voters will vote though.
LakeVermilion
(1,040 posts)Elections now will turn on a current event, because no one will have brand loyalty.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)but as I approach 60, I've become utterly disillusioned with politics in terms of the sell outs, hypocrisy, and the continuing move to "have/have not" instead of principles. Add disgust at the "media" and I've pretty much tuned out.
I am just too tired of the same old games, same old mistakes, same old excuses, and essentially just a big pile of political bullshit.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)early 40s though. So tired of the same old same old.
Thirties Child
(543 posts)The Democrats are where the Republicans once were, the Republicans are what the John Birchers once were.
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)Began in the late '80s. Took hold with Bill Clinton and keeps moving further to the right.
I am lucky to live in Minnesota, where we have some liberals in the DFL.
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)Real correction must occur. And the writer and data are correct that the growth of libertarians has been significant, along with the anti-government attitudes and neoliberal policies embraced by the GOP and also the Dems. But multi party structures are healthy and necessary in democratic societies for many reasons, obviously.
840high
(17,196 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)and has been for a very long time, one of distrust and dislike.
I know none of them really care about us, although if anyone cares at all it is Bernie.
But that doesnt really matter, because I also know how the system works.
And until we get a liberal political party, our job is simple, prevent the rightwing terrorists from gaining power.
Warpy
(111,255 posts)if you're in the 90% of Americans getting killed by it.
I don't know what it's going to take to dislodge the Wall Street conservatives from the center of party power but I do know it's got to be done, the sooner the better.
Declining party membership is the symptom. Conservatism is the disease.
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)break up that control I don't know. But if it doesn't happen pretty soon the future of the 90% could be quite bleak, obviously. Hopefully things will improve especially now with an energized populace particularly the millennials who have so much at stake in this election, God bless them.
merrily
(45,251 posts)When I first moved to Massachusetts, my husband, who already was a Massachusetts resident, persuaded me to register "unenrolled," which is the Massachusetts version of independent. While I might question the perception at times, Massachusetts is considered the bluest state in the nation, probably because it was the only one to go for McGovern back in the day. Still, the largest group of registered voters in Massachusetts is "unenrolled." I have no clue why. However, in Massachusetts, you can vote in any primary if you are "unenrolled," but can vote only in the Democratic primary if you are registered Democrat.
On the other hand, yes, you have people leaving the Party in both directions. I am guessing that a lot of so-called Reagan Democrats and a lot of so-called "Jill Stein Democrats" (Stein is a Mass resident) have by now registered "unenrolled" or Republican or Green.
My theory: A majority of voters vote (or stay away from polls) based on bread and butter issues, something Carville famously encapsulated so memorably as "It's the economy, Stupid." If the two largest political parties in the US can't seem to get the economy humming on Main Street, and not only Wall Street, voters are flummoxed as to what to do to help themselves, their family members and their friends and neighbors, especially those who are out of work.
Some whipsaw, voting out people who don't help--as opposed to voting in someone. Some stay away from the polls, exclaiming "A pox on both your damned ineffective houses." Others vote their economic self interest, be that MIC or government jobs or whatever. Others go so-called third party in the hopes of making a difference (or at least showing their contempt for both Democrats and Republicans). Still others say, you all stink, so I'm voting based on what, for me, is LOTE on issues like choice, be that Republican or Democrat.
MissMillie
(38,555 posts)and I lean so far left I may fall over.
But I am registered as "un-enrolled."
MOST of the time the state will be blue. So sometimes I pick a Republican ballot to vote against the GOP front-runner.
I'm pissed as hell that we have a GOP governor. It was not my doing.
merrily
(45,251 posts)But I've never been able to decide:
Do I do a Claire McCaskill and try to help the worst one get nominated, so the Dem has a better chance? or
Do I try to help the best one get elected so the people have a better chance, just in case the Dem loses?
Since I've never been able to decide, I've not done it yet.
As far as the Coakley Baker race, no comment.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 12, 2016, 01:10 AM - Edit history (1)
are hungry for Bernie.
Judi Lynn
(160,527 posts)appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)MissMillie
(38,555 posts)I am always amazed at how many people vote against their interests.
I guess they're voting for what they HOPE will become their interest. I have no other explanation for this.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The youth are not as loyal to labels as previous generations were.
Others are pissed off at the partisanship in Washington.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)However, have no fear. Democrats are still better than Republicans because each an every Republican is either a racist, a misogynist or a sectarian bigot and quite often all three at once.
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)Response to appalachiablue (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)More like a prison. It no longer is seen as a group that has the interests of the people at its heart, rather it has been taken over by special interests that will bludgeon you if you don't kiss their asses. Like they are doing to Bernie.
Bernin
(311 posts)The party left us.
Time to bring it back.
Bern On!
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...have ever served in a Party office, or talked to their State or local Party officials to express their concerns. It's so much easier to sit behind a keyboard and complain about evil conspiracies over which they're helpless.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If you think we're helpless, stick around and you'll be made to understand. I don't believe your assistance or advice will be required at any step in the process. Thank you.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)once the Republicans shrink to negligible size.
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)Today I'm feeling optimistic,
MissMillie
(38,555 posts)yet he is registered as a Republican
I have asked him numerous times to tell me what makes him a Republican, and he can't
I think people call themselves "conservative" or "Republican" because they think it's fashionable...
...or they really don't grasp the consequences of voting Republican.
villager
(26,001 posts)...more and more people will be identifying as "independent..."
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I call myself an independant or a socialist.