The Democratic Party is FINALLY (once again) a LIBERAL political party.

[Laelth]

Having watched two nights of debates between twenty people who seek to represent our party as President of the United States, I must admit that I wept tears of joy seeing how far our party has come since I first began following politics in 1980 when James Earl Carter, Jr. was running against Ronald Reagan for the presidency. We are now (once again) a truly liberal party. For years I told people that I was a Democrat, but that I voted for democrats only because the other alternative was more abhorrent. Today, I do not feel that way. With only a couple of exceptions (whom I will not name), I would be proud to have any one of the people I just saw debate represent me as President of the United States. They are all liberal.

Here's what I heard:

(1) Kamala Harris described climate change as an existential threat to the planet and to the human race. Nobody disagreed.

(2) Several candidates discussed the need to do something about the humanitarian crisis that the Trump administration has created on our Mexican border. Nobody disagreed.

(3) Several candidates re-dedicated themselves, publicly, to the concept that all people are equal under the law. Nobody disagreed.

(4) A couple of candidates had plans to address the student loan debt crisis that has economically crippled two generations of Americans. While the various candidates who addressed this issue had different plans to deal with the problem, nobody disagreed that it was a serious problem that had to be addressed by the Federal Government.

(5) Nobody questioned the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade. We ARE the pro-choice party, and we are now universally pro-choice. This has not always been the case.

(6) Andrew Yang advocated a "trickle-up" economy. He would like to just "give money" to the people, directly from the Federal Government, to churn our economy. If the poorest among us have more money, they will spend it, and we will all become richer, he thinks. This makes sense to me, and while I don't see such a bill passing Congress in the near future, it's clear that the "trickle-down" economy that Republicans have been advocating for the past forty years has been a complete disaster. It has enriched the already-rich and further impoverished the already-poor. The point I want to make here, however, is that none of our candidates disagreed with Andrew Yang or even challenged him on his proposal. We are now, universally, as a party, the party of economic justice. Trust me. When I first encountered American politics in 1980, this was not the case. Our party has changed, and it has changed for the better.

(7) Bernie Sanders reminded us that if we are to achieve our goals we must have the courage and the strength to take on the moneyed interests in our country and fight for the people (and not just the rich ones). This is a tricky problem, but what I noticed, in particular, is that nobody disagreed with him or contradicted him on this subject.

(8) John Hickenlooper, perhaps the most conservative candidate on the stage, could point to the longest list of actual, real, liberal, legislative achievements of any candidate with whom he was debating--including the legalization of marijuana, and he is our most conservative candidate. Nobody argued against the legalization of marijuana or any of the other liberal achievements of John Hickenlooper while he was Governor.

(9) An utterly eloquent and obviously intelligent gay and married man was featured, center-stage, with the other party-heavyweights in the second debate (Biden and Sanders). Nobody had a problem with this, and I would vote for Mayor Pete in a heartbeat in a general election. Again, this is very different from the Democratic Party I first became involved with in 1980.

(10) On foreign policy, every single candidate on the stage--both nights--advocated for a strong global presence and expanded cooperation with our allies. All condemned wars of choice, and all condemned the Trump administration's coddling of dictators. There is not an isolationist among us. We are unified on this subject.

And that's my main point. I have never seen the Democratic Party so unified on so many issues. Everybody running for President agrees on almost all the important issues. The most severe intra-party conflicts in these debates centered on Joe Biden's long legislative record, but even Joe agrees with the party mainstream as it exists now. All Kamala Harris could do was ask Joe why he didn't agree with us 20 or 40 years ago. I say, who cares? He agrees with us now, and that is enough. I have never seen the party so unified.

And we are liberal--finally, and at last.

Please give me a k&r. Let us celebrate this day. I am astounded and amazed by what I have seen from the excellent people we have running for President in this cycle, and I am thrilled to have a unified, liberal party--at last.

Today, I am PROUD to be a Democrat.

-Laelth

[CentralMass]

1. K&R. Great observations and pointa on having a liberal party.

[Laelth]

65. Thank you.

I am more pleased with my political party now than I have ever been. Cheers!

-Laelth

[Kind of Blue]

2. Just saw your title and haven't read thoroughly but just resonant strongly.

I couldn't be prouder!
K&R!

[Laelth]

66. Same. Thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[Trumpocalypse]

3. And how did the Democrats do

in 80, 84 and 88 when it was a truly liberal party?

[Turin_C3PO]

5. But the country is more liberal now.

Sorry I don’t have a link but there was a study posted here at DU a few weeks ago that said our country is the most liberal it’s been since 1961.

[Trumpocalypse]

6. That must be why

the Democrats control the Senate, the Presidency and the Supreme court.

[Turin_C3PO]

9. True, but

our system favors conservatives. Remember, Hillary got more than 3 million votes than Trump and that’s not including what she would have gotten but for Russian propaganda and Republican voter suppression.

Plus any survey shows that support for things like gay marriage, universal healthcare, and gun control, to name a few issues, are at all time high levels. Democrats just need to convince people to not vote against their best interests.

Are you saying we have no shot at winning the 2020 election with any of the nominees?

[Trumpocalypse]

13. No

I'm saying that if the party goes too far to the left as it did in the 80s it will alienate a lot of moderate swing voters and we'll lose elections.

[Turin_C3PO]

17. I think

the most moderate candidate is Biden and I’d still call him a progressive. Besides Bernie, I don’t think any of our candidates are way out in left field.

[Trumpocalypse]

19. True

but still think that as a party we need to be careful. Labeling ourselves the "Liberal party" will only serve to alienate certain voters. I'd rather Democrats call themselves the "Common Sense party".

[NRaleighLiberal]

31. Common sense is a dog whistle term used in right wing ads here

Bad idea.

[Trumpocalypse]

42. Ok than something different

I’m flexible

[rpannier]

26. The Democratic Party of the 80's was pretty much where it was in the 70's

Oh... and we pretty much controlled the Congress, State Governor Houses, State legislatures, etc
Even when Dukakis lost in 88, we picked up 1 senate seat (55-45), picked up 2 house seats (260-175), picked up 1 governor (28-22),
State Legislatures Dem 29 (+2). Rep 8 (-1), Split 13 (-1)

The Democrats controlled the House throughout the 1980's. When the decade ended (last race 1988), the Democrats were 18 House seats ahead (260) of where they were in 1980 (242). And in 1990, we picked up 7 more seats.
It wasn't until 1994, that we lost control of the House. 2010 was the first time we had dropped below 200 seats (staring at 1978)

It is true, we were minority party in the senate from 1980 to 86, but we still controlled the House and the states.
You can go through each House and state race and make arguments for why that was, but the 80's were hardly a dystopian world of uber Republikkanism brought to life by the ultra leftist behavior of the Democratic Party.


https://web.education.wisc.edu/nwhillman/index.php/2017/02/01/party-control-in-congress-and-state-legislatures/

[brooklynite]

39. You're overlooking...

...that the 80s Democratic Party was as strong as it was because it still held a lot Southern State Houses and legislatures on the basis of moderate/conservative Democrats.

[hedda_foil]

40. The party in the 80s had run out of steam and ideas after 50 years in power.

They lost the South because of Civil Right laws, making a majority more difficult to achieve. At the same time, they were so used to being the party in charge of both the House and Senate that they became way too comfortable with being a permanent majority and didn't know how to handle becoming the minority.

The problem wasn't being too far left; it was the above plus:

- White working/middle class backlash (to integration of their neighborhoods and busing in the schools) in the North. Here's where a lot of white union members became Reagan Republicans.

- Right wing backlash to the chaos of the 60s and early 70s. This backlash was built on an underlying desire for order and stability.

- The aging of the FDR Democratic electorate. For more than two generations, seniors were reliably Democratic voters. This group, who had lived through the Depression as adults, were in their beginning to die off in the 80s.

- Goldwater actually managed to get 40% of the vote in 1964. I haven't done the stats, but I suspect that the Southern white shift from D to R on top of Goldwater's 40% base easily provided the pukes with a pretty damn stable majority.

- Traditional, moderate Congressional Republicans, particularly -- but not only -- in the Northeast, provided enough reassurance to college educated R's that it was still their party. This group has almost completely moved from R to D or I.

- For all these reason, the only way Dems could win for about 20 years was by running Southern Democratic candidates to hang onto as many Sourthern white votes as possible, while keeping black voters mollified. That's the rationale behind Clinton/Gore. It wasn't about being liberal or moderate; it was about wooing Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina -- the mid South.

Most of these underlying conditions have now been reversed. Trump's base boils down to unreconstructed Southern whites, working class whites who have been made to fear that it's brown and black people who are responsible for the drop in their standard of living.

And white evangelicals, whose interpretation of Christianity was literally invented by far right political consultants to convince them to vote Republican. Falwell (who was close to bankrupt at the time) et al made a quid pro quo deal with the far right devil. They got rich and powerful by convincing their congregations that God hated gays and abortion. The former was a relatively easy sell. They had to work a litte harder on the "pro choice" front, since most of their parishoners were originally okay with Roe. But the evangelical base is shrinking as their kids leave the fold.

Nothing of these factors relates to being "too" liberal.

[Trumpocalypse]

45. Are you claiming Mondale and Dukakis weren't liberal?

[hedda_foil]

56. No. Where did you get that impression? I'll word it differently if it's unclear.

[Politicub]

28. Using your logic, the democrats should target minorities and out hate the GOP

After all, hate has won. Why not join the pigs in the sty?

I would really like to hear your answer.

[Trumpocalypse]

59. Never said that

Don’t dishonestly put words in my mouth.

[Laelth]

67. Well said.

Yes, the country is far more liberal now, but my main point was that it’s clear that the Democratic Party is far more liberal now as well. We are unified, at last.

If the country wants conservative government, so be it. I respect that and will accept it, but I am thrilled to see that conservative government is no longer supported by the Democratic Party. We are now universally liberal.

-Laelth

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. The youngest people to vote in the 1980 election would be 56 today.

What percentage of the 1980-1988 electorate are still alive today? Have their political sensibilities remained fixed for the past 40 years?

[Trumpocalypse]

8. Then why don't the Democrats

control all branches of government?

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. The same reason Nine Inch Nails isn't in the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame yet.

Demographic shifts are gradual.

[Trumpocalypse]

15. Then wait for them to occur

and not try to rush things.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. That's not what "gradual" means.

There is no Point X beyond which said demographic shift has incontrovertibly occurred. What you're going to see is a curve of uptrending liberalism and downtrending centrism as Millennials and Gen Z age and Baby Boomers die off. Early in the curve, you will see more liberal candidates emerging. Later in the curve, you will see more liberal candidates winning. You can't "wait" until "we're ready" because the only sign of our even being ready is running these elections.

[Trumpocalypse]

21. Maybe/Maybe not

You nor I can't predict what the future will bring. And history shows that people tend to get more conservative as they get older. Everyone thought that the GOP and conservatism was dead after Nixon and Watergate. But then they came roaring back in the 80s under Reagan who was supported by many former 60s radicals. Democrats labeling themselves the "Liberal party" will only serve to alienate certain voters.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. That's essentially my point.

We don't know what's going to happen until it happens. 1980 might be a strong indicator of what's to come in 2020, but just as plausible is the possibility it might not. All we can do is roll the dice. There is no surefire candidate.

[Trumpocalypse]

23. True

My point is that it is not a good idea to label ourselves the "Liberal party".

[NRaleighLiberal]

33. Are you a moderate or centrist? Just curious...

[Trumpocalypse]

44. I'm pragmatic

Which is what the party needs to be to win elections.

[NRaleighLiberal]

46. Ah - so yes, you are a moderate or centrist. thanks for clarifying.

[Trumpocalypse]

47. Not what I said

Please don’t play that game.

[NRaleighLiberal]

48. Sorry - I am utterly fed up with moderates and centrists and pragmatists in times like these.

Yes, I am very, very liberal - and that is the direction the country needs to go in.

[Trumpocalypse]

49. Well good luck

with the ‘my way or the highway’ attitude. But that is not how to win elections.

[NRaleighLiberal]

50. Frankly, I've never experienced "my way" - everything has been diluted into incremental, often

ineffective steps. I am sick of being held hostage by climate deniers, religious kooks, racists, the "we can't go too fast" crowd while the earth roasts. I've never experienced a country as liberal, open minded and fair as it needs to be, and is my ideal. But - hell - if we don't push for what is important, we will get what we've been getting - a whole heap of nothing much at all. I am ready for FDR type of action (and of course realize that is not what will happen - it can't.....the power$$$$ that be will never let it happen).

[Trumpocalypse]

52. Yeah it is really annoying to have to live with other people

and have to take their opinions into account. Democracy sucks.

[NRaleighLiberal]

55. Have a nice evening.

[Trumpocalypse]

58. You too nt

[Gore1FL]

63. We are in the "my way or the highway" mode and have been for years.

Since 1985 the Democrats have focused more on the voters "between the 40 yard lines." This has caused the Republicans and Democrats to tack right for the last 3+ decades.

Liberal the word and liberal policies are nothing to run from. That's the narrative the GOP has been pushing. We have a choice to not buy into it and instead embrace our values.

[Demsrule86]

85. What we need to do is defeat Trump...I am fed up by Trump.

[CentralMass]

77. I turned 18 in 78. 80 was my first Presidential election.

[BadgerMom]

36. The point made is that the party was far LESS liberal in 1980.

Perhaps, had we offered a liberal alternative instead of running from the label “liberal” because Reagan-era Republicans thought we should, we’d hold more offices today. By being Republican-lite we will not engage younger voters, I fear.

[Trumpocalypse]

43. No it was very liberal in the 80s

which led to 3 lost presidential elections in a row. It was only when the party moved to be more moderate in 92 that we won.

[Demsrule86]

70. Exactly right...and I would hate to see that happen again.

[Go Vols]

78. I don't remember the liberal part in the '80s.

I do remember this:
The landslide 1984 Presidential election defeat spurred centrist Democrats to action, and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed. The DLC, an unofficial party organization, played a critical role in moving the Democratic Party's policies to the center of the American political spectrum. Prominent Democratic politicians such as: Senators Al Gore and Joe Biden (both future Vice Presidents) participated in DLC affairs prior to their candidacy for the 1988 Democratic Party nomination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

[Trumpocalypse]

81. Yes the DLC was a reaction

to how liberal the party had become in the 80s.

[Laelth]

83. It WASN'T a truly liberal party in 80, 84, and 88.

It is now. Only time will tell how our current, partisan unity will serve us.

Thank you for the reply.

-Laelth

[wyldwolf]

87. "progressives" have been trying to make this case since... well, forever.

I contend the Democratic party is now more liberal than ever on social issues, but our foreign policy is still the same foreign policy we've had since Woodrow Wilson's Wilsonian Liberal Internationalism. We're still the same party economically since probably JFK's time.

[Turin_C3PO]

4. Yes we are.

That’s why I laugh when people talk about “corporate” Democrats. They hardly exist anymore.

[KPN]

10. I'll be convinced by results. Having said that, I do feel that our party is more liberal now today

than it has been in the past 40 years. It's a pretty great feeling actually.

[Demsrule86]

71. I don't feel great with a senate that is probably lost to us for the forseeable future and a blue

wall that is destroyed giving us no path to win the presidency in 20 and beyond. What reason do we have to feel great ...because our candidates spout liberal talking points that ultimately could cost us the general? I would suggest a bit of realism needs to be injected into this thing. Moderates took the House ...there is no liberal thirst at the moment...could we create this with some hard work...hell yes...but we have to do the work...win over the voters we need to our side and we haven't done that...not yet. And if we don't Trump wins.

[KPN]

72. We are doing it.

[Demsrule86]

73. Doing what exactly? Have you looked at the Senate map...we are not a liberal country and if we run

to the left before whe have changed hearts and minds...and I see no evidence of a change countrywide...we will lose and badly.

[mountain grammy]

12. I wouldn't go quite that far..

but we are definitely reclaiming our right to be liberal!!

[Turin_C3PO]

14. There are some conservative Dems in the House.

And truth be told, they have to be moderate to hold their seats, I think. But, overall, we’re a very progressive party now.

[Demsrule86]

74. They gave us our house majority...and without moderates, we will lose it. And the Senate is going

to be very tough...and our chances run through purple and red states...I hope to God we are not a progressive party...because we need a big tent ...50 state strategy.

[IronLionZion]

75. Some Democrats get more corporate donations than others

and there are disagreements on radical change vs incremental, but for the most part our Dems seem to be for the people

[rainin]

16. Castro even acknowledged the rights of trans persons.

I hope to see others join in this fight to keep trans people safe.

[DownriverDem]

20. Okay

But the question is where is the country? We can cheer all we want, but if the country doesn't agree with us, trump wins. Where is the country is the question we need to ask.

[Politicub]

32. 40 percent of the country is overcome with hate and have been charmed by Trump

They are motivated by hurting others. They don't care about themselves or their children. They don't want clean air and clean water. As long as migrant children are locked in cages and trans people are tormented, they are satisfied. They are fine with not having access to healthcare as long as their blowhard standard bearer keeps throwing insults.

Those people can not be won over to the democratic side. For democratic moderates, it's getting them to the polls and GoTV. For new people, it's showing them that there can be positive differences made in their lives For others, it takes a charismatic leader with a touch of populism to get them excited.

There are more democrats than republicans in the U.S. It will take a multi-faceted approach to reach them. This could be an inspirational, progressive national agenda and local races tailored to everyday problems that people face. Danica Roem, the first transgender person elected to the Virginia General Assembly, won by talking about fixing potholes and freeways. There are lessons to be learned from that.

[jalan48]

24. Climate change is driving the shift to more liberal politics. We're in the middle of an

environmental crisis and the go slow and wait for something in the future approach is being exposed for what it is, a dangerous lie. Young people get it, it's the biggest issue we face and the Republicans have tied themselves to the past.

[Honeycombe8]

25. A positive upbeat message and impression.

With the exception of a few, I agree that any would do a good job. I've said that all along: the Democrats all support the Democratic Party Platform and ideals. There's a difference mainly in how they would go about doing things, what plans they agree with. But they all agre on the main issues.

[Politicub]

27. K&R to victory!

[lagomorph777]

29. K&R Thanks for cheering me up.

Now, what to do about the election systems - liberal positions won't matter if the Russiapublicans control the whole system.

[dlk]

30. Included is Reclaiming Religion (or Lack Thereof) as a Democratic Value

Buttigeig was eloquent in reclaiming religious tolerance as a Democratic value while calling out Republicans on their supreme hypocrisy, and losing their right to claim any religious values in any venue, given their broad support of extreme, anti-Christian policies. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are liberal values.

[NRaleighLiberal]

34. Good post. BTW... 63 yrs old here and always proud to be a Democrat and

A liberal.

[Laelth]

82. Thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[Camaromjr]

35. I am the older generation

I represent the older generation. I was a field worker for George McGovern in 1972. I have the utmost respect for Jimmy Carter. A more honorable man has never been President (Ok - Lincoln gets a nod, too). I am as proud of my party as I have ever been. We are moral. We are for human dignity. We are for equality for all humanity. 20 of our leaders stood and showed the world that we are the party that will lead our nation and the world into the future. Some stood out and that is as it should be. However, we can all hold our heads high with the showing that they all made.

Warren / Harris for 2020

Harris / Mayor Pete for 2028

[lambchopp59]

37. 11. No puedo leer de otro bebe muriendo arrancado de los brazos de la madre.

No more. I don't even recognize this country anymore.

[Midwestocrat]

38. Donald Trump can win again then.

Because America is not a liberal country. It's centrist. The last six presidents: very conservative, center-right, centrist, very conservative, center-left, very conservative.

If Trump wins Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Ohio, and North Carolina because we jerked leftward when we NEEDED to win the 2018 moderate suburban women again, I'm going to hate to say, "I told y'all so."

[Demsrule86]

86. Me too...

[AllyCat]

41. I liked ALL the candidates.

Truly, everyone brought Democratic values to the table.

[redstatebluegirl]

51. I have been proud to be a Democrat for over 40 years.

My party has changed over the years, from very liberal, to moderate, to what some called middle of the road and now back left again. No matter what my party is better than the alternative and has always been so.

[trev]

53. "... marijuana, and he is our most conservative candidate"

You'd be surprised how many conservatives are in favor of marijuana.

"Fifty-one percent of Republicans tell Gallup that, yes, marijuana should be legal, up from 42 percent last year."

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/25/559989879/all-time-high-majority-of-republicans-support-pot-legalization-for-first-time

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sarah Palin has smoked it. LOL

https://www.ranker.com/list/republicans-who-smoked-marijuana/brettski

[walkingman]

54. Yes, Very proud to be a Democrat. Brngs me back to my youth in the 60's - Far out, Man!!

[EndGOPPropaganda]

60. K&R

[ananda]

61. Some of the candidates speak to liberal values and policies.

But the governing arm is most definitely NOT liberal!

[Laelth]

94. Point taken.

I am simply pleased to see that our candidates appear to be universally liberal, and that is a refreshing change from my point of view.

-Laelth

[Honeycombe8]

62. There is a danger in some candidates going too far left.

Remember that most voting Democrats are moderate. They're screaming out: Give me someone I can vote for...someone not too far left, someone not "socialist," someone not close to the corrupt Trump. (I use "socialist" because of the connotation the word has.)

They may stay home if they don't see a candidate that fills the bill. A minority of Democrats (and of voters generally) are on the far left end of the spectrum. They will love certain candidates and show up to vote for them w/enthusiasm. But that doesn't win a national election.

Keep in mind that for all the attention on Cortez and one or two other new reps in Congress, the vast majority of the newly elected reps are moderate.

But I guess we can't help supporting someone who speaks to us. If the majority of Dems are moderate, that's who will win the nomination, I suppose.

[PatrickforO]

64. Nice observations.

You're right that Hick is the most conservative. He really didn't have much to do with marijuana legalization. It passed as an initiative, where the people directly voted on it. Hickenlooper actually actively opposed legalization.

In addition, when big oil came into the state in a big way to 'play' the Niobrara shale formation in the north and central parts of Colorado's front range, Hick had the oil companies help the state set regulations for fracking. The local governments were naturally a bit skeptical and imposed their own regulations. Hick had the state send cease and desist orders to the locals, saying that the state's regulatory structure was enough. It wasn't.

He actually stood up behind a podium one time and drank a glass of clear liquid he claimed was fracking fluid to demonstrate how 'safe' it is to the people of Colorado. I called his office and said if they wanted me to believe the stuff he drank was actually fracking fluid, they should film him driving to a recently fracked site and have him slurp up some of the backwash.

Fracking isn't a joke and it isn't safe. Fracking fluid is corrosive, like battery acid, and it is mixed with water that can never be used again. Colorado is arid, and it takes five million gallons of water to frack one well one time. A well drilled into a shale formation must be fracked repeatedly to squeeze out the oil.

As a Coloradan, I'm just not for Hickenlooper at all. Not at all. And that is based on what I saw of him as governor. And don't get me wrong. He isn't evil or anything. He is just is too conservative for me.

Now, Bennet? He's also a bit to the center. He was the superintendent of Denver Public Schools, and then I believe he was appointed to the US Senate seat he now holds by virtue of being elected. He's OK. But, as you can see, I'm supporting Warren, with Kamala Harris a close second.

[Laelth]

68. Thank you for all of those relevant insights on Hickenlooper.

We are on the same page.

-Laelth

[Demsrule86]

69. Yeah, the country is not liberal...center left at best. I fail to understand how folks missed the

significance of the midterms...and what about the Senate...doesn't look like a liberal dream to me...nor do state governments...we are in danger of losing the courts...and maybe the house...we only win with a big tent...we will lose if we are not careful...we do not have a liberal party and we do not have a liberal country. I listened with mounting horror as almost every candidate damaged themselves by taking positions that won't work in the general at the debates. It is madness...

[IronLionZion]

76. Just like Republicans watched in horror thinking Trump would fail badly

The American voters are full of surprises

[Demsrule86]

80. Not in the red states...we won't win Alabama most likely...the midterms clearly show we need a big

tent or we lose...and one shouldn't count on a happy surprise because rarely do they arrive at the right time..we should be planning our win and getting the best candidates for the Senate ,house seats ( I don't meant the fun little sport of wasting money by primarying sitting Democrats) and our nominee...and I think electability will play a role.

[Demsrule86]

84. The ground work to elect Republicans was laid...they had an issue when they lost Virginia...but

by taking blue wall states they won and will do so again if we don't rebuilt the blue wall...and the rust belt is not liberal by the way...the midterms were won by moderates too...a liberal party in a center left country will lose.

[Gothmog]

79. The polling does not support the claim that the party has become more liberal

Link to tweet

Polling, though, suggests that this may not be a foolproof strategy. For one thing, a crowd of more progressive candidates (an admittedly nebulous designation) will compete for the same voters, freeing Biden to vacuum up support from moderates. But polling also shows that Democrats overall aren’t necessarily prioritizing a candidate who espouses progressive policies. The data below are from a recent CNN-SSRS poll: More Democrats think it’s important for a nominee to work with Republicans than to support liberal policies.


.....

[Laelth]

88. I get your point.

Perhaps our base is not as liberal as our potential presidential candidates are. Our potential candidates, however, are more unified and more universally liberal than I have ever seen them.

-Laelth

[Gothmog]

89. I am part of the moderate base of the party

I want to nominate a candidate who can win against trump. Electability is my main criterion and I am worried about several of the candidates not being electable

I really believe that if sanders is the nominee, trump would win 45+ states

[Laelth]

90. I thought you were one of the Nazgul.

I am to your left, but electability is my prime criterion as well.

Cheers!

-Laelth

[Gothmog]

92. Gothmog is also a name of one of Sauron's Balrogs

[myohmy2]

91. "And we are liberal--finally, and at last."

...I'm not so sure...

...I'll have to take your word for it...

...

[Laelth]

93. Our presidential candidates appear to be universally liberal.

They are remarkably unified on a wide range of issues, but that is all I can say. The rank and file members of the party may not be as universally liberal as I would like.

-Laelth