When was the last time the Dems were this energized and united?

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

Serious question. I am "only" 33 and hardly paid attention to politics before about 1992. (I know, I know....bad....but am more than making up for it now...)

I watched the MSNBC thing last night on past conventions and I know some years were worse than others, but how does this year, the feel, the energy, the complete unity compare to other election years for the Dems????

Anyone out there older than me and can tell? Or a student of political history???

[carpetbagger]

1. 1992.

I'm starting to see 1992.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

3. Shoulda just waited for your reply!

LOL! See mine below this. Thanks!

But is this MORE than 1992? Seems to me it is, but I may not be remembering well. Were we THIS pissed off, THIS united in 1992?

[yardwork]

17. I'm far more energized now than in 1992.

For one thing, Poppy Bush wasn't nearly as bad as shrub. Hell, I thought Ronnie was bad.... Desert Storm killed a lot of people, but American troops really were hailed as liberators, and Poppy knew when to quit. Reagan invaded and dropped bombs but again, he knew when to quit. They weren't trying to jump-start the Rapture.

I was hopeful that Clinton would win in 1992, but I didn't feel anything like this.

To be honest, I've never felt this way in my life (I'm 44). We should have been this energized and united in 1968 and 1972, but the Democratic Party was pulled to pieces then, and there was no sense of community like I see now.

This election is crucial. This might be our last chance. I DON'T agree with those who think that four more years of shrub will energize the liberal agenda even further. Instead, we will descend into horror and brutality. We need to turn this thing around NOW.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

2. Oh come on guys! Some one?

Anyone know?

I know it wasn't 2000. We didn't want bush in but I knew a hell of a lot of people who assumed Gore would win (and he did, of course).

And I remember Clinton/Dole....I was only a tiny bit worried, but not much. The Clinton Hate Machine was really geared up at that point.

Were the Dems really energized and united in 92??? When they wanted bush the first out?

[Cha]

4. Someone mentioned that bush has united the Democrats

like no other force. I just got into politics in 2000 and am trying to make up for it..and I'm old!

I imagine the Dem Conventions before FDR was elected were really something..after the Country had come off Hoover.

[RoyGBiv]

5. Hard to say actually...

1992 is the most convenient answer, but there was a lot of split thinking in that election. Remember that this was the year of Perot. He took votes from both Dems and Repubs.

Dems were terminally split from '76 through '88.

There was '64, but that was the whole country really.

Before that, I'd have to say 1960 when the Dems were fed up with Eisenhower, McCarthy, etc. and rallied against Nixon and for Kennedy.

Been awhile, in other words.

[Still_Loves_John]

6. They weren't united in 60

Because we still had the Southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond in the party. That was the convention when they picked LBJ, who JFK hated, in order to placate Southern Democrats.

I would have to agree with the people saying FDR. Maybe even FDR's second convention.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

8. When was FDRs second convention?

Just out of curiosity? And how did the energy and unity compare to now, if you know?

[Still_Loves_John]

13. I don't know

It's just that his second convention would have been the most united that all his others.

-At the first convention everyone was united against Hoover, but Roosevelt wasn't an icon yet. There were still some factions against him.

-At the second convention, everyone loved him.

-After the second convention, there was a subset of people who objected to him running more than twice.


I feel that I should say that I'm not pretending to be a historical scholar or anything, so more knowledgeable people should feel free to correct me.

[RoyGBiv]

23. 1936...

I don't know about that. The situation in '36 was complex. A political realignment had just occurred, which was something a most of the politicians in power had not fully experienced personally. They didn't quite know how to deal with it, in other words. Southern Democrats were still Democrats, and loyal ones at that, but they had some fundamental opposition to FDR personally. One of the Democratic Senators from my state for example made a name for himself partly because of his fervent opposition to FDR. He was part of a coalition of Southern Democrats that did so.

But the nation in '36 was in very, very bad shape, and the memories of the Republicans as the party in power as it all fell apart were very fresh in people's minds. Southern Dems weren't read to bolt just yet as the Republican party had not reformed itself completely in the wake of the Coolidge/Hoover disaster and did not present a message Southerners were willing to entertain.

As I said ... complex. Hard to discuss in a short message.

[RoyGBiv]

20. Yeah...

I was thinking about that as I wrote. Only reason I settled on that year was because the rogue Dems either united fairly quickly or were not, in my view, truly Democrats in the model of the party developed during the FDR years. IOW, the parts that remained not united with the larger group were simply slow to separate from the party realignment that had already occurred. We have similar groups today, most of whom don't have a different party to go to really.

But, I get your point. Because of these splits, it's hard to find a time of Democratic unity at all. FDR is also a good choice, but those Dems who didn't like the platform he helped promote were multiple and loud. There was no such thing as unity in '32; it was a unity of convenience and desperation if it existed at all. In '36, it was much the same, only more so. The unity was artificial because the nation was in such a dire position. These people were part of a different generation of politicians for whom party loyalty was something not taken lightly, even if one disagreed with the party -- the last hold-outs from the 19th century form of politics. Today, leaving a party is as easy to many people's conscience as signing any random piece of paper.

In short, I think we're seeing a real kind of unity today that is almost unprecedented. We've got our factions and our splits and our momentary reasons, but there's an undercurrent of unity that's hard to find in previous eras.

Of course, some of this could be perception. Not having been alive during these previous eras I'm talking about while experiencing the current situation in real-time, my judgment may be skewed.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

7. Yeah I was part of that split in 92

I'm a liberal who voted for Perot (don't ask me!).

Fortunately it didn't hurt Clinton any.

So 1960, eh? Yeah, I can see that, knowing what I know about what went on the previous four years.

Wow. Long Ass time.

[salonghorn70]

15. Disagree About 1960

In 1960 the Stevenson Democrats weren't fully on board at the end of the convention. They came on board very quickly.

[Wapsie B]

9. I can only speak for myself but

I can't remember Democrats as energetic as right now. Carter was and will forever be one of the most honorable men to sit in the WH. But his presence didn't electrify people.
Part of the reason for this energy is because so many realize the importance in winning this election, not only the WH but to make inroads in the House as well. There's also the fact that people sense that we are fielding a winning team. If there's anyone who can deliver a speech nearly as well as the Big Dog it has to be Edwards. This all lends itself to the fever pitch we're seeing right now. We've just got to make it last 100 more days.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

10. Yeah I can see that.....

still....I'd like to do a little research on the FDR years and conventions. Wasn't he elected more than twice?

[Big Al from WI]

14. I believe FDR was elected 4 times

and he died very early in his 4th term, when Truman became president.

[Wapsie B]

16. And FDR is the reason for the Ammendment

stating that presidents can only serve two terms. Put in place by repugs of course. But that came back to bite 'em in the ass with Ronnie. Alzheimer's or not, they'd a put him back in there.

[wabeewoman]

19. Gotta agree

I have voted in every election starting with Kennedy and I have never been as worried about our country as now. I have never despised anyone like this bush or gotten as involved in politics. The closest for me would be Reagan's second term-right in the middle of Iran Contra. It was obviously he was dismantling the unions, running up the deficit, hurting the working people but hey, he was charming and the Teflon president-no criticism would stick to him. This year started different on our side-many years it was "there isn't any choice" or "all our candidates look the same" and its just gotten better. I am so proud to be a Democrat

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Never.

This is definitely the high water mark for Democratic unity.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

12. That's what I was trying to find out

have we EVER been this united or energized by an election???

My working theory right now is no, but I still need to dig a bit...

Even if we have, it's been a long ass time. 65 years or more?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. 76 and 92 were both pretty unified years, but not as much as this,

the primary fights were longer and more bitter and there was a less intense feeling of the election being the most important ever. Before that, I don't really know about the Adlai Stevenson era... I know we we very united behind FDR...

[Old and In the Way]

18. Voting since '72

I have never seen the Party as energized as today. It's not just the stolen election or Clinton's Inquisition, either. It's the whole stinking Republican "I've got mine, Go F___ Yourself" attitude in America. "Pubes tried to push this country right; they have given us the momentum to swing it waaay to the left.....their best days are behind them.

[Jose Diablo]

21. I've never seen it this united, been politically aware since '63. n/t

[misanthrope]

22. Last election...

...Everyone always gets caught up in the fervor during the convention. Take a gander at some of the looks on the faces of those folks on the floor during the heat of the moment this week. It's pretty scary.

[Sugarbleus]

24. Well, Clinton brought the house down most recently

when he ran for President. It was really exciting for me then...just as it is now. Except now, I'm desparate. There is much more urgency in this election. I'd vote for a squirrel and get excited if it won because BUSH HAS TO BE OVERTHROWN. I am happy that we have Kerry Edwards though, don't get me wrong.

[Bake]

25. I'm 48. I've never seen or felt it like this.

Not ever.

Bake

[Liberal Christian]

26. I've been paying attention since about 1968

and I don't know that I've ever seen people this unified.

1960 -- I was 6. Dad and Mom were Republican, and Dad was active in the Nixon campaign. I remember chanting on the sidewalks: "Nixon, Nixon, he's our man! Kennedy belongs in the garbage can!"

1964 -- I was 10. I had begun to be aware of the racial struggles, as had my parents. Goldwater was more than they could take and, following their lead, I became a Democrat. I don't remember the sense of the country, but Lyndon did win in a landslide.

1968 -- still deep divisions and turmoil, evidenced by riots in Chicago in conjunction with Democratic convention. Country still divided by racist. Wallace is a spoiler in this election. I was 14.

1972 -- the most amazingly diverse Democratic convention delegation anyone had ever seen. This was truly the convention that moved from old white guys in smoke filled rooms to making the Democrats a truly representative party. When they sang "Happy Days are Here Again," and I saw so many faces of color, so many women's faces, so many young faces, I cried. I would turn 18 the next month and had worked so hard for McGovern. I don't know that I've ever been so devasted.

1976 -- out of college and working on the Carter campaign. There was some sense of Democratic unity, but still a fair number of people who were voting for Carter with major grumbling.

1980, 1984, 1988 -- the lost years

1992 and 1996 -- I didn't sense a lot of unity or excitement. Not like this year.

2000 -- we won, but there was no unity

2004 -- I am feeling more excitement, momentum, unified spirit than I've ever felt in my lifetime. I'm trying hard to not let it go to my head.

[Only Me]

27. I have been voting for along time, but 1992 and 2004

are pretty close for me on the energized front. Back in 1992, it seemed and was critical that we take hold of our enormous deficit which was at an, at the time, historical high. We had countries literally wanting some of our federal lands as payments on debts.
We even talked about selling some of our government owned buildings . Unemployment was up, Homelessness was up, Bush Sr.
was a war monger with a nasty attitude (but not as bad a jr), the environment wasn't an important issue, the rich got richer and the middle class and poor got squeesed to death. It was a very scary time then too.
As for united, I am and will always be a Democrat. The only way I wouldn't vote Democratic is if the party totally changed it's character and belief systems. I believe in the way this party thinks as a whole, I think it stands for many of the same
principles I hold near, so I never had a problem feeling united to our candidates. I am devoted even if I may disagree with a specific issue, because I know that issue is only apart of a larger whole.

[opihimoimoi]

29. Never before I have see the Dems this pissed off. Bush has United Us

with his Arrogance and Blunders.

[KharmaTrain]

30. Here's A Few Good Years...

1932! I think this election may be as vital as that one...which came in the midst of the GOOP created Great Depression and set a Progressive agenda that lasted nearly 40 years. Thanks to the Repugnicans own stupidity...including protectionist policies that made the depression worse, they got their heads handed to them and gone was the rancor of 1924 (108 ballots!) and 1928 (Al Smith...Catholic). FDR waltzes to both the nomination and a landslide win.

1936...this one is mentioned above and probably was Roosevelt's most united and one-sided victory. Alf Landon suffered the worse defeat until Mondale vs. Raygun in '84...then had a daughter who was a Senator and starred as an Alien on TV.

1944...'40 is omitted as there was a faction within the Democratic party that wasn't too cool about a 3rd term, even for FDR. It was a tough election as well...but '44 was in the midst of WWII, right after D-Day and victory was a matter of time. The Progressives got pissed when Henry Wallace was passed over for a second term as VP (imagine a Socialist as President...it could have happened).

1964 - The first convention I remember watching...in glorious black & white. The ghost of JFK was all over this gathering and LBJ was the undisputed leader. The only "excitement" that year was when he named Hubert Humphrey...a rival and a LIBERAL...as his running mate. The highlight I still remember (and I was a little kid) was the film presentation they did on JFK...followed by Robert giving the keynote. I never saw my parents crying...a rare occurance. The Repugnicans, like today, were going far to the right with Goldwater...JFK's memory was still strong and Johnson ran the middle and ran away to a landslide.

1976! Lest we forget how Watergate destroyed the GOOP and the Raygun/Ford fued made things even worse. Carter came out of nowhere and his early challengers, Jerry Brown & Mo Udall were further to the left than he was...and great candidates that year. There was HHH whose name kept being thrown in for another run (methinks he knew he had cancer by that point)...but otherwise, Carter got a lot of us very exciting...I remember it very well. He was an "outsider" and there was a definite upbeat mood to both the convention and the election.

1996 - Lest we forget the Al Gore Macarena? '92 was a good year, but there was still a lot of Democrats who did vote for Perot that year and many of us who didn't glam onto Clinton (I was for Harken that year) until after the Convention and when the chance of victory looked possible. '96 was not only a lovefest, but Chicago's vindication for 1968. Richie Daley went all out to erase the biggest blot of his father's "legacy" by hosting a bigger and well run convention. Of course no one remembers it, it went well to well.

This year is different as the sense of purpose of the party is stronger than in the past. There's a deeper need to remove this regime that over-rides divisions. We all know that a better tomorrow starts with Bunnypants being removed along with his cabal. We're seeing a social happening here similar to '68 and '72 (yep I remember those well) that could, if we do this right this time, lead to some very interesting and promising years of majority rule ahead. But first, we have work to do.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

31. Thanks guys

great analysis from some people who were there. Wish I had been, but these are interesting times, too (I was born in 1970 and was only vaguely aware of Ford first...).