question: what is the Democratic party's "base"

[onenote]

There are a lot of references to the Democratic party's "base" in threads. Some people think that the base is being ignored; others think it is being kowtowed to.

So here's my question: is there a Democratic Party base and if so who is in it and who is not.

onenote

[Nimrod2005]

1. People who live in households who make less than $50K/Year.

[murdoch]

6. That's it

Polls show people with incomes of less than $50k a year favored Kerry over Bush in 2004. Over that income level, they were Bush supporters. Corporate television talks about red state and blue state, but this divide is rarely mentioned.

[Scott the Wise]

40. And thats why

we most go after marriage.
Most people right out of college make between 35-40,000. Two people get married then they are over that 50,000 mark.
The more people who get married the more we loose.

[still_one]

2. I suspect the democratic base is NOT what controls the party

[stillcool]

3. When you think of trickle down policies...

the first heads to get pissed on are the base. The rest of us are a mirage.

[murdoch]

4. The working class

If you look at the CNN 2004 election poll, the red state blue state thing was nonsense compared to the real base. People who made $15k-30k overwhelmingly were Democratic. People who made $30-50k leaned Democrat, but not as much so. Of course, people who "earned" over $200k+ were overwhelmingly Republican. I put earn in quotes because once you get into that territory, many of the people are rentier heirs like Paris Hilton who have never worked a day in their life. Of course some of them do earn it - probably the Democratic voters.

[murdoch]

5. Here's the poll -

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Income Kerry Bush
$15-30k 57% 42%
$30-50k 50% 49%
<...>
$200k+ 35% 63%

[onenote]

7. interesting responses -- not what I expected

Everyone seems to be defining the base in terms of income level. Yet, here on DU, the base seems to be defined in terms of issues.

Follow up question: what is the repub base? Is it also income based? A lot of folks refer to the fundies as the repubs base, but certainly a number of them are in the lower income brackets.

onenote

[welshTerrier2]

8. i define the base as ...

all registered Democrats who are likely to vote ...

the objective in a two-party dominated system should be to expand the base by listening to and providing education to potential supporters which for the Democratic Party should include: Greens, Social Democrats, moderate republicans, and alienated non-voters ...

ignoring any of these potential constituencies is foolhardy politics and fails to expand "the base" ...

[Dr Fate]

9. For me, it is people who do these things:

Votes straight DEM, or mostly DEM but NEVER Republican.

Donates money to the party/DEM candidates

Volunteers for Democratic candidates, local organizations, etc.

Contacts their Democratic representatives and party leadership on a regular basis


I am assuming that this thread is prompted by people saying that failing to filibuster will demoralize the base. I agree with that assertion as well.

[welshTerrier2]

10. that's a sadly narrow base

i like to think of a base as the solid foundation onto which smaller and smaller components can be added ... somewhere, yesterday, and i have absolutely no idea if the information is accurate at all, i heard someone say that 96% of Americans never give money to political candidates ...

by your definition, and this doesn't mean your definition isn't as valid as any other, your "donates money" requirement makes for a sadly narrow base ...

[Dr Fate]

11. You are right- my list is just of the people Democrats ignore.

My list represents the votes that are "sewed up" and people who "have no choice but to vote fo us, so lets concentrate on swing voters and see what THEY want."

That is why I wish I was swing-voter- much cheaper, less time consuming, and you get more of a voice with Democrats.

[zanne]

13. Coming from NH, I know that to be a fact.

Maybe we should all change our registration to Independent, and they'll listen to us.

[Dr Fate]

15. From now on, when I contact Democrats, it will be as a "swing voter." n/t

n/t

[wyldwolf]

12. the base is to varied to define

1. By a margin of more that 2 to 1, both DNC members AND rank and file Democrats want the party to take a more moderate approach to issues.

"These attitudes contrast sharply with the opinions of both Democratic officials and rank-and-file Democrats. A Gallup poll of Democratic National Committee members (in February 2005) showed that, by more than two-to-one (52%-23%) the DNC members want the party to become more moderate, rather than more liberal. That view is shared by Democrats nationally; in a January survey, Gallup found that 59% of Democrats wanted the party to take a more moderate course."

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=933

2. Unmarried Women are Now a Key Element of the Democratic Base

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000971.php

3. The base is very conflicted on issues. Democrats get most of the black vote and the gay vote but African Americans are more strongly opposed to gay marriage on average than are white Democratic voters. The Democratic party gets the votes of Teacher's Unions based on the party's official opposition to school vouchers. However, black and hispanic voters are more likely to favor school choice (The lasr numbers I saw had 70% of African Americans in favor of vouchers). Blue collar union workers vote for Democrats on average yet many of them are religions and oppose gay marriage and abortion.

The paradox of what constitutes the Democratic base is ponderous. But anyone who claims that the base is "this small group" or that "anti-something or another" group is clearly dreaming.

I'll refer you to a piece by William Pitt that appeared on DU:

Do you think you are part of the Democratic base?

I hear a lot of stuff on DU about anti-war left-wing types being the base, and Kerry better not piss us off, or Kerry better court us, or Kerry has already pissed us off, so screw you guys, I'm going home.

I hate to break it to you, but anti-war left-wing types are not the base of the Democratic party.

Union members are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast and Pacific northwest. Women are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast, far west, and portions of the midwest. African Americans are the base of the party all across the country.

Anti-war left-wing types are the single most unreliable voter group in America. Unless you are simon-pure, you are unworthy of support from that group. As no politician in 21st Century America (with a snowball's chance of winning a national election) is simon-pure, they are not likely to bust their asses to get anti-war left-wing support.

Anti-war left-wing support, by the way, is buried by the aforementioned real base. Yes, anti-war left-wing support can swing an election, but because of the aforementioned unreliability problem - anti-war left-wing voters will bolt at the first sign of impurity, even in a tight race (See: 2000) - it is too often a hopeless exercise to try and court that group with any real vigor. The real base outnumbers anti-war left-wing types 10-1. That's where the focus goes.

So all you anti-war left-wing folks should probably stop referring to yourselves as the base of the Democratic party. Don't feel bad; I'm a anti-war left-wing type, too, and so I'm out of the fun as well. We were close to being the base, but blew up in 1968 because we couldn't stand it anymore. The party looked at us and said, "OOOOkay...let's look elsewhere."

Point?

Stop waiting for the party to court you. They won't. Either roll up your sleeves and help clean out the Aegean stables, or bolt and do exactly what the party expects you to do...which is why they don't think of you as any kind of base.

We can clean this house. We have to win first, and for a lot of good people that makes for an ugly, maddening choice, but we can clean this house. Then we'll be the base.

[jonnyblitz]

19. the hardcore leftist anti-war activists i know are most definitely

NOT DEMS or seem not to have any significant blind loyalty to the DEM party if they are.I suspect you are correct on that assessment based on my unscientific observation of the anti-war left. that is why I find it amusing that some on here assume the heart and soul of the anti-war movement is somehow partisan to the Democratic party and they can't figure out why "radicals" (ie. free mumia, or palestine rights groups) hijack "their" movement when it wasn't Democratic party based to begin with.the priority for the anti-war left is to stop the war, not flack and "spin" for a particular political party. I admit to being part of that camp, the only thing is I always vote DEM, (i am registered as a DEM) despite whatever issues I have with the party and how much complaining I do here at DU. :shrug:

but yeah I agree with your assessment of the anti-war left, believe it or not.

[applegrove]

14. Dem party like all winning parties in Western democracies - is a big

tent. It doesn't represent a narrow band of interests but makes sure that it gives each part of its base what it needs.

[Dr Fate]

16. Except the active donating & volunteer base, who gets nothing it needs.

They ignored us on Iraq and chose to go with "the polls"

They ignored us when we begged Kerry to fight back the Swiftboaters.

They ignored us on election fraud.

They ignored us when we asked them to talk about the DSM,

Many of them ignored us on the Bankruptcy bill.

They ignored us on Roberts, told us to "keep outr powder dry" and now they ignore our calls for a filibuster.

[applegrove]

20. Point by point response.

You: They ignored us on Iraq and chose to go with "the polls"

Me: They had intel that lied to them. They had more of it than you did. Powell's speech was one great big series of lies.

You: They ignored us when we begged Kerry to fight back the Swiftboaters.

Me: They did fight back against swiftboaters. Kerry tried to stay out of the muck. Was also that story about him and some intern. And flip-flopping .. the show "The Architect" showed how Rove waited for Kerry to flip-flop over the 80 Million dollars because he put a Sophie's Choice in that bill - knowing Kerry would have to choose one way or the other. Cannot say he gave GOP free reign when he tried to slap their hands. But it was turned into flip-flopping instead of prudent thinking.

You: They ignored us on election fraud.

Me: Election fraud has been fought at the state level. Dems lost any power in the 2004 elections. The only way to fight for transparency is at the state level. And that is occurring. There is no smoking gun on diebold. The exit polls were wrong in more places than just diebold races. There are 49 ways in which the letter of the law was toyed with. Dems at the state level are on all 50 of them. Not just the belief (which no exacting proof) that votes were stolen in a massive way by machine.

You: They ignored us when we asked them to talk about the DSM,

Me: They built up a case on the lies into war. They waited for more information to come out about torture & rendition and phony Iraqi intel. They have stated the case. The vast majority of Americans now believe the WH lied congress into war. DSM was a part of that. They demanded & now have oversight into the Iraq war. And they will no longer take intel at face value. Give them some time. DSM only came out 9 months ago. Since then the Dems have made the case.

You: Many of them ignored us on the Bankruptcy bill.

Many of them did. They are not against the whole financial industry - they cannot come out against the banks. Don't know about that one. Seems unfair. Especially with corporations going into bankrupcy to cut the pensions. Give the Dems some power so they can fix that one.

You: They ignored us on Roberts, told us to "keep outr powder dry" and now they ignore our calls for a filibuster

They don't have the power. They don't want to give the WH the excuse to go nuclear. They likely would prefer that Abramoff & Delay & frist & Rove stay in the news. Who knows. Perhaps they will filibuster. It is smart to keep your powder dry. Then the GOP and folk like Rove cannot figure out a way to kill the democratic message. Dems should not be "broadcasting" their plans. That is how you handle manipulators. You give them no information.

[Dr Fate]

21. "Why We Should Not Fight"

Should be the post-title of your point-by-point excuse fest.

Save your excuses for someone who has not heard them hundreds of times over the last 3 elections cycles we lost.

You act as if I was not there, watching each event unfold as they happened.

Bad intel? B.S. They had google just like we did. They chose to go with "the polls" instead of the facts the base was begging them to adress. Shit, we STILL beg them to adress it, like the DSM they refused to talk about on TV and still refuse to talk about on TV.

And they did not do shit about the Swiftboaters on the planet I live on.

The top Democrats would not even mention the possibility of fraud ON TV when it mattered, when folks would have actually paid attention. They were too frightened the media would paint them as "Micheal Moore X Files nuts"- that is not an excuse anymore...

You offer excuses for why they ignored us, but my point still stands- the DEMS ignored us on all the things I mentioned.

You have well thought out excuses for WHY they ignored us (example "Kerry wanted to stay above the fray", they were afraid Bush might be right on Iraq, etc, etc) but the fact stands- they ignored us.

Good luck with your continuation of the "strategy" that lost the last 3 elections.

[applegrove]

23. Actually - Dems won in 2000. Evidence that if apathy and exit polls

and all manner of gamesmanship including swiftboating kerry had not worked on fooling Americans to vote for a war President.. (remember Rove did tell the Brits they only had until 2004 to agree to figth & invade Iraq) evidence that Kerry could have won. So it was close. What if enough machines had been available for all Dem voters in Ohio? And 45 other things.

This is what happened.

It happened.


So too the wedge issues like gay and abortion. So too catholic church stepping in the election and helping out Rove. So too the 3% of african americans who followed their pastors.

It was close. GOP is better at politics. Cause that is all they are. A power machine. Dems have to deal with reality and people. Much harder to be human and political than A-human and political.

That is the facts.

Dems have never won an election for president without a big tent. Wedge issues and war president made inroads. So too the Bush WH using war and debt to fund the economy and keep the stock market roaring by selling off assets.

All true.

Third parties on the left rarely get into power. And when they do these days - they govern fiscally conservative. So fiscal conservative is a big part of the big tent.

[Dr Fate]

25. They ignore us on the most important issues and strategy ideas.

As I pointed out with a few examples, just off the top of my head...

As a result, they lost the last 3 election cycles.

You can come up with "rational" excuses for WHY they ignored us, but you cant seem refute that they did not heed to our pleas and advice.

Truth is, they dont want our "crazy Micheal Moore advice", no matter how many times we end up being right- they just want our "sewed up" votes & donations.

[applegrove]

26. They have tried to implement a shared risk national health care

strategy. They will do so again. They are not for pre-emptive war. They like science. They are for American industry. They are for justice. They are for the middle class (Repukes just try to sink it in the bathtub). They are for affirmative action. For religion based on Jesus love. For choice. For helping those who need it. They are for the truth.

You simply cannot wipe off all the things dems are for simply because they have not had either the power or the intel to act accordingly.

[Dr Fate]

27. Being "for" somthing and actually fighting for it are 2 different things.

Alito, Scalia, Roberts & Thomas and whoever else the DEMS let sail through over the next 3 years can easily defeat every single vague concept you say they are "for."

Excuses, excuses and more excuses.

Excuses dont butter my bread, but thanks anyway.

[applegrove]

29. Vote for Nader. And sit back and enjoy another 8 years of the GOP

machine. Cause if the GOP candidate wins in 2008, there will be a new war in 2012 so the repukes can have a war president.

Don't vote for shared risk heath care. Don't vote to stop 1/2 of all American bankruptcies with that.

And as for buttering your bread.. you are in a crisis in case you didn't notice. A crisis of democracy.. about what the world will be like. About America's role. You should be more intereted in what you can do for your country... what you can sacrifice to make sure the Dems win in 2006. And then in 2008.

[Dr Fate]

30. Ah- the Nader card. Is that all you have left now?

Any time a Democrat has critiques of the DEM leadership that one cannot refute, eventually that Democrat is accused of being a Naderite. Please.

I never said I'd vote for that idiot- but I will do my best to keep people like you in my party from blowing smoke up everyones ass with these lame excuses.

[applegrove]

31. Lame excuses for sticking together - even if everything is not "just so"

in your relationship to your party? How about that 50% of US bankruptcies are cause by lack of shared risk health care plan?

[Dr Fate]

33. I aint going nowhere, if for no other reason...

...than to keep people who think like you from continuing to advance the failed strategies of the last 3 elections.

[applegrove]

35. Dems have had their big tent torn apart by the War President vote,

gayness, & abortion (and getting churches to vote conservatively as a block). Do not ignore the actions of the GOP. We lost because our big tent was wedges. A few % points here, a few % there. A few african american voters voting with their pastors.

That is why we lost. The wedge issues and the big tent.

That is reality.

[Dr Fate]

37. We lost because we were "flip floppers" on the war...

...and because of our weak responses to the SBVs and other various lies- that we refused to even call "lies".

This could have been remedied if they had listened to the base instead of the polls.

[applegrove]

39. Doesn't look like they are afraid anymore of talking about the Myths

behind the Bush WH. That's because there is much proof to back them up. We can hope. Peace!:hi:

[Dr Fate]

42. No, it's because "the polls" suggest it is "safe" in some cases.

The proof was all there as it happened, as a 5 minute google search revealed to anyone who cared.

It was the polls, not the proof that DEMS looked at.

I'll be staying in the party to keep your wing of excuse makers in check. You can be secure as to that fact.

[applegrove]

43. They didn't have DSM, or proof that Powell's speech came from

rendered detainees & hacks. They were mis-informed. They gave Bush WH benefit of the doubt. They have learnt their lesson.

[Dr Fate]

47. *I* did have the British news reports that reported Colin's forgeries.

I guess the Democrats had "google" blocked from their computers, because the British press reported Powell's forged reports within days after his speech.

[applegrove]

48. Dems were wrapped up in 9/11. They gave President the benefit

of any doubt. They were wrong to do that. They do it no longer. You learn.

[Dr Fate]

49. That is how I would spin it to swing-voters too.

"We trusted the President- that was a mistake."

But we are talking about examples of DEMs not listening to the base when they should have.

It's a great talking point for swing-voters, but FYI: for an internal debate, that excuse wont fly.

[Neil Lisst]

17. A variety of issues define the base.

Blacks are most consistently DEM voters.

Women favor Dems, but women who are married are less so than unmarried or divorced women, many of whom are lower on the economic scale.

Less money, more Dem. The more money, the more likely to vote PUB.

The more one attends church, the less likely to vote Dem, and vice versa.

Pro gay are Dem. Anti-gay tend to vote PUB, unless they're black, in which case they still tend to vote Dem.

We get the fewest votes from the very wealthy, married, white, go to church every week segment of the population.

[TheFarseer]

18. It SHOULD be everyone working for a W2

In practice it might be people whose social agenda the DLC supports such as the pro-choice and gay-rights people, extreme environmentalists and civil rights activists. Those are only some examples, but you know what I am going for. I'm not saying those are bad people at all, but that is too narrow a focus for the democrats to be a successful party. I wish I could say our base was everyone making less than 50K a year but "what have you done for me lately" is kicking in. We need to get back to being the champion of working families if we are ever to be successful nation-wide.

The republican base is millionaires/billionaires and fundamentalist Christians.

[NVMojo]

22. It's time to face the fact that the base is not Democrat.

Neither party represents "the people" and "the people" have been shafted by them and we are about to get shafted even more.

[SoCalDem]

24. People who THINK

They come in all colors, sizes, shapes and incomes. they are in every city/town/state. The unfortunate part of this is, not many people think these days. Most people "feel" or "believe".

The US has become a nation of the entertained.

the non-thinkers (the feelers & believers) are told what they should believe or feel, and most of the time they have no idea why. They follow a minister, a tv-guy, a snake-oil salesman of a politician who charms them.

Thinkers usually take the time to study issues and evaluate information for themselves. Non-thinkers just fall in line and swallow the message of the day.

There are MORE of us than them, BUT they are magnified and glorified in print and on tv & radio, so we "don't matter".:(

[applegrove]

28. When the far left abandon's the Dems because they don't like moderate

policy.. then they cause Dems to loose. It is all in % points at this point. Nader lost Gore the 2000 elections. Chief Justices could not have touched his election win if not for the the vote that went to Nader.

Go ahead. Repeat the past mistakes. Buy the lie that Dems are in no way different than Repukes.

[Dr Fate]

32. What is "moderate" about giving Bush and Alito a free pass?

This is not about moderate vs. left.

I am a moderate on the issues- this is about fighting and standing up for the truth.

As an example, Hackett is a moderate, but even lefties like him, because he FIGHTS.

Standing up to the Right Wing is not a "leftist" ideal- its an American one.

[applegrove]

34. Should they have a plan? Or should they stand up and fight exactly

when you want them too. There is an election in 2006. Principle is important. But at this point - I think the election is the most important thing. Perhaps the Dems want to keep the fillibuster to stop Bush from going to war with Iran in about September of 2006. I don't know.

But I'm not going to judge Dems on things they have no control over. They have no power to stop Bush from filling the empty Supreme Court seat this year. I for one would rather we discuss Abramoff, Delay, Rovegate, Nigerian Uranium, faulty intelligence, shared risk health care, Bush presumed incompetence vs. his intentional incompetense, corruption, campaign finance (that was on the agenda here until "I hate the Democrats" took over), Brownie, Bolton, US doing its damnedest to tear up international agreements, lack of condoms for girls systematically raped in Uganda, Darfur, Iraq fiasco, torture, the way right wing fundies have been funded by big oil ore the years and taught to hate "humanists" (which means liberals) before all else ..say poverty is not the worst thing on the list anymore.. it is humanits apparently, Unitary executive, intentional mis-governance in the Drug care plan, hiding documents in the Katrian commission, election transparency reform, education, science, job-losses, the phony pumping up of the stock market at the expense of the unemployed or under-employed (who do all the sacrifice in fighting inflation), the attack on the UN, peace in Israel/Palestine, etc.

Think of all the time taken up on the DU boards these last few weeks - with people wining they are unhappy and want to leave. But they don't leave.

Fact is that Bush gets to make the choice of new supreme court justice. It will be Alito or someone exactly the same.

Let's try and get ahead and think of the elections and learn to work together.

[Dr Fate]

36. I reject your excuse that DEMS have "no control over" various issues.

The could filibuster. They have control over that.

They could have voted "no" on Iraq like the base begged them to, rather than setting themsleves up to be flip-floppers. They had contrl over that.

Kerry could have gone on TV and said "George Bush is a liar (and use that word)concerning my war record as well as (list 10 issues here)..." He had control over that. instead he chose "nuance" or even ignored the charges.

They have control to take the advice of the base, who has been right about nearly everything as opposed to the poll-driven "strategists" who have been wrong about nearly everything.

[Lost-in-FL]

38. The problem with Democrats is...

and this is my own humble opinion (and ya'll can slap me if you want) is that a lot of liberal are no better than Bush. For them is "my way or the highway", the word COMPROMISE is non-existant. If a Dem Senator choose to compromise on a Rep bill for the good of the people, or maybe because they can come up with something better in a future they are a "whore" of the Republican Party. Look for example Iraq, NO ONE want to compromise. They split the party in factions because some want the troops OUT IN 24 HRS... RIGHT FKNG NOW!!! while those who think we should be carefull and leave systematically are WHORES. They split the party in multiple factions. No wonder we cannot take a fricking seat in the house even with all the news about Republican corruption just because we don't want to compromise.

It is not the Republicans that are destroying this country... it is US liberals. I thank God slavery was dealt with centuries ago and not now because we do not know how to compromise on anything anymore.

[Dr Fate]

41. Like when we "compromised" on the Iraq vote?

Or like when we "compromised" on the Roberts confirmation?

How about when we "compromised" with the "flip-flopper" and SBV stuff by not calling them "liars" in return?

We compromise on nearly everything, that is the freaking problem.

[Lost-in-FL]

44. NO ONE is compromising...

The Republicans are FORCING their way on us knowing we are so destructive that we will divide the Democratic party in pieces.

[welshTerrier2]

45. i want the troops out in 24 hrs ... right fkng now!!!

but you see, you're generalizing and you're wrong ...

i assume you would agree that i have a right to my beliefs so i use that as a starting point ... but then you go on to argue that the word COMPROMISE is non-existent and you further argue that it is liberals who are "splitting the Party in multiple factions" ...

well, i hope you're paying attention to this ... i have offered numerous compromises on the war ... i DO want the troops out immediately but i am more than prepared to negotiate ... have you heard about elected Democrats sitting down with their constituents to seek common ground? it seems you want to place all the blame on "liberals" ...

so, here's one example of a specific compromise i've proposed on Iraq ... most of the Senate Dems seem to be supporting some form of "we can withdraw troops as certain benchmarks are achieved" ... and my view is OUT NOW ... so let's talk about compromise ... the problem i have with requiring the achievement of "benchmarks" is that i am not convinced anything is being achieved in Iraq in the first place ... i see the achievement of these "conditional benchmarks" as an open-ended commitment to remain in Iraq ... therefore, i offer the following compromise: 1. provide a "date certain" after which all troops must be withdrawn from Iraq ... 2. this "date certain" should balance the "out now" view with those who are calling for roughly another year of war ... that means we should have all our troops out of Iraq in about 6 months ...

is this too rigid and inflexible? fine ... the problem is that elected Democrats have been absolutely inflexible ... you demand negotiation and compromise from "liberals" but you don't call for any kind of dialog or forum in which constituents can sit down with their reps and Senators to "negotiate" ... my offer of compromise is on the table; where's yours and where are the elected Dems in the process???

[theboss]

46. Italian Americans from New Jersey

Which...um...well...let's see here....