has DU moved to the right? (data and analysis)

[welshTerrier2]

earlier today i was looking back at some very old posts i made about Afghanistan ... while doing this, i came across a poll someone had taken way back in December, 2003 ... i thought it would be interesting to run the exact same poll today to see how DU has changed since then ...

the poll asked for opinions, pro and con, about the US attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan ...

i was confident that DU had moved to the right over the past two and half years ... i ran the poll in GDP (the original was run in the old, archived GD forum - did GDP even exist then?) ...

well, after collecting a bunch of votes, i was sure i could prove my case ...

the original poll ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=873407 ) had 50% yes (i.e. pro invasion) to 49% no (i.e. against invasion) - the actual vote was 69-67 ...

today's poll in GDP ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2728191 ) had 64% yes and 36% no - the actual vote was 32-18 ...

based on this, i initially concluded that DU has become somewhat more conservative ...

BUT NOT SO FAST THERE, BUCKO ...

i decided to run the same poll today in GD because i wasn't sure whether GDP and GD would yield similar or different results ...

AND HERE WAS THE BIG SURPRISE (at least for me):

today's poll in GD ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1657770 ) had 43% yes and 57% no - the actual vote was 15 - 20 ...

this seems to suggest that there is a fairly significant difference between GDP and GD ... of course, this is just one sample and subject to all sorts of questions and complaints ... but i think the results probably are indicative of real differences ...

could it be that there is a greater affinity in GDP to how elected Dems vote in Congress than there is in GD?

my view, perhaps somewhat biased because i post mostly in GDP, is that DU did become more conservative once the 2004 primary season began ... i think some DU'ers who were further left were less interested in electoral politics than in issues and either left DU or were kicked out ... the influx of candidate supporters, especially in GDP, moved DU somewhat more to the right ...

i think it's important for the Democratic Party to keep the lines of communication open to those who are to the party's left ... we may disagree with them or they with us but we should always look for more votes wherever we can find them ... closing doors on dialog is never good politics ...

[MissWaverly]

1. I notice that too, we are a discussion forum

I am hoping we can keep the progressive tone.

[Poll_Blind]

2. That's very interesting- thanks for sharing that bit of info.

One one or two occasions I have posted a message to GD AND GD: Politics because they do seem to garner a different set of opinions/eyes which sometimes even seems to change by the day of the week you post it.

PB

[tocqueville]

3. I fail to understand why the question could reveal

the "conservativeness" of DU or not. The war in Afghanistan is a TACTICAL question. Another US president (Al Gore or Kerry) had probably conducted a war there after 9/11 and with probably better results than letting the Talibans come back or letting OBL get away since Iraq hadn't been invaded.

the "conservativeness" or "progressiveness" can only be assessed with an array of questions about major issues in American politics and not by a stance about single war which by the way is legal and actively supported by all European countries.

[OzarkDem]

5. Some of us feel

If Gore had been president 9-11 wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[oasis]

22. Exactamundo. No Bush, no Condi....no 9/11. Gore takes time to read.(eom)

[welshTerrier2]

8. as i began reading your response ...

i guessed that you supported the invasion ...

why?

because those further to the left of you would look at issues like US imperialism ... they would look at the new oil pipeline that the US pressured the Taliban to allow way back in 1998 ... they would look at the string of military bases and understand that they are there solely to guard the oil pipeline using US military troops to provide security to BIG OIL's greedy commercial interests ...

to view Afghanistan as TACTICAL and to focus on issues like legality and the support of Europe is perfectly legitimate - it's also far more conservative ...

those of us focused on empire, which one might argue shouldn't be seen as either progressive or conservative, are, at least in common usage, generally labelled as further left ... frankly, i don't like the labels but that's how they are generally used ...

[brentspeak]

10. So is Michael Moore a conservative?

He supported the Afghanistan action.

Your definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" seem out of whack.

[tocqueville]

15. Even if the Afghanistan war has several agendas

which I don't deny, it's a too specific question to make a scientific assessment. I don't see the conservativeness into replying with force in the 9/11 context. How the war is conducted is another story.
And I fail to understand why legality and international support is... conservative

[Totally Committed]

4. I've noticed it for a while now...

A lot of the lefties that used to post here have gone elsewhere, I think.

My hope is that we can keep the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party alive and well here at DU.

TC

[OzarkDem]

6. Agree, we're in the mainstream n/t

[Zhade]

40. Yes, despite the fevered wishes of conservatives (including DLCers)...

...polls consistently show that OUR values, OUR principles, are shared by most Americans, and rightly so.

[xchrom]

7. i'm not sure i understand how the war in afghanistan is a take on

whether someon is a progressive/liberal -- or how that would indicate a rightward shift.

being liberal/progressive does not mean people are pacifists.

far from it.

[welshTerrier2]

12. "being liberal/progressive does not mean people are pacifists"

that's very true ... i see myself as very progressive and i am not a pacifist ...

but i also see neocons making policy ... i see PNAC ... i question whether the US did order the 9/11 attacks ... i see US empire and BIG OIL everywhere ... i see a new oil pipeline in Afghanistan with a string of permanent US military bases along its length to protect it ... no other bases there - just the ones right along the pipeline ...

so i agree with your statement that supporting any generic war does not necessarily define liberal/progressive ... but supporting any war with bush in office, in my view, does ... bush is a blatant, BIG OIL imperialist ... that's what the Democratic Party seems to not get ... all his wars are for illegitimate purposes; all his reasons for war are lies ... there is no democracy in Afghanistan - we've destroyed the country ... and so it shall be in Iraq ...

failing to understand bush's motives, in my view, does define the left versus the center ... the discussion points you've raised, with someone i could trust in the WH, would be far more valid ...

[xchrom]

19. and that's why i answered as i did in your poll.

i support a war against the taliban -- with all of our western allies engaged and a fully funded program to build the kind of afghanistan that takes on both poverty and education.

i don't support the half-assed war that leaves women and children in the same vulnerable position they were in with the taliban in power.

[serryjw]

21. WT that is exactly the point

12/03 we wanted to 'get' OBL, not we all know that it is a joke.

there is no democracy in Afghanistan - we've destroyed the country ... and so it shall be in Iraq ...

You're are absolutely right. We had no reason to go in. I was against it then and NOW I know why. I never believed it had anything to do with 9-11. CIA wanted their drug money and Unoca wanted their pipeline....and thousands died for no reason. :cry: I am war wary. All the bombs and destruction( so Halliburton can get another contract?)...for what? Are we any safer

[welshTerrier2]

23. some have argued war is not an indication of progressivity

and i agree with them ...

i am not a pacifist and i accept the idea that war can sometimes be necessary and therefore justified ...

but none who made this argument chose to talk about US imperialism as i often do ... surely that indicates some kind of difference in our views however you would "label" it ... and they rarely focus in their arguments about bush's motives for war ... they rarely talk about permanent bases or oil pipelines ... they rarely talk about the current mess the US has made in Afghanistan or how the whole damned place is falling apart ... instead, their focus, unlike mine, is on 9/11 and revenge and al Qaeda and the like ... my point, at least in this thread, was not to criticize but to observe the very significant differences ... the labels we use to describe these positions are not at all important ...

and finally, no one arguing for the war in Afghanistan offered any explanation as to why there was such a significant divergence between the poll results in GDP versus those in GD ... i found that the most interesting result of what i analyzed ... clearly, the two forums have different constituencies ...

[serryjw]

24. Since WWII

has there been a war for anything other than American imperialism? Of course we were lied to. IF we wanted OBL we would have sent it the black ops to get him, though it is impossible considering the terrain in the mountains of Afghanistan. As for the polls being different..no surprise, WE are different after 3 years of the lies.

[brentspeak]

9. If anything, DU has gone even further to the left

not to the right. Way left, in fact.

Every day new bash-the-Democrat threads pop up, along with the usual "troops are murderers!" and "the U.S. is the oppressor!" far-left, non-Democratic party posts that spring up like weeds.

[jonnyblitz]

13. hmmm...i suppose if you are a RWer it would seem that way

seriously though this place has NOT moved to the left compared to before. it may seem left to you but there were many more leftists posting here when I was new. you didn't get too many people sticking up for the DLC when i first got here and now there are many who do compared to then.

[brentspeak]

17. Most of the people I see sticking up for the DLC

don't even "stick up for the DLC"; they're simply trying to argue in favor of Democratic party solidarity, not dissension.

[messiah]

11. Alot of lefties were kicked out or left

This forum is now like the naive American public except people know what's going on and many are without conscience.

[LincolnMcGrath]

14. Agreed

[blm]

16. sorry I missed your poll - I would've voted against attacking Afghanistan

because I don't believe in air campaigns and carpet bombing. I think we should have gone in and dealt with al Qaeda with specially trained forces that went straight to their camps and hiding enclaves.

By constantly bombing you make more enemies than you ever had before you started.

[welshTerrier2]

18. my main emphasis ...

is that neocons are imperialists ... it's that simple ...

so when bush said the Taliban was supporting terrorism, i ask, is he any better?

when he made the case against the Taliban, i asked, is it true?

just so you know, this is the essence of my deep disagreement with every Senate Democrat ... it seems to me that they accept the premise that our troops in Iraq, or anywhere, are there to bring stability or bring democracy or to somehow act in America's interests or whatever ... my view is that everything, 110% of everything, bush does is totally corrupt ... he should be opposed every single inch of the way ...

so, if you call for a more targeted campaign against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, i say that i could easily agree with a non-imperialist in office ... with bush though, what really happened? poof!!! al Qaeda magically disappeared, we destroyed Afghanistan, well, except for the oil pipeline and the permanent bases, and US imperialism is alive and well ...

and that's always the deal with neocons ... but Democrats keep voting more money for war ... Democrats refuse to say that bush's MOTIVES in Afghanistan and Iraq are totally corrupt ... they criticize his tactics but never his MOTIVES ... that would be, what, un-American??? it would also be the truth ...

[blm]

36. The media would also label that person's word as "derelict" and hound

that person out of office rendering them 100% ineffective. You think media would let them have their fair say? Did RFK Jr. get his fair say?

[CJCRANE]

42. I agree with you, however

the B*sh administration would never go after al-Qaeda full-bore because they have a symbiotic relationship with them.

Clinton/Gore would also never have been allowed to take out al-Qaeda because bin Laden etc is connected financially and personally to allies of the B*sh family.

It's just like the war on drugs - they catch the small-time pushers and users but the top-level guys probably go through the VIP lounge on diplomatic passports.

[NashVegas]

20. No, It's Simply More Mainstream

The people who were reading and writing DU in 2001 were savvy to Bush's bullshit from day 1, plus they were savvy to leftie news pages, such as Buzzflash.com, that linked to DU. In 2001, DU really was underground. Now, not so much. That's not a bad thing.

[boolean]

25. Your "data" is flawed and your "analysis" is lacking

First of all, these polls are not at all scientific. You can't draw any conclusions whatsoever from them. Second of all, this site was not as well known back then, and only attracted actual bona fide progressives/liberals, as opposed to now where freepers can easily hide as trolls and stir things up. Thirdly, given all these flaws, the yes votes are a mere 16% higher. Not exactly earth shattering. Lastly, and this is a big one, the older poll has 138 votes, while the newer has 53. You can't even make a comparison, not to mention that a poll of 138 people (or 53) is a sample size that can be described as pathetic to say the least, given that there are over 92000 registered members here.

Nice try, though. :rofl:

[Stinky The Clown]

26. The Stinky the Clown Wing of DU has moved further to the

left since those heady days in the run-up to Afghanistan. However, on this one point, I'm just where i was back then ... I think it was the right thing to do. Fllowup sucked ... but going in the first place was right.

[welshTerrier2]

27. but but but ...

hiya Stinky!!!

answer this one for me:

a. you still support the decision to go in because the Taliban was providing a refuge for al Qaeda which was responsible for 9/11

b. you would still support going in but realize that bush actually never gave a damn about either al Qaeda or the Taliban ... he wanted permanent bases and a shiny new oil pipeline ... now that those are in place, he doesn't care about Talibans or poppy fields are the Afghanis or democracy or anything else ... all he did was provide himself cover for Big Oil (just as he's doing in Iraq) ...

the Taliban is returning with a vengeance now ... here's the very latest hot off the presses: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Afghanistan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

bush doesn't care as long as his pipeline is secure ...

the point i'm trying to make is that no war with bush in office should be supported ... American troops are being utilized for private, greedy, commercial gain ... that's what's wrong with the whole ball of wax ... give me someone i can trust in the WH and i think rational assessments of warfare are warranted; with bush in there, not so much ...

[Stinky The Clown]

35. Well ... I answered the question in the abstract ... which is to say .....

I didn't assume any particular person was president.

I answered on this simple basis:

fact 1: Taliban supports/harbors Al Quaeda

fact 2: Al Quada attacks US

fact 3: US invades to oust Taliban and get to Al Quaeda.

The Bush factor was not part of the question, as I answered it. Add it in and it changes everythng. If almost anyone else were president, my answer would likely stand.

[sampsonblk]

28. Humble response

This is nothing more than a GOP talking point - to suggest that right means pro-war and left means anti-war. You surely know better than that.

If you want to discover a left-right change at DU, you probably should ask a question that really differentiates - like whether we now believe that cutting taxes increases gov't revenues, or whether we believe that the US Supreme Court was "legislating from the bench" in Brown v Bd of Ed, or whether we believe that America will return to its greatness only when we put the bible back into schools like it ws in the good old days when there were no "real" problems. Do any more of us believe the media is conspiring to help Democrats? Have any of us discovered the "truth": that liberals want all women to abort their children and become gay so they can teach pre-schoolers?

The only thing you'll learn from your present question is whether some have changed their views on one particular invasion. No meaningful consequences of that, IMHO.

[welshTerrier2]

29. weird

am i to understand that foreign policy or specifically issues like war, unlike the laundry list of domestic issues you cited, should not be used as a determinant of progressivity ... is there something special about domestic policies that qualifies where foreign policies do not?

and to call the analysis a GOP talking point? that's a wee bit absurd ...

and most importantly, you argued against an argument i never made ... i did NOT suggest that pro or anti war automatically defined progressive versus conservative ... this is a key point you inferred but i did not ever state ...

what we had in Afghanistan was not just an attack by the US, we had an attack by a neocon, imperialistic administration ... the question was not are you pro or anti war ... the question was do you think the invasion was the right thing to have done (you can't ignore that bush was in office) ...

if you supported bush's agenda, then yes, i see that as less progressive than opposing him ... that's because his real motive in Iraq was to force the Unocal pipeline and to build permanent military bases there to protect it ... that is pure imperialism ... progressives believe that; those a bit less progressive focus on the evil deeds of al Qaeda in determining whether the invasion was appropriate ... i won't spend time arguing the merits of either view; there is, nevertheless and regardless of what labels are used, a very different set of views here ...

i would also ask you to explain your perspective on the divergence between the poll results in GDP versus GD ... GDP showed 64-36 pro invasion; GD showed 57-43 against ... that's a 21 point swing from a majority for one position to a majority for the opposite position ...

[sampsonblk]

31. Splitting Hairs, Part 2: OK OK You have a point

I am suggesting that your question isn't going to allow you any meaningful conclusion - especially the one you seem to draw.

If you want to know if the people here have moved to the right, as you say, there are questions that get at that issue much better. Opposing the invasion of Afghanistan does not make one a leftist any more that supporting it makes one a right-winger.

There are core beliefs, ones that don't change from term-to-term or war-to-war, that differentiate far better. That was my point. I agree with you that there are some foreign policy issues/principles that do matter as well. My mistake on that one.

You seem the scientific type, maybe you can come up with a list.

[welshTerrier2]

32. and a list you shall have ...

the poll question was not created by me ... it was created two and half years ago by another DU'er ... i did not have the luxury of choosing just any topic for the poll ... so, as far as comparing the DU of today with the DU of the past, we are somewhat constrained by the limitations of historical data collection ...

but we certainly could make comparisons between one forum versus another in the present ... that would not tell us how DU has evolved over time but it would be interesting to measure differences among various forums ...

here's a post i made today that provided my partial laundry list of things i would consider "lefty" in nature: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1650026&mesg_id=1660273

maybe questions about some of these issues would provide an interesting picture of DU ...

[Guaranteed]

30. Well, I voted in the GDP poll, because you put it up first.

If you had put it in GD, I would have seen it there first and voted in it.

Then, for the second poll you told people not to vote if they had already voted in the GDP poll.

So, I don't think you can draw the conclusion that you're making about the people who frequent GD or GDP. I think, #1, people go back and forth, and #2, the timing of the polling was such that it prevented people who might ordinarily frequent GD more from voting in the GD poll.

[welshTerrier2]

33. great line from "Back to School"

"I feel like I just gave birth to an accountant." - Thornton Melon

sheesh ... no wonder i flunked that Statistics course ...

one might consider that there is a randomness to the migration between forums that might neutralize the "i saw that one first" concern ...

or one might just accept that there was a fairly significant difference between the poll results from the two forums and ponder what political differences might account for the results ...

or one might even conduct one's own polls to prove or disprove the results from this one ...

small sample DU polls are never the be-all and end-all of statistical validity ... at best, they might reveal a possible trend or allow for some speculation or perhaps some interesting conversation ... those looking for scientific precision are unlikely to approve of the methodology ...

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Your polls are not scientific in terms of DU membership

They only poll the people who happen to see the thread at the time and feel like participating in it.

[klyon]

37. I think your GD poll is probably more accurate because it is a

cross section of the membership which means we have moved left.
The GDP numbers can be explained by the fact that our right wing friends want an insight into what this place translates into when it gets to politics, and so since some are signed up but don't act up, they get to vote. That means there are a fair number of these people walking our halls, so to speak.

[klyon]

38. I also think time has past and we have become much wiser

and can see through the bull. We can see more clearly now and know more facts. These types of polls are basically meaningless more or less. But still fun to see what others think. History will record their evil deeds.

[LWolf]

39. Thought-provoking.

I have always been more interested in issues than electoral politics, and that hasn't changed.

I joined DU because I wanted to talk to people about issues, and about moving them forward. I spend much less time on DU these days than previously, and that's because the issues take a back seat to electoral politics most of the time.

I keep wondering why those who consistently put party before issues, the cart before the horse imo, can't see how many voters they turn off when they relegate issues to second place. Maybe they just don't want to see.

[omega minimo]

41. The Left left

Following is an answer to the recent "Should bashing the Left be allowed on DU?" Contains clues about the different tone/"constituencies" in GD and GD:P and the "true motives" you mention in the thread, not limited to W, shared many Dems and Congress Dems who don't wanna "face" W's "true motives" and expose their own.


If we want Status Quo SNAFU FUBAR & Electile Dysfunction from now on
Posted by omega minimo in General Discussion: Politics

...If we want to fight over buzzwords instead of work over ideas

...If we want to assume we know what someone is going to say before they say it

...If we want to underestimate the audience and the potential for discussion

...If we want to use DU for personal vendettas rather than our interpersonal purpose as Democrats who want to survive the Bushco. regime

...If we want to remain rigid in our belief system and protected from any new ways of looking at it

...If we want to ignore the fact that the whole range of ideas of what a Democrat or a (pick-a-label) represents could use a thorough reexamination and DU might be a good place to do it

...If we want to deny that many of the ideas considered "left" or "progressive" or "whateveryouwanttocallit" are not only important for Democrats to AT LEAST DISCUSS but that it is imperative we do so or Democrats will not succeed

...If we want to disbelieve how much the American people really understand and how they are waiting for plain-speaking and plain truth

...If we want visitors to GD:P with fresh ideas chased out by self-appointed GD Guard Dogs who wield snarky one-liners and never seem to have much else to say

...If we want attempts to reach for common ground across obsolete mental barricardes and kneejerk buzzwords to be locked because they MIGHT at some point turn into a flamewar because these meetings-of-minds-are-deemed-impossible-so-don't-even-try

...If we want GD:P to remain slow and insular

...If we want to remain manipulated and controlled by Rovian Big Lie techniques which we VOLUNTEER FOR when we fight over labels instead of ideas

...If we want people with a lot to contribute to leave DU or the Democratic Party

...If we want to treat Democrats with a lot to contribute as if they have nowhere else to go and have to put up with "bashing"

...If we want to ignore the problem of the enormous block of NON-VOTING Americans and instead bicker til Hell Freezes Over about "spoilers"

...If we want to bully like the repugnant "Authoritarians" that John Dean has illuminated in his new book

...if we want private corporations to infiltrate and control every aspect of our lives, including our government and its elections

...if, after that, we want to pretend we are "free" and indulge ourselves in pompously attacking the "far left" canaries in the coalmine.......................

...then, by all means, YES, YES AND YES

[ProudDad]

43. Absolutely!!!

I've been posting here since around 2000 and it's moved decidedly towards the repuke-light, corporate dems.

Ah, well. Co-option is a fact of life I suppose.

Cheers...

If you live near the coast, try not to drown...or if you do drown, thank the two right-wings of the business party for your early demise...