Will there come a time when the "base" will not support Democratic Party?

[kentuck]

The "base" have been the most loyal Democrats. They vote more often. And they almost always vote for whomever the nominee might be. The last time around, the "base" was mostly for Howard Dean. However, when John Kerry won the Iowa caucus, the "base" got behind him. Will it be really any different this time around?

At the present time, the base is supporting Barack Obama. If Hillary is the nominee, will not the base get behind her just like every other nominee in the past? Contrary to all the protestations and name-calling, the "base" will be the most loyal supporters of Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee.

Hillary knows that. She is not really worried about losing a large number of Democratic supporters. That is why she is going full-steam ahead in her campaign against Barack Obama. On the other hand, Barack Obama is fearful of losing Hillary supporters because they are not usually as loyal as the base of the Party. They may sit it out or even vote for the Republican opponent. Or so Obama believes, in my opinion.

With this history of the Party, does anyone really see the base not voting for Hillary, if she is the nominee? She betting that you will. Is her judgement wrong on this?

[JoFerret]

1. Which "base'"are you on about?

Do you imagine one simple solid block and then a bunch of floaters?

[kentuck]

2. The base that I "imagine" is the one...

that is the most progressive, that was against the war from the beginning, that does not think highly of the DLC, and would never think of comparing themselves with the Republican opponent. What do you "imagine" the base of Hillary's support looks like?

[Lyric]

7. That's not the "base" of the party.

The "base" consists of the working class, union members, and moderate-left folks who feel more compassion than their moderate-right brethren. They're moderately religious, and usually personally against abortion, but unlike the right-wingers, they don't think that *their* ideas about right and wrong should become national law.

We progressives are the far left. We are the squeaky wheel that gets lot of attention--not the base. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the average Democrat even knows what the DLC *is*, much less feels any opposition toward it. In fact, my guess is that if you sat down and explained what the DLC is to an average Joe Public Democrat, he'd probably shrug and tell you that it sounds fine to him.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. You seem a little - confused.

DLC is a minority in the ranks, but a majority in the power structure. The base is NOT DLC. DLC is pro-free trade - you yourself said the base is union. Why would unionists support DLC free trade? When you talk about a moderate right, you're talking about the DLC. When you get into the republicans, then you have lost moderation and you are in the solid right and far right.

Progressives are NOT the far left. Progressives are Democrats. There is no far left in this country - though a few Greens come close. Activists are are squeaky wheel. You don't have to be a radical to be an activist - you just need to be involved.

It sounds to me like you are letting the right define you.

What is a base? A base is that which is solid and unwavering - in this case, the strong progressives and liberals and activists who would NEVER consider voting for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. The base is not the so-called moderates who turn into Reagan Democrats. The base is those who stayed with the Democrats throughout the Reagan years.

[NorthCarolina]

28. Nice post, agreed n/t

[ShortnFiery]

41. Well put! Compact but crystal clear. :-)

:hi:

[JoFerret]

45. However it gets defined - the base is not in place

Like them or not - many democrats in the "base" are getting mighty fed up with the Obama tactics and his strategy of erasing the Clintons. the behavior of the Obama supporters and surrogates is not appealing and ir is tearing the "base" apart. there will be a price to pay. And we will all pay it if McCain is elected as a result.

[JoFerret]

44. The "base" is the reliable voters who year after year

vote democratic in large numbers. Black people, gay people, unions, older voters. Clinton "people" who remember the 90's with satisfaction and who are now about to get very pissed off with this attempt to erase him.

Any democrat who wants to win has to appeal to this "base". Obama has a piece of it sewn up. But not enough to win in November

[NorthCarolina]

8. That's pretty much my idea of what the "base" of the Democratic Party is as well n/t

[JoFerret]

16. So you don't mean the Democratic base then.

i.e those reliable voters who turn out year after year and belong to many different interest and identity and demographic groups united in opposition to republicans. Not that base.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. No, but when I think of the Republican base I think of a bunch of floaters

[RiverStone]

3. If Hillary wins by a coup...

A backroom deal where the SuperD's go against the will of the pledged D's and very likely the popular vote - the base would have a very tough time supporting her at large.

No, they (or I) would never vote for McSame - but I'd imagine a new branch party to be formed.

Picture the Progressive Democratic Party.

[Lyric]

10. Oh brother.

Progressive Democratic Party = Green Party. It already exists. Have fun there.

[grasswire]

12. and that's why agitators from the left work here on DU

Hoping to split the party. They've been doing so for years now, every chance they get. These are the same people who told us there's no difference between Al Gore and George W.

[RiverStone]

23. I'll have to call bullshit on that...

I have voted straight Dem for my 30 years of eligible voting.

No greens.

No vote for that prick Nader.

But I have never experienced a power play from one of our own as I have seen from the Clintons - and I worked like hell to elect Bill as president!

No, the splitting of party values begain the day Hillary bought into Rove's playbook. She has been driving wedges into the party without a care as to what chaos would ensue if she pulled off a delegate coup.

I have not left the party - but if she gets the nom, the party would have surely left me.

[grasswire]

27. you are a party of one...

...and you speak for your own experience. Others, here on DU, have openly worked to split the party through agitprop. Not particularly in opposition to Hillary, but with the agenda to split the party.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. Others? Like you, who reject the progressive populist base

of the party to support the DLC candidate? Those who argue that the way to beat the republicans is to steal their platforms?

There are a LOT of us who are fed up with the DLC and its pandering to the right. And yes, I DO have an agenda to reclaim the party from those neo-lib imperialists. If we push them out, then the millions of formerly Democratic independents and Greens who have abandoned the party will return. As they outnumber the DLCers by a good margin it is more than a good trade-off.

[ShortnFiery]

42. No, RiverStone speaks for many more than you and The Clintonian DLC would like to think.

"I have not left the party - but if she gets the nom, the party would have surely left me."

RiverStone speaks for me. :thumbsup:

[Skidmore]

38. We are of like mind, and I know others who feel tihs way also.

[stillcool]

4. This election seems all about...

the battle for the Democratic Party. Votes in Congress prove that the party does not vote our interests. There are always enough cross-overs to pass through any corporate friendly legislation. I was of the opinion that the party was too entrenched in the "middle way" since the 2006 election. Win or lose, it is reassuring to see that our numbers as far as Representation are not as dismal as I had believed. I can't imagine the future of the party if the DLC gets a choke hold on it. I feel naive to think that 'this time' we the people may have a shot...but then again I play the lottery.

[NJmaverick]

5. If it nominates someone who hates that base... like Hillary

[DJ13]

6. does anyone really see the base not voting for Hillary?

Probably the smallest amount of the Democratic base in modern history would vote for Clinton.

Her campaign has alienated so many of the core groups that constitute the base (blacks, grass roots liberals, antiwar groups to name a few) that I bet she would be lucky to get 40% of those you probably consider base voters.

I could also see many normally solid Democratic groups refusing to endorse her for the GE.

Not saying they would campaign against her, but they would likely stay "neutral" in the GE.

[BzaDem]

9. I wonder what will happen if "the progressive base" ever does get their choice (i.e. Kucinich/etc.)

When we get one that supported Bush's impeachment, etc. And then when we lose by 20 points in November, will they still say we only lost because we weren't progressive enough? Or will they realize that America happens to be a more centrist country, and we can't nominate candidates that have views that diverge widely from the mainstream?

[Lyric]

11. A voice of reason.

Hello! Sometimes I think I'm the only one left around here who still thinks that actually winning elections still matters.

I'm as personally far-left as it gets, but if I vote my "conscience", Republicans win, because there are not enough progressive lefties to win elections. I vote for who's going to beat the Republicans. My idealism and "moral principles" are not worth losing the country to the wackos on the right.

[newmajority]

30. And what would happen if (God Forbid) Hillary was the nominee and she lost?

Can't call Hillary a liberal by any delusional stretch of the imagination. She's a warmongering corporatist who prays with dominionist nazis like Santorum & Brownback, and thinks that the Holy Spirit wants her to bomb the fuck out of Iran (that statement alone will buy her a front row seat in Hell, according to JC Himself, but that's a whole other thread).

So what would happen then? Would the DLC shitsuckers claim that even Hillary was "too liberal", just like they did with Gore, who ran as a centrist, and Kerry, who voted mostly with the 'Pukes from 2000-2004?

What is "centrist" to these freaks?? A DLC candidate would be a right wing extremist in most other countries, and only a "Liberal" in Australia (where it means pretty much the exact opposite of a TRUE Liberal here)

[BzaDem]

50. I agree that a centrist democrat would be right wing in most other countries.

However, this is not most other countries. People here are more conservative than in other countries (as you yourself seem to admit).

This logic is:
Kerry lost -> must have been he wasn't liberal enough -> let's nominate Kucinich.

The problem with that logic is: while Kerry lost a very close race, Kucinich would lose by double digits. That's called overcorrecting. It's definately debatable whether we need to go further to the left or further to the center (on each issue individually) to win elections. But what isn't debatable is that going FAR to the left of the mainstream results in electoral disaster. I would much rather have the best Democrat that we can get elected than any Republican.

[New Dawn]

31. False.

The majority of the population supports withdrawing from Iraq and also supports universal healthcare. Clinton does not support either and she is to the right of the majority of the population. Kucinich is the real centrist. But the corporate media (which is owned by the same class of millionaires and billionaires that funds right-wing candidates), deceives the people about the candidates running for office.

[BzaDem]

48. You are saying Clinton doesn't support withdrawing from Iraq?

That is revisionism.

[flvegan]

39. Your presumption that we'd lose automatically is suspicious.

Just like when we throw up some D-Barely candidate and the nannies wag their fingers and say to vote for them anyway, the same would be true, just a different set of nannies. Or maybe, just maybe, those "centrist dems" vote R. At least we know where they actually stand.

Cuz God fucking forbid we actually get change, end the war, get universal healthcare, etc. Why? Just elect Bush fucking light and be done with it. Then, we have at least 4 more years of bitching and complaining.

[McCamy Taylor]

13. Half the "base" supports Hillary. 1/4 of that base says it won't vote for Obama.

Hillary has more dedicated Dems voting for her than Obama does. He has more Independents.

This election is just like 1972. In November, Humphrey working class White voters switched to Nixon or stayed home. His African-American voters stopped a trend of high turn out and stayed home. Except this time it will be women not Blacks that sit the election out.

So, honey, Hillary has the "base", just like Humphrey did in 1972, and if Obama wants it he had better start playing nicer. The only part of the "base" that he has is African-Africans and the college educated left wing.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. this woman does not support Clinton

nor Obama, but I intend to vote for the Democrat in the GE, even if I loathe them. I understand the stakes.

But I do get a bit miffed when people make assumptions that women are all for Clinton and blacks are all for Obama. That is not the case.

[BzaDem]

20. I don't think anyone actually thinks that all women are for Clinton / etc.

The assumption that people are talking about a majority (instead of 100%) is implicit. It would just take too long if people had to qualify statements every time that have implicit meaning.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. I think she'll get the votes, but perhaps not the support

You need volunteers to man phone banks, you need volunteers to drive voters to the polls, etc.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. One of these days, the base will be pushed too hard

and they WILL migrate en masse to another party, if certain elements in the party keep saying 'Well, what're you going to do? Vote Republican?'

That's how new parties are built.

[grasswire]

22. Green Party

And we saw how well they did in 2000 and 2004.

[QC]

18. We lost our base years ago. n/t

[walldude]

19. What base? "I don't belong to any organized political party..

I'm a Democrat". -Will Rogers

[KoKo]

24. This "base" doesn't like either of the frontrunners and is agonizing over it...

So, I'm assuming the Dem Party has "left it's base" behind. But, I also now know the Dem Party doesn't support it's Activists either.

I think our Dem Party is going to go through some really "interesting times" because it's got fractures like the Arctic Icepack...and who knows when the big pieces are going to break off... (I know...a dumb analogy...stupid) but...whatever.. :silly:

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. Actually, I think that's a pretty good analogy.

The DLC is the meltwater that has seeped into the pack, and over the past 25 years millions of Dems have split off to become independents, because they don't see the Democratic leadership supporting Democratic principles.

If the DLC candidate steals the nomination, there will be another huge split off, making the Democratic party irrelevant possibly forever. A new party will form from the disaffected that will embrace the progressive populists and activists. It will absorb the Greens and socialists and progressive dems, and leave the DLC to stew in their corporate juices.

[crankychatter]

25. we'll see

register voters and let's stop wringing our hands

I think the Democratic Leadership is smarter than this

BUT, History does not bear me out...

We're addicted to failure... it keeps the Party small... keeps corporate donors happy... marginalizes dissent... secures power to the status quo leadership...

so... I think... it's GROW or GO TIME... and the assent of Howard Dean and the Fifty State Strategy inclines me to believe... History is about to take a shift toward the better...

[AndyTiedye]

26. Either One Will Lose A Lot of the Traditional Democratic "Base"

[newmajority]

29. Kerry had some bad votes from 2000-2004, but he never deliberately dissed the base as Hillary has.

Hillary has proven over and over again why she does not deserve my vote, nor that of any Democrat.

Thank God it will never come to that, because I could not bring myself to vote for her.

All the more reason for this joke to end Tuesday night. Pray for the sanity of Pennsylvania.

[KoKo]

32. As an Activist on the Ground in ''04 in NC...he sent a "Video Tape" to us

to "energize us" and an "operative who was very young who talked down to the activists who were so desperate to get Bush out. There were many older Dems there...who felt that the "kid" was treating us like "jr. high students" who he was "clueing in about how to canvass and what the election was about."

I never got over that...it was really a bad Campaign Op...mish mosh...

[newmajority]

35. Yeah, that's why I said "deliberately"

There's no question Kerry's campaign (and Gore's, for that matter) were run very badly, and that the DLC were responsible for much of that. Probably worse in the Kerry camp, because he was saddled with the additional baggage of "not looking weak on terra". Who knows, maybe a Kerry campaign removed from the false frame of the PNAC universe, might have fared better?

But when you look at those two campaigns, and then compare them to Hillary's, and then to Obama's, the difference becomes crystal clear.

The most successful campaign of the 4 - Obama's - is the one NOT being managed by the "usual suspects".

Maybe that's why he's winning, and Hillary (the "expected nominee") isn't?

[KoKo]

43. I think Obama's Campaign is too focused on "EVANGELICAL" Message

Where he appeals to all those folks who go out to hear the "newsest Preacherman" and give money hoping that HE...is the ONE...the SAVIOR... And while the Talk is Great..the Inspiration is Motivating....it's just taking the RW Evangelicals...packaging them up and presenting them to the Democrats who always keep sticking their "foot in mouth" and can't defy the media, hold Bush/Cheney/Crime Family Accountable...so all we have left is some NEW GURU who will offer "HOPE & CHANGE" as a panacea when Clinton/Gore/Carter and many before "already been there and done that."

I see so much EVANGELICAL about OBAMA...I wonder if some THINK TANK didn't figure the way to beat Repugs at their GAME was to find a DEMOCRATIC EVANGELICAL who would bridge the GAP between RACE and THIRD WORLD..

It's all very contrived. But, I don't blame Obama for this...he's just a "TOOL" of his time....

Maybe he can OVERCOME IT ALL...but I've not seen any of these "Hope & Change" Dems ever do it once they are in office. The "Shadow Government" and "Powers that Be" seem to always "swoop down" and KILL IT ALL in the first few months.

Maybe one day they will lose their power. I know that Obama folks feel that that NEW TIME IS NOW...with his candidacy. Some of us who've been around longer and listened to the "Siren's song" before...sort of take a "wait and see" attitude about it all, though.

[Skwmom]

33. Well Camp Clinton is clueless if they think they can count on the Democratic base or the large

number of new voters Obama has brought into the process. The Republicans have been trying to increase their black vote for years. Clinton has done their work for them.

[Willo]

36. I would like to know what makes up the base. n/t

[Two Americas]

37. the base is split

The base is split, and one of the two factions will leave the party, yes.

[ShortnFiery]

40. I wouldn't "bet the farm" on it.

:evilgrin:

If HRC wins dirty by keeping up her ROVIAN Campaign Tactics and *forcing* the elite superdelegates to side with her. I think that HRC needs to get out of the race for THE GOOD of the Democratic Party.

HRC is on the path to *gutting* the democratic party. If so, may she also lose her Senate Seat and fade into obscurity. :thumbsdown:

Steal the Democratic Nomination through dirty tricks?

Not. This. Time.

[barack the house]

46. True because in Africa the Clintons name is despite everything much loved...

Now not all African Americans have links to Afirca but they will respect that fact reallly. Although the campaign wills till leave a lot to be desired.

[DevonRex]

49. If the superdelegates overturn the people, then the party

has, in effect, said the voters don't matter. If the voters don't matter, they won't be obligated to vote for the party nominee.

[mmonk]

51. I will vote for her but I have heard

many people that are Obama supporters are really disgusted with her campaign. I think she will lose a lot of the new voters Obama has brought into the process because of this as well as a number of AA voters who are the most loyal voting block in the democratic party if she wins in this manner. I am a delegate working to improve my party. I will feel it will have all been in vain especially with the Farrakhan Hamas comment in the last debate by her (which makes me dislike her with no chance that it can turned around) but will vote for her anyway if she gets the SD's to sway the primary elections her way. It will be a very hateful experience for me and you know the DLC will consolidate power. If that happens, my days in the party may be coming to an end unfortunately.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. All your base are belong to Hillary

Sorry I just had to.

[BlooInBloo]

54. Um, it's the definition of a party's base that they support said party.

[nsd]

55. If HRC had run a better campaign (by even a little), she would have beaten Obama fair and square.

Probably Ohio and Texas would have been enough to end his candidacy. In that case, Obama supporters would have been unhappy, but they would have supported her. (I would have supported her.) Their guy had put up a good fight but he had lost by the rules. Clinton would, I think, have had enough base support to beat McCain.

But not now.

Too much has happened. In particular, at this point the only way for Clinton to become the nominee is for the party establishment to hand it to her. Obama will almost certainly arrive in Denver leading among pledged delegates, in the popular vote, and in states won. If despite all that, superdelegates were to deny him the nomination -- deny him even the chance to make his case in November -- and give the prize to the ultimate establishment candidate, there would be hell to pay.

Obama has sparked an extraordinary amount of enthusiasm among the young, African Americans, and liberals. If establishment types steal the nomination, that enthusiasm is going to turn to bitterness and anger. His supporters aren't going to take it quietly. (I'm 39 years old, a lifelong Democrat, and a pretty mild-mannered guy overall, but in that case even I would travel to Denver, if for no other reason than to scream my outrage in the street outside the convention center.)

In that scenario, I don't see how Clinton could win. If African Americans in Philadelphia and Cleveland think Obama was denied the nomination to mollify the "white working class" (apparently the only people who count), why are they going to turn out to help her win Pennsylvania and Ohio? If young people, so excited by this candidate, feel disrespected by their elders, feel their enthusiasm dismissed as a fad, why should they turn out? To choose one old establishment figure over another? And if liberals find that, thanks to Clintonian triangulation, they've once again become pariahs, are they really going to fight for her?

I don't think so. Frankly, I'm mystified by what Clinton thinks is going to happen if she wins the nomination this way.