What is the "Base" of the Democratic Party?

[MineralMan]

This term gets used a lot, and I think it's worthwhile to see which part of the party people consider to be the base. There appears to be some confusion when the term it used. So, this poll. Is it:

[global1]

1. Roland Burris........nt

[ZombieHorde]

2. I voted "Other (Explain)".

The base of the Democratic Party are those who hate the Republicans so much they will vote for the Democrats.

[MineralMan]

4. That's an interesting way to look at it...

[notesdev]

6. Pretty shaky foundation there

as hate seems to gravitate towards those in power

[ZombieHorde]

9. True, but we don't hate them as much as we hate Palin and her ilk. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. At this point? The corporate lobbyists who offer the largest bribes...er...campaign contribtutions.

[Wwagsthedog]

37. Well said! n/t

[defendandprotect]

39. Agree . ..

[Hawkowl]

5. Why the richest people of course.

The people (corporations are people too!) who give the most money are the base of this Democratic party. I think Obama's spineless prostration to Wall Street, the insurance industry and big pharma are indisputable evidence on who is the "base".

In fact it looks like this is now the Democratic Party's base: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls

[MineralMan]

7. Another interesting definition. Most of those people

aren't even Democrats, though...

[Hawkowl]

8. Yes, I know

That is my point.

[madfloridian]

10. There is no base. Quote from Rahm.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_meaning_of_the_midterms

"But the more compelling story, which continues to unfold even today, comes when Bendavid pulls back from the day-to-day of the campaign to examine what the midterm elections meant for the identity of the Democratic Party. In an election where more moderates and centrists were elected than in any year past, many -- bloggers being the loudest among them -- have wondered whether the party has abandoned its base.

Certainly Emanuel holds no such romantic notions that there even exists such a base of voters loyal to core Democratic values. He is adamant that "we have no base!," a view that clearly guided his strategy for selecting candidates. As Bendavid writes, "he would not support the most loyal Democrats, or those whose populism was purist. His only criterion, he said, was who could win." This kind of single-minded, values-be-damned vision is anathema to some on the party's left. Writing for The Nation after the election, John Nichols complained that "many of the Democrats who prevailed on November 7 did so despite efforts, not because of them" and argues that liberal candidates could have won had Emanuel made the decision to support them. Yet as Bendavid points out, "of the 30 candidates who took seats from the Republicans, about 20 had been nurtured, funded, advised, and yelled at by Emanuel for months. Perhaps a half dozen had been supported by grassroots activists with little help from the DCCC."

[MineralMan]

12. Perhaps every Democrat feels that he or she is part of the

base. That would go along with how the results are showing up in this poll.

[madfloridian]

15. I have a funny feeling....

that in 2010 they may just find out about what a base is.

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

17. You could well be right about that.

[MineralMan]

13. You know, I'm not sure that most people would consider Rahm

to be the right person to define the party. Really...

[madfloridian]

19. But he IS right there next to the president.

[MineralMan]

22. Indeed he is.

[defendandprotect]

40. Unfortunately, Pres. Obama seems to think that he is worthy of that . . . !!!

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. Of course, if Rahm says there isn't a base, that only proves there IS one.

And he's trying to discredit it. Just like he's spent the last 6 years trying to discredit Howard Dean, his 50 state strategy, and anything else that actual Democrats have done right, that make the DLC look like the cowards and failures that they truly are.

[defendandprotect]

42. Rahm is a DLC "Fox Guarding the Chicken House" . . . for corporate interests ....

[QC]

46. Yet Obama chose Rahm to be his right hand man.

Hmmm.

[MineralMan]

11. It's early, but the most votes seem to be going to the two

answers that define the folks who are the most numerous and who always vote for Democratic candidates. And yet, when I hear the term used on DU, it's often referring to the most liberal part of the party. I'll be interested to see how this poll changes as more people vote.

[UTUSN]

14. Without VOTING, there is no base. I was going to say: Minorities, low income, and

unions, and those needing social justice, and civil liberties advocates, etc., etc.

But the bottom line is that if somebody fits in any of those categories and does not VOTE to get the party that is BETTER in those issues into power, how can they be part of the base?!1

It is KNOWN that if everybody in those categories voted, there would not EXIST any Rethug officeholder anywhere.

And it is KNOWN that, for example, the large majority of Hispanics and probably the large majority of Gays don't vote at all.

And, if I'm not deep enough in trouble yet, I will add that those who are "cafeteria supporters"--yes, purists---who are always threatening to leave for a third party or to sit out elections or even vote for Rethugs------are also not "the base."

[MineralMan]

16. Good point. Actually voting does seem to be one of the

criteria. My assumption in making up the poll was that all the categories voted for Democratic candidates. I see what you're saying, though, about those who jump to third parties. I, too, can't see how they're the base of the Democratic Party, since they may not even vote for a Democrat.

The group that always votes for the Democratic candidate does seem to be getting the most votes, too, so your point is strong.

[Sapphocrat]

45. The fuck, you say?

"And it is KNOWN that, for example, the large majority of Hispanics and probably the large majority of Gays don't vote at all."

Where in the hell did you get that idea? Seriously, what idiot put that idea in your head?

2007:

"It is a perennial complaint, heard election after election: Too many Americans don't vote. But based on a massive new survey, one segment of the population surely must be excluded from this rebuke--gays.

"The study this spring by San Francisco-based Community Marketing Inc. found that an eye-popping 92.5% of gay men reported that they voted in the 2004 presidential race, and almost 84% said they cast ballots in the 2006 midterm election. Among lesbians, the results were almost as impressive; nearly 91% said they voted in 2004; for the midterm, the figure was 78%.

"By comparison, the Washington-based Committee for the Study of the American Electorate put the turnout for all Americans eligible to vote at about 61% in 2004 and roughly 40% in 2006.

"Consider that last statistic for a moment--when matched with the findings by Community Marketing for the '06 contest, the bottom line is a turnout rate among gay men more than twice that for the nation's voters as a whole.

"The information on voter participation by gays was compiled as part of a larger study of consumer interests and habits within the community slated for release later this month. The survey questioned more than 12,000 gay men and more than 10,000 lesbians, giving its results a minuscule error margin of plus or minus 1%."

Read on:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/08/gay-power.html

What's more, as I recall (I don't feel like digging up another link for you), some 75% of all self-identified LGBTs surveyed who voted in 2004 voted Democratic.

(And, hey! Here's an idea! Maybe if the so-called "base" stopped treating us like a bunch of lepers, the Dems could snag a significant portion of the 25% that consistently votes Republican.)

Finally, there are an estimated 4 million gay voters in the United States -- 4 million who identify as gay, that is, not counting who knows how many more in the closet.

Now you tell me how many other minority groups (hint: not a whole hell of a lot) beat us on loyalty to 1) our civic duty, and 2) our loyalty to the Democratic Party. And then you tell me gays don't count as a significant part of "the base" because we "probably... don't vote at all."

You must have one hell of a low opinion of LGBTs if you readily believe such garbage without question, without checking facts -- without even taking the path of least resistance by asking one of us what is "KNOWN".

If you don't know any gay people (and from your remark, that wouldn't surprise me), there's a whole bunch right here on DU, any one of whom would be more than pleased to answer a simple, respectful question about something as basic as voter turnout. Try it next time, before you throw out such a damaging -- yes, damaging -- falsehood that will be read and absorbed by the countless people who read DU.

[UTUSN]

47. Thanks for the info. DUers are not representative of general demographics. With respect, so long.

Let's just say that the number of assumptions in your post is SO high and that you will never know (not knowing me) how wild your assumptions are, that nothing can come of this.

[Lucian]

18. The base SHOULD be made up of...

true progressives, those like Dennis Kucinich and the late Paul Wellstone.

[MineralMan]

21. But that's not the question in this poll. I'm asking what the

base IS, not what it SHOULD BE. Very different questions. Very different, indeed.

[Lucian]

27. Oh I know.

I'm just sayin'. I'm not sure if we even have a base, and if we were to define one, then I'd say the lower middle class and the poor make up a large chunk of the base.

[goldcanyonaz]

20. The ones who vote.

Many don't.

[MineralMan]

25. I can't imagine how anyone who doesn't vote is even

considered to be part of a party. Voting, in my opinion, is one of the essential criteria, and I assume that everyone who might be considered a member of either party does vote. Otherwise, what is the point of party affiliation?

[goldcanyonaz]

30. You'd be surprised at the many who whine but never vote.

[MineralMan]

33. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Often, I can even tell

which ones they are by the content of their posts. Such folks are not worth even noticing. They are irrelevant, and by their own hand.

To anyone who doesn't bother to vote at all: Who really gives a crap what you think?

[goldcanyonaz]

23. LOL @ "Those who say they are the base" Funny, but so true.

bwahahaha.

[MineralMan]

34. I notice that nobody's brave enough to click that choice...

It's in there for the laughs.

[dusmcj]

24. people who love America and view it as Of, By, For a la FDR and the New Deal. /nt

[MineralMan]

29. I'm really not sure that's solid enough to make up

a definition. I'm also not sure that FDR is relevant to the 21st century. Things have changed a great deal in the world since he was President. These days, those who actually remember FDR are rapidly dying off, and will soon be completely gone. He will only be a figure in history books, and those seldom really represent people accurately.

[dusmcj]

35. the principles are timeless, he's just a good representation of them

inherent rights of all individuals to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

life: no person has the right to take the life of another. No one can demand that you justify your existence.

liberty: no person has the right to hold another in thrall. You cannot make another serve you.

pursuit of happiness: no person can define or limit another's aspirations or pursuit of them, so long as those activities do not infringe the inherent rights of others. The definition of 'infringe' is to be approached with trepidation and is to be agreed on within the framework of law, based on objective information.

From these flow notions like the public or the People (a collection of individuals who agree on the above and consciously choose to form a society and state based on those values), the public interest, and social and legal guarantees of economic and political justice.

[Caliman73]

26. Other

I voted other because I don't think that the Democratic party has a base and I think that having a base is not necessarily a good thing. The Republicans have a base and that base is an anchor around the neck of the party. As is happening now with the GOP, candidates who want to survive primaries have to be so out there with their points of view that they become difficult to elect in general elections. I mean having a base can be a positive because you have a group of people who are always on, and motivated, but as I said, more likely than not, the base will try to purify and shrink the party down to only the purest and that inevitably leads to a party becoming regional.

I have always thought of the Democratic Party as a coalition of people with interests similar enough that they could support a particular candidate who espoused policies that most could live with. I said this in another post, but I believe that this is the greatest strength, but also the greatest weakness of the party. We move slow and we like to argue with each other a lot, but when we come together on issues we are a force to be reckoned with. I would rather be a coalition of mostly similar, but some disparate parts, then what the Republicans are. Some people are impressed with their "message discipline". They have it, but that is because their message is simple, "Give the money to the richest people and let them make all the decisions in hope that some of the change falls into your pocket". That, accompanied with the more recent, "We will protect you from gays, brown people, non-Christian, and the less fortunate as long as you give us your vote and your money" are simple messages based on fear and greed.

The Democratic party's message has always been more complex, trying to balance the needs and desires of a diverse group of people with different cultural backgrounds, gender and orientations, socioeconomic status, and other variables. I don't want a base. I want candidates who will represent the interests of the most people while respecting the needs and desires of the minority as much as possible.

[MineralMan]

28. A very thoughtful answer, I think.

And, you may well be right. I asked the question as a poll to see how people thought of the "base" of the party, since that term gets used all the time. What I've learned so far is that there isn't really a definition of it that people hold in common. Therefore, your suggestion may be very pertinent.

[Davis_X_Machina]

31. That's easy

[gratuitous]

32. Other

Based on what I've seen of the Democrats lately, the base of the party is Olympia Snowe, Joseph Lieberman, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin.

It's dumb, because whatever health care bill that comes out of Congress is going to belong to the Democrats, no matter who votes for it or against it. Rather than turding it up to please the unpleasable representatives of big insurance and big pharma, the Democrats ought to pass a bill that more closely approximates single payer. It will be cheaper, more efficient, and serve far more people than the ideas I've seen bandied about in the last couple of months. Might as well get yelled at for passing a good bill than alienate what should be the party's actual base by catering to the industries that need to be reined in.

[WeDidIt]

38. The base is a wide coalition of different groups

The base is not comprised of any single group and is such a wide and diverse lot, it never will.

[defendandprotect]

41. IMO, the base is the "people" and their needs . . . remember that in 1960 . . .

the Democratic Platform which JFK ran on called for the NATIONALIZING of

our oil resources -- what could be more in the interests of the people???


Consider how delay did NOT serve us . . . because FDR wanted to nationalize the

oil industry. LBJ was one of those he consulted. Guess what LBJ advised?

LBJ was closely connected -- in a corrupt sense -- to the oil industry and to oil

industry wealthy - i.e., H. L. Hunt.

Had oil been nationalized at that time, JFK may not have been assassinated.

However, note that there was a strong plot to assassinate FDR, as well.

The influence of the oil industry on our government is Mafia-like -- and combined

with CIA interests - their interests compounded and merged.

George Bush -- oil and CIA, as well --


A Democratic Party working in the interests of corporations is oxymoronic --

[TheKentuckian]

43. The Democrats are now just a group of everyone that isn't toys in the attic

Reich wing crazy. There is no base other than that in my opinion.

[MineralMan]

44. OK. That's one way of looking at it.

[quiller4]

48. The base is composed of those voters who always vote for Democratic candidates

progressives sometimes bleed off to vote for independent peace candidates or green candidates. The base is a bit more conservative than most posters on DU. My guess is that the base has a higher percentage of people of color, too.

[Vidar]

49. The unions, whom Obama continues to shit on.

[TexasObserver]

50. Those who ALWAYS vote for a Democrat in every election