Here are the results from the 2010 Democratic Underground Member Survey.

[Skinner]

First of all, thank you to everyone who took the time to answer our survey. More than 3000 people took the survey, which is a great response. We think this has been a really worthwhile exercise, and we think the results are very interesting.

Please note that these survey results only include answers to the multiple-choice questions. The full text of each question and answer is included. The responses to the three short-answer questions have not been organized yet and are not included in the results. (The three short-answer questions show "NA" instead of listing results.)

Remember, this is a survey of opinion, not a binding referendum. Please do not put too much weight on the fact that any particular answer "won" or got more than 50% or got more votes than some other response. As far as the DU Administrators are concerned, there are some issues where we might consider a response of 20% to be significant, and others where we might consider a response of 80% to be significant. It varies from question to question. We are not focusing on which answers "won" and neither should you.

Similarly, we hope that nobody will use these survey results as an excuse to marginalize other DU members, or as "evidence" supporting a particular point of view in a flame war. The fact that lots of DUers agree with you does not necessarily make you right.

The survey results are here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/2010results.html

[no limit]

1. Thank you for sharing these, interesting results.

[Tempest]

2. The fact that lots of DUers agree with you does not necessarily make you right.

A subjective statement that should have been left out.

In some specific cases, it could very well mean they are right.

[Skinner]

11. I stand by that statement.

First of all, I think my motivation for including that sentence (and that paragraph) should be obvious to everyone. We don't want people running around DU using these results as an excuse to attack or marginalize other people.

Second, I think that statement is not subjective at all. The fact that other people agree does not -- in itself -- make any point of view "right." If a point of view is "right" it should stand on its own merits. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum">Appeal to the majority.

[txlibdem]

129. Ya done good, Skinner.

Remember that Hitler, Mussolini, and Emperor Hirohito had a majority behind them in their respective countries. Fail to learn the lessons of history at your peril.

Then you have to ask, "the majority of who?" I am sure that Palin has the majority of TeaPublicans squarely on her side. Are you, DU readers?

[Curmudgeoness]

12. I absolutely loved that statement. Thanks, Skinner, for putting it in.

This is a constant truth that we often forget when we get caught up in the I'm-number-1 hype.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. "does *not necessarily* make you right"

No, that's not subjective, it's simply true. Your use of a qualifier ("in some specific cases") and a bit of uncertainty ("it could very well mean") just back this up.

You could argue that it's bleedin' obvious, and thus could have been left out, but it's not as if this was meant to be beautiful, concise prose. Pointing out the obvious is often a good thing on DU.

[TZ]

41. He just said this is an OPINION survey...

When does Opinion= being right or wrong? :wtf: I swear to god, I think thats my biggest issue here- that so many people can't seem to distinguish fact from opinion.

[urgk]

106. "so many people can't seem to distinguish fact from opinion."

You are not kidding. It drives me a little crazy sometimes.

[polmaven]

64. Yes, in "some specific cases"

it could indeed mean they are right. That is why, obviously, the words "not necessarily" were used in the statement. The way it was worded in the OP, to me said that the fact may or may not mean you were right. It was perfectly appropriate to use it.

[HuckleB]

150. -1

[NightWatcher]

3. it's running smooth overal with 2 very interesting results

Should Democratic Underground require that all criticism of President Obama or Democrats be constructive?

33% (1000) - Yes
51% (1565) - No
16% ( 502) - Don't know/Other


Currently, Democratic Underground does not permit members to advocate voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party candidates (except in rare cases). Should members be permitted to support left-of-center third-party candidates on Democratic Underground, even in races where Democrats are running?

45% (1379) - Yes
36% (1098) - No
19% ( 590) - Don't know/Other

____________________

Nice job guys, thanks. I guess aside from a few noisy people, we're pretty Progressive here

[Beetwasher]

6. There's Also This One

Should there be any limits on what insults or attacks members can post about President Obama or Democrats on Democratic Underground?

55% (1678) - Yes, there should be limits on such insults or attacks.
31% ( 939) - No, members should be able to post whatever they like about President Obama or Democrats.
15% ( 450) - Don't know/Other

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. It'd be interesting ot know if the non-constructive criticism, insults and attack on Democrats

which many members think should be allowed should have to be, in their opinion, clearly from the left, or if many are saying "attacks from the right are fine too".

I'd be surprised at the latter (after all, there wasn't much call for 'other' in the 'who should be supportable on DU' question that might indicate supporting right wing candidates is a desire for many); but the problem is that some attacks, when seen on their own, can't be pinned down as 'from the left' or 'from the right'. Those making the attacks would no doubt say "look at my record; of course I'm attacking from the left", but that puts a big burden on moderators to have to know someone's posting record well. With thousands of active members, moderators cannot keep up with the overall opinions of everyone, and having to form a picture of someone whenever an attack on a Democrat is made takes time.

That's why it's a lot easier to say "attacks on Democrats are forbidden".

[blackspade]

71. The problem is that...

'Attacks' are relative.
You may regard scathing commentary as an attack, while others may think it legit criticism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. And that's a major part of the mods' job

They discuss it between them until consensus is reached. But the present system means the progressive basis of DU can be maintained, without becoming a simple cheerleading site that nods along with anything a powerful Democrat says.

[Pab Sungenis]

175. The problem is

when the mods have an agenda, it shows and shows very strongly. Recent days have proven that if you are critical of Obama's handling of gay issues, for example, you are about 5x more likely to have your thread locked or post removed than if you support Obama's actions.

[readmoreoften]

189. +1

[nashville_brook]

151. this doesn't suggest that criticism = traitorism.

it merely shows that "insults" and "attacks" are not supported as a means of critique.

[Beetwasher]

154. Who Said That It DOES Say Criticism=Traitorism?

And who are YOU to tell us "what it shows"?

It shows that the majority WANT limits on the criticism of Obama and Dems despite the other finding. That's what we KNOW it shows. What you personally derive from that is irrelevant, meaningless and obfuscatory.

[laughingliberal]

161. +1 nt

[No Elephants]

191. Given the wording of the question, it's amazing ONLY 55% said "yes."

"insults" and "attack" (versus, say, "criticism" or "disapproving remarks").

Should people on a Democratic forum be allowed, for instance, to call Obama the N word? Hell, no.

[Beetwasher]

200. How About "Corporate Whore", Would That Be "Criticism"?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobburgster]

94. I found those interesting too.

My thoughts on the results of the first one are that, DUer's should be allowed occasional rants that are not constructive. It is also important to monitor yourself so as not to just rant negatively. I believe when we get frustrated it is easy to fall into the cycle of just bitching with no constructive comments.

Regarding the second one....it's democracy.

[KoKo]

117. The "Don't Know" was pretty high on that one...can't take the 45%

as significant if you ad "No" and "Don't Know/other"....but it was hopeful........

Number 1 Response is good to see, though!

[GreenPartyVoter]

123. That was a surprise to me.

[defendandprotect]

138. "I guess aside from a few noisy people, we're pretty Progressive here" .....

:)

[NorthCarolina]

176. Maybe it's time to rethink the last round of changes here at DU

that gave the DLC segment the upper hand on acceptable commentary and opinion.

[defendandprotect]

180. Agree ... was going to mention that myself --

an end to the ridiculous "New Rules" ???

Sadly they do make DU look foolish --

and they haven't gone unnoticed --

Thom Hartmann, I was surprised to find, had them on his HOME page at his website

making fun of them!

[readmoreoften]

186. +1

[Catherina]

196. Ouch! I just read it. Ouch but true. n/t

[RockaFowler]

4. Interesting

Thanks for sharing this . . .

[Beetwasher]

5. Coolumundo!

:thumbsup:

[Iggo]

7. Kick.

Should be pinned, no?

[krispos42]

163. The Admins usually let stuff like this float for a day or so.

People tend to ignore pinned threads as they scan down the list of topics, apparantly.

I'm sure he'll pin it up in a day or two. :-)

[seabeyond]

9. excellent. interesting. not one moment of surprise in all the results. nt

[City Lights]

10. R&K. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

13. Are you planning to release the distribution of respondents categorized by tenure or post count?

It'd be interesting to see the mean and median tenure and post count for respondents.

Also, (not necessarily for publication)it may be helpful for the admins to look at the responses crosstabbed by the tenure categories for the questions where there was less unanimity in response. That would help you to understand whether newer members view the site different from longer term members, or less active vs. more active posters have differences in opinion.

[Coventina]

16. Ha! We're thinking along the same lines & you beat me to it!

:hi:

[Nite Owl]

17. That is a very interesting point

if it could be done. It would be interesting to see what those results would be.

[sufrommich]

20. Why would it matter? nt

[Skinner]

23. I don't think we are going to do that.

The admins, of course, will be able to drill down and crunch the numbers in all sorts of different ways, and we are already doing it. But we do not intend to provide that level of detail in public.

[MineralMan]

43. I agree with that decision. As I read DU, it seems to me that

excellent, thoughtful posts can come from people who are newly here or who seldom post, and ugly posts can come from DUers with long tenure and thousands of posts. Neither tenure nor number of posts seems to me to be any indication of clear thinking or reasonable discussion. I'm just not sure that would be a useful thing for public consideration, although I can see how it might be useful to the administration of the site.

[bluethruandthru]

63. I've never understood the reverence for post count here.

I've seen lots of members who post things like ... or one word answers and they have huge post counts. Some of them have only been members for a couple of months. I don't see why they should be treated as more important members than others.

[Gormy Cuss]

73. Post count by itself matters not, but building a proxy for tenure may be revealing.

Some calculation average posts per month, for example, is better than just looking at sign up date or gross post counts. If I were looking at the data I'd at least look at the responses that way to see if different patterns emerge.

I'd start by computing average posts per month in LBN,GD,and GD-P as well as an overall average for survey respondents and for all active accounts. The admins may be planning to do something like this and I can see why Skinner wouldn't want to report all of these cuts publicly, but some numbers showing how survey participation compared to site participation would be interesting.

[TygrBright]

89. Do a term as a mod and your post count soars.

Every time you enter a discussion in the mod forum about what to do with an alert, it goes on your post count. I was on DU for 8 years and had racked up maybe 2000-3000 posts, and after a couple of terms as a mod I was well over 10,000.

You're right, "post count" per se means diddly.

amusedly,
Bright

[bluethruandthru]

137. Mods should get special bonus points!

I have great respect for the mods here. Such a tough job. Thank you! :)

[KoKo]

118. History........of advocacy for Democrats should count for something.....along the way.

Not to be overweighted but loyalty and constant contributions $$$'s to the site should have some weight over newer folks.

Gotta "Earn your spurs." (LOL's that surely will through some folks off ....not knowing what the hell I'm talking about with that one.)

[pinboy3niner]

116. +100

It also seems at odds with the spirit of the rule against calling negative attention to newness/post count.

If we were to discriminate or judge on that basis, Alan Grayson, as a new member, might have been treated very differently yesterday. :)

[bobburgster]

95. I believe that is a good idea.

I could see a possible hornet's nest popping up.

[herbm]

188. The only response that really surprised me was 50+ saying a rule was a rule whether someone took umb

rage or not. No harm, no foul seems more democratic to me. As a GOP I thought the 'd' in DU was small case (then again, in net adresses all d's are), but the admin has always pointed out that ironically enough, DU is not a democracy and not run by a committee larger than the admin. This I have problem with. My problem is how easily I was kicked off. My concern is that with no debate DU could turn into a Tea Party, where the only people listened to have to get past an ideological gatekeeper and all ideas are shared in a vacuum. I think the Republic is in danger, and a big part of that danger has to do with a large portion of our people balkanized and not talking to each other. This is the only explanation for people like Rand Paul, O'Donnell, Angle, Whitman, Paladino, Pallin, Bachman and that ilk of so-called Republicans, they talk only to Tea Baggers, they hear only from Tea Baggers and that is why they utter the most astounding anti-American crap when they do speak publicly. They actually think they speak for most of the rest of us. And they do not.

And I fear that could happen here, too. I think the admin here is doing the right thing. Listening at least even if the result is no change. At least they're listening to everyone. Thank you for that.

[No Elephants]

192. As you no doubt know, some problems with "tenure" and post count:

1/ All that can be known for sure is the tenure of the screen name, not of the poster. Someone who appears to have registered last month could be a sock of someone who's been posting here since day one.

2/ Via googling, I've come across posters on other boards discussing having registered here under multiple names.

3/ What of a poster (or a screen name) registered here in, say, 2001 with a grand total of, say, 1002 posts (or much fewer)? Newbie or old timer?

Others can probably think of more scenarios.

[ProfessorGAC]

30. Very Good Idea

Adds a great deal of value to the survey results.
GAC

Edited for a typo.

[lib_wit_it]

91. I agree. This is an important distinction. I speak as a relative newbie. /m

[jeff47]

111. To what end?

What, exactly, do you hope to see by splitting out the data in that way?

If more "old guard" feel one way, but there are more "youngins" feeling different, what exactly should the admins do with that information?

It's only interesting to look at the data that way if you intend to do something with it.

[Gormy Cuss]

115. Why yes, that is one reason why you'd split the data out that way.

However, my original question was limited to asking for a general breakdown of respondents by the two characteristics that were loaded into the survey, and in a categorized way.

With most surveys, there are descriptives such as count of responses by gender, race, age,etc. Those aren't feasible for an anonymous DU survey. Those aren't feasible for the DU survey -- about the only general descriptors of the respondents are the two auto-loaded characteristics.

[jeff47]

178. You didn't answer my question

What's the point of breaking down the data in that way?

[Gormy Cuss]

181. The point is to note whether the various subpopulations behave differently.

Why would that matter? For one, it would give admins insight on who their audience is. For another, if the respondents to the survey are substantially different than the composition of active members, it would suggest that the survey participation isn't representative of the membership.

[Coventina]

15. Hi Skinner! One result that I would be interested to see would be

responses of long-term members vs. more recent members, as a population. Don't know if you could do it or not, but you did make a note of date of joining in the survey.

Say maybe those who joined during Bush's first term vs. those who joined after? Maybe there would be no statistical difference in the answers, but I'd be curious to see.

[BlueIris]

18. I'd like to see that, too. nt

[county worker]

51. Many DUers like me joined near the beginning and left and came back with a new name.

I don't think it matters when you joined. I do remember that before the 2008 primaries this was a more civil place. My guess is that long term DUers do not engage in the food fights as much as newer DUers.

[Crunchy Frog]

155. Other than the 2004 primaries when DU was knee deep in blood, gore, and guts.

In those days it was a much smaller and more intimate place full of people ready to rip each other's heads off.

But I'm not the sort of person who tends to idealize the past.

[lunatica]

92. I lurked for years before I acively joined

and I visited DU as often as I do now. This place is full of very smart and informed people. That's a huge draw for me. And funny too people too.

[KoKo]

120. I think Skinner said up abover that he wouldn't reveal that...but

having been around here for years, I can tell you that Skinner has always been EXTREMELY supportive of new members. There have been some folks in the Lounge that he went overboard for who were "legacy" ...and many "oldies" were tossed before the most egregious in the Lounge... But, Skinner has ALWAYS SAID...that his "oldie/legacy" were often more problem for him than his Newbies. It's in his posts if you check it out.

[xchrom]

21. Recommend

[Upton]

22. I found this interesting..

28% ( 863) - Democratic Underground ain't broke. Don't fix it!
52% (1588) - Democratic Underground is mostly fine. Some minor changes would help.
12% ( 370) - Democratic Underground is broke. Something significant needs to be done to fix it.
8% ( 246) - Don't know/Other

Only 12% think DU is broke and needs major changes. With some of the handwringing seen around here you would think that number would be much higher. Good to see it's nothing but a very vocal minority. Thanks for posting the results..

[LiberalEsto]

46. Overall 64% see some need for changes

I think that's interesting too.

[Wounded Bear]

60. ..and 80% say no or very little change is needed.

It works both ways. :shrug:

[marions ghost]

62. Big Diff

between "mostly fine" and "broke"--doncha think?

minor changes vs major changes--makes no sense to lump them together

[Solly Mack]

24. K&R

[jaxx]

25. I'm surprised there are so many don't know/other responses.

We don't usually have a problem with an answer to anything. ;-)

[KittyWampus]

28. LOL! I resemble that remark.

:rofl:

[jaxx]

33. LOL I know I don't have a problem making a choice.

Really, we're a pretty good bunch when you get down to the brass tacks.

[Gormy Cuss]

37. They may be mostly "Other" responses but it's impossible to tell because of the combined response.

Usually that combined result is an after-survey aggregation done because the number of responses in each category was too low to matter analytically.

[lightningandsnow]

38. I think a lot of them are from people who live outside the USA.

I had to answer that for a few questions - I can't vote Democrat, because I live in Canada. However, I can vote Liberal, Green, or NDP. :hi:

[jaxx]

42. Ok, that makes sense.

Thanks.

[canetoad]

53. Right on

I had to answer in the bewildered category for a few questions because I live outside USA.

[pacalo]

88. For Duer's living outside the US

& participating in the survey, it would have been acceptable to select "yes" to those "would you vote Democratic" questions, if considering you would if you could.

[iverglas]

183. not really

There was a specific option for us who don't vote in the US. It would have been dishonest not to use it.

In my years at DU, I have been quite careful not to "vote" in polls that were plainly soliciting the opinions of US residents about matters of their own public policy.

[LeftishBrit]

110. Same here...

I would vote Democratic if I lived in America; but I don't. (Have voted Labour/LibDem/Green in different elections- not totally satisfied with any of them, and might find it easier if there were only one anti-Tory option!)

[iverglas]

182. another one here

I can't vote Democrat and fortunately never have to decide whether to hold my nose and do it.

And as a social democrat, I can only vote Liberal in Canada/Ontario if I hold my nose and do it because it seems essential for some higher purpose. Like defeating a Conservative in which the non-Conservative vote split seems more likely to favour the Liberal. Fortunately, I live in a riding where that is seldom the case. ;)

Vote Green in Ontario? Well, if they stop running secret Conservatives ... or just stopped being a right-wing party federally ...

Anyhow, I imagine we foreigners did account for a good lump of those "don't know / other" results in those cases.

[blondeatlast]

58. My first thought as well.

:rofl:

[snooper2]

66. Agreed...I mean Jesus H. Christ...

11% answered (don't know) to this question?

Overall, do you think you understand the DU rules?

91% (2783) - Yes
3% ( 81) - No
7% ( 203) - Don't know/Other


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Nevernose]

70. So many questions were either/or...

While that's not a complaint -- I certainly couldn't have figured out a way to write most of those questions better -- by nature I live in grey areas. I loathe black-and-white thinking (or maybe I'm just a wimpy equivocator).

There was, for instance, "Would you support a challenger to President Obama in the 2012 Democratic presidential primary?"

In my viewpoint, that kind of depends on what Obama does between now and then and who's running against him, so my answer was "other." Probably, yes, but what happen if Obama goes off the deep end and chooses Lieberman as his running mate?

[laughingliberal]

76. That was where I was with that question. At this point, it depends on where he goes from here.

2 years is more than an eternity in politics and my answer to that entirely depends on which direction he goes from here on and who the primary challenger might be.

[pokercat999]

93. I thought he already did......my bad.........nt

[bobburgster]

96. Bah! Hahaha!

I was thinking the same thing!

[LWolf]

146. A few of mine were "other," because my response

wasn't listed in the choices. :shrug:

[MissDeeds]

148. Same here

There is a big difference between "I don't know" and "other". I wish they hadn't been lumped together.

[Curmudgeoness]

26. One thing that is very troublesome to me is this result...

Have uncivil or disruptive DU members caused you to participate less on Democratic Underground than you would like?

44% (1350) - Yes
50% (1529) - No
6% ( 188) - Don't know/Other



That 44% of DU members are intimidated by a few posters causes them to participate less is huge.

[MineralMan]

34. I agree with your assessment.

If 44% are participating less, then that's a big deal, even if it isn't a majority. I'm sure that the admins have taken note of it, too.

[hfojvt]

35. How do you know it is just a few posters?

Seems to me that at least 50% (if not 80%+) of DU can be very uncivil from time to time. That includes me too, I have had posts deleted and also written other posts that I read later and thought "that reply seems kinda hostile, shoulda dialed down the hostility".

That may just be my experience, but sometimes I seem to get no replies to what I post and then other times the replies I get seem to be such a combination of mean-ness and stupidity that I think I was better off with no replies.

[MineralMan]

40. I consider any deletion of a post or reply I wrote to be

a sign that I have stepped over a boundary. I've tried very hard to learn from each of those and not make the same mistake again. It seems to be working, since few of my posts get deleted these days. Like everyone, I can be a little hot-headed at times. It's not something I prize, so I try to moderate my posts when I feel that way. It usually works, although sarcasm is still part of my shtick.

[Curmudgeoness]

56. It is true that we can all be uncivil at times, and I don't know

if it really is 50-80% of all DUers who fall into the uncivil and disruptive category. But I can answer for myself in saying that there are a few posters who I will not make comments on threads where they are actively participating. And I am not exactly shy or easily hurt. It just isn't worth it to comment when I will just take abuse no matter what I say. So for me, it is just a few who seem to relish hurting others, and that is where the problem arises. They intend to hurt and condemn, that is the main reason they are here, it seems. It is a power thing or a superiority issue.

[hfojvt]

83. How many other DUers have a list like that?

It would be interesting if we all compared lists but I don't have a list like that. I used to keep track of the insults, but dropped that when there did not seem to be a pattern, except for one or two that I put on ignore finally after about the 20th nasty reply.

[grantcart]

98. Up Yours

Just kidding

Good point

[blondeatlast]

59. That is startling--and not in a good way. nt

[tpsbmam]

101. I'm one of the DUers who answered "yes" to that question. Doesn't have anything to do

with feeling intimidated, at least in my case.

It has everything to do with how I'm feeling about the world around me these days and what I am choosing to exclude from my life at this time. There's plenty to be discouraged, angry, frustrated, and just plain fed up with these days. That goes for the general state of things for most of us and for my life in particular. I do my best to find ways to stay positive and not let everything get to me too much. Oh yeah, it gets to me at times and I get down at times, but I find ways to turn it around. Having gone through a MAJOR depression about 30 years ago, I never want to go there again if I can avoid it -- I'm proactive when it comes to turning an ongoing crappy attitude into a live in the moment & enjoy it attitude. It works for me. And that includes checking myself if I'm taking my crappy attitude out on other people -- incredibly far from acceptable for me. Being snarky to other people comes back to make me feel worse, so even if it's done from a selfish perspective, I try not to do it. And I just plain don't like being nasty to other people.

When I come here, I love the intelligent discussions and learn from them. I like the spirited debates and occasionally learn from them. But I HATE the snarkiness, nastiness, sense of superiority leading to condescension, etc that I find too often on DU these days. I don't want to be surrounded by those kinds of people in my 3-D life, why would I want to come here and put up with it?

[bloomington-lib]

121. Amen

[LiberalLovinLug]

204. On the 44% of intimidated members

I don't get it.
There are things that I accept on an internet discussion thread that I would never tolerate in my '3D' life. Tolerate in listening in that is, not adding to the snarkiness. "Intimidated" by anonymous posters seems a little over the top, because if you are basically correct in your position, you will generally have back-up from other posters. I enjoy reading, (am I being sadistic?), the occasional flame war, especially when some delusional flamer gets put in his/her place by the community of other members. Some would define passionate exchanges that dip into insults as "spirited debates", some define them as flame wars and snarkiness.

:shrug:

also there are a lot of times that if you allow a flame war to blossom(!) it ends with both parties apologizing to a degree. Why be intimidated by passion? Especially when it occurs through your computer screen, safe in your room.

[Crunchy Frog]

159. In my case it's not intimidated, just disgusted.

There is one forum, on an issue that I care about, that is overrun with explicitly RW and racist posters who appear to have complete licence to post anything they want with complete impunity, while progressives get their posts deleted.

I have to say that this has made me kind of jaded on the whole site, and has dramatically reduced my inclination to support the site financially.

[elocs]

27. "More than 3000 people took the survey..." Knowing an approximate number of active DUers

would make that number more meaningful.

Now it says on top "163,528 user registrations" and I am sure that number includes not only DUers who have passed on or are long gone in one way or another, but even a roundabout guess of what percentage of active members that more than 3000 represents would be interesting to know. As in all voluntary surveys the results are the result of those motivated to participate or who have a greater interest in one issue or another.

I've been here at DU for awhile and have a few posts, yet I did not take the survey. I am not sure if that makes me unique, but my guess is that I am not, at least not in that regard.

[progressoid]

52. I took it, but only by chance.

I just happened to be logged on and noticed it. Had it been posted a few days earlier or later I probably would not have voted.

[Drops_not_Dope]

54. Interesting point

Now it says on top "163,528 user registrations" and I am sure that number includes not only DUers who have passed on or are long gone in one way or another.

I was going through profiles by alphabet the other day. I found many, many members who had a profile and membership from years ago with 0 (zero) post count.

I wonder how many of those are socks for the "just in case".

[momrois]

57. Not a sock

Just not terribly talkative. Some of us have opinions and are interested in others' opinions but not always interested in taking part in a discussion.

[Krakowiak]

168. yep.

[No Elephants]

193. People do register under multiple names, in case they get banned.

I've seen posters on a seriously creepy conservative board discuss doing that.

[hfojvt]

85. I have seen that too

but I think it is left over from the old days when perhaps a tombstoned DUer stayed on the list. Now they are not on the list. You cannot find Walt Starr or Nothingshocksmeanymore in the directory, for example although they both probably had over 40,000 posts.

[Drops_not_Dope]

130. ?

The people I'm talking about in the directory did not have tombstones. Their profile was viewable along with their zero post count.

Am I misunderstanding what you said?

[KoKo]

124. It's like our National Elections. If you don't vote...why should you matter?

Obviously many folks who visit here and even those who sign up...did NOT CARE TO PARTICIPATE....so FUCK EM.

The Serious Politco's here did take the time to do the survey...So ...it is what it is. Doesn't matter if a Million Folks are signed up here on DU....if they don't vote...then why bother with them? :shrug:

[No Elephants]

195. Every Dem who doesn't vote helps one or more Republican candidates.

You have no option on Election Day that doesn't matter.


I understand your point, though.

[Tsiyu]

29. Pretty cool results

Do you consider yourself to be politically liberal or progressive?

94% (2884) - Yes
2% ( 54) - No
4% ( 129) - Don't know/Other


DU is a haven for progressives, despite the few moderates.

[seabeyond]

31. one persons moderate is anothers flaming liberal. nt

[No Elephants]

194. "flaming" liberal?

one person's "moderate" is also another's Pub Lite or neocon.

[Upton]

32. However..

Which of the following is closest to your opinion about the type of website Democratic Underground should be?

6% ( 183) - Democratic Underground should be a safe haven for Democrats only.
9% ( 264) - Democratic Underground should be a safe haven for committed progressives only, regardless of political party.
23% ( 707) - Democratic Underground should be a safe haven for Democrats who are generally progressive, and other progressives who support Democratic candidates.
57% (1737) - Democratic Underground should welcome all kinds of Democrats, and all kinds of progressives.
6% ( 176) - Don't know/Other

DU is for ALL kinds of Democrats...not just those who consider themselves progressives. As it should be.

[sandnsea]

44. IMO, therein lies the problem

That, along with this result and the idea that DU is broke. If most people believe DU should welcome all kinds of progressives, and that people should be able to support third-party candidates over Democrats - then clearly they don't understand the DU rules or they don't agree with them. This is where DU is broke.

Currently, Democratic Underground does not permit members to advocate voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party candidates (except in rare cases). Should members be permitted to support left-of-center third-party candidates on Democratic Underground, even in races where Democrats are running?

45% (1379) - Yes
36% (1098) - No
19% ( 590) - Don't know/Other

Overall, do you think you understand the DU rules?

91% (2783) - Yes
3% ( 81) - No
7% ( 203) - Don't know/Other

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Obviously, that rule is in need of changing.

[leftstreet]

79. The results indicate some would like to see that rule changed

...not that they didn't understand the current rules

[reggie the dog]

81. understanding the rules does not mean you agree or abide by them

i know cannabis is illegal but i smoke it because i think it is a bad law and i dont follow it, i advocate for greens here and suggest openly that greens and democrats work out some kind of coalition as green values tend to be much more left wing than right wing, i also vote for democrats if the polls say it is close between dem and republican but vote green when the polls predict a blowout in either sense. i post here as a liberal who quite often votes democrat as they are the party farthest to the left that has a chance to get into power in our system which favors 2 parties

[valerief]

84. Ben Nelson is a "Dem" and Bernie Sanders is an "Independent".

Who's the progressive there? Bernie, of course!!!!

[defendandprotect]

139. One idea doesn't preclude the other .... We need to hear from everyone on the liberal/progressive

side --

more of a small "d" democratic underground --

[nashville_brook]

149. it's only a problem for those who support party over policy.

and most us are too sick and tired carry that water anymore.

party leadership might not like what they see in these results b/c it shows that they have some work to do -- if they want to win elections against bigots, they need to run as anti-bigot. that means pro-worker, pro-minority, pro-lgbt, pro-environment, AND then follow up with meaningful policy.

[No Elephants]

201. Self delete.

[reggie the dog]

80. damn right

if the centrists were not on here who would i debate with???? preaching to the choir does not keep on on their toes so us leftists should be able to debate with the centrists who make up our caucus with us.

[LiberalAndProud]

190. This is precisely why DU is an important medium.

Democrats are largely an open-minded, if mule-headed lot. We may argue an opinion passionately to have our minds changed by well informed, well spoken DUers. Without this dialogue, we have an echo chamber, which could get monotonous after a time.

[No Elephants]

198. Debate or preaching to the choir are not the only two options.

[MineralMan]

36. Many here who some consider to be moderates, are progressives

or liberals. The definition of both is very hard to pin down. I know that I'm both a liberal and a progressive, but I've been called a "conservative" sometimes by folks who have a single issue focus. Political position is not measured by single issues.

[defendandprotect]

140. There was no question re a DLC identity ....

[No Elephants]

197. DLC-ish (Some DUers act as though no one can properly be described as

having DLC views unless his or her name literally appears on DLC's membership list.)

[hfojvt]

39. except that I consider myself to be a progressifve to

compared to the general population, I think I am, but compared to the mainstream of DU, I am a moderate. I am from the Democratic wing of the socialist party as it were.

[zipplewrath]

49. Above average

This reminds me of surveys they conduct where the majority of respondents think they are "above average" in whatever category is being surveyed. The majority of drivers regularly rate themselves "above average". It's functionally impossible for the majority of drivers to be "above average", some just have to be "average". That's kinda what the word means. Not to mention that some do have to be "below" average.

94% consider themselves progressive.

[Radical Activist]

67. I thought that was interesting too.

It means that disagreements about Obama are not along moderate/progressive lines. It's an argument among people who are on the left.

[Tsiyu]

165. "It's an argument among people who are on the left."

Exactly.

I rarely have to wade through absolute garbage here. It saves time for me, on dialup.

People squawk about the differences here, and there have been some ugly battles and ugly losses, but I have always felt free to say what I feel, and there is almost always someone who will have my back.

You won't find perfection anywhere, but the best group of liberals i know is right here on DU.

[iverglas]

184. and yet

Do you consider yourself to be politically liberal or progressive?
94% (2884) - Yes


... The opinions and commentary seen at this site haven't achieve a 94% liberal/progressive standard in a long time, if ever.

I just find it interesting how people who express such illiberal, regressive attitudes can look in a mirror and say they are "liberal or progressive".

I think there was a pretty obviously "correct" answer to that one. ;)

[Tsiyu]

202. many lurk here and never speak up

And they were also free to take the survey.

The fact that most identify as progressive/liberal is a good sign to me.

:)

[mkultra]

45. The questions about less participation

could easily be skewed by lack of participation by those who no longer participate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Thanks for sharing.

[AtomicKitten]

48. Very interesting. Thanks for sharing the results. nt

[InvisibleTouch]

50. This one was a jaw-dropper for me:

Which of the following is closest to your opinion about the two major political parties?

77% (2376) - There are important differences between Democrats and Republicans.
15% ( 450) - Both major parties are basically the same.
8% ( 241) - Don't know/Other


Fully 15% think the parties are the same??? You've got to be kidding.


Some of the other replies are kinda disappointing too, as a majority seem to want to keep right on bashing Obama and other Democrats. No wonder we have such a hard time making progress, when we can't even come together as a community to support our own people. Which was basically my answer to "What do you like least about DU." Ah well.

[blackspade]

69. The problem is...

That one person's bashing is another person's legit criticism.
It is all a matter of perspective.

[LoZoccolo]

86. I think people shouldn't even go near that line. n/t

[reggie the dog]

82. i would agree with the idea

that on some issues like no child left behind there is no difference as with the war on drugs, but on other things like health care, abortion, death penalty, credit card/lending rules and the like there is a big difference between D and R

[defendandprotect]

141. Actually, many of the questions were extremes .... on one side or the other ....

What about a question indicating everyone's overall concern with the

shrinking differences between Democrats and Republicans?

[Scurrilous]

55. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[myrna minx]

61. K&R Thanks for posting. n/t

[TexasObserver]

65. recommend

[lpbk2713]

68. Thanks.

Very interesting reading.


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Hissyspit]

74. LOL

Overall, do you think you understand the DU rules?

91% (2783) - Yes


...And 91% of us think we are better-than-average drivers! :D

[DesertFlower]

77. thanks for posting the results.

[reggie the dog]

78. 57% (1737) - Democratic Underground should welcome all kinds of Democrats, and all kinds of progress

57% (1737) - Democratic Underground should welcome all kinds of Democrats, and all kinds of progressives.


centrist to communist, libermann to nader and all their supporters should be able to come here and try to hash out what line we will all tow as the center left and i am happy to see that a majority welcomes that, all kinds of democrats and all kinds of progressives!!!!

[bigwillq]

87. Thanks for posting the results (nt)

[lunatica]

90. Thanks for posting. I'm not surprised at the results

It's about what I expected.

[keilsonky]

97. Survey and the right thing to do

I am not a big poster. I have been on DU for years though. I post a blog on another site but come to DU for several reasons. I sometimes get annoyed at the unproductive banter that goes on, moreso this close to an election. I work in my local Democratic office and consider myself extremely liberal. I don't use the term progressive because it is a way to hide the term Liberal and i am proud to be one. I don't vote for Republicans and if a choice between wasting a vote for a more left leaning candidate for a Dem that can actually win, I will not waste a vote for the sake of making a point. At this time, 2 weeks from an election, a poll or survey about such things is ignorant. I took it, I admit, but WE NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON THE ELECTION AT HAND. If people can spend their time here bantering, then they can be beating the streets getting the votes out and telling people what will happen when the Republicans win while we were wondering who's feelings were hurt due to Obama bashing. He is OUR President, and the election is two years away. The time for being crybabies is over and should always be over before a crucial election. Get with it, Get out there.

[grantcart]

99. Good luck on your local campaigns

[JNelson6563]

108. I hear ya!

It can be frustrating to be putting in time in the trenches, election day draws near and your sense of urgency increases. You stop in @DU to see what's happening in the larger political picture during some down time only to find you would be comrades-in-arms busy squabbling endlessly about this and that outrage du jour instead of lifting a finger to actually help make a difference.

Oh yeah, I hear you keilsonky, roger that!

Cheers to you for all your hard effort, may we have great cause to celebrate come elction night! :toast:

Julie

[Renew Deal]

143. You've been on 5 years and have 6 posts

That's AMAZING!

I agree with your usage of "liberal." Great post.

[grantcart]

100. Well done.

[Vickers]

102. Unrec for the results of the "third-party candidates" question.

Very disappointing, especially as a Floridian this election season.

:(

[DireStrike]

104. Are you sure you understand how the unrec function is supposed to work?

[urgk]

107. Some people use it as "I don't like this idea" or "I disagree."

Rather than the much more useful "I don't find this particularly useful one way or the other."

[DireStrike]

109. Indeed, that isn't a particularly good use.

However, this is probably the worst mis-usage I've ever seen. I find it difficult to come up with a situation where an unrec would be more pointless.

[urgk]

125. Agreed. (n/t)

[Curmudgeoness]

134. In fact, I have a feeling this is the reason that most people use it.

And that is a shame, since many thought-provoking OPs get unrec'd. The OP is really good, even if I don't agree with what it said. That means, to me, it is relevant and people should be considering the point. This is a shame, but I find that good OPs do not disappear due to the unrec crowd.

[defendandprotect]

147. Btw, was there a question about the Un-rec ...? I forget ...

[Renew Deal]

142. Both of you are an example of how unrec works.

Not meant to be an insult to either of you. Unrec sucks.

[Vickers]

173. No, the whole Rec/Unrec thing is so MYSTICAL!!!!!!

:eyes:

Thanks for the condescension, though! :thumbsup:

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

167. That means we can push Teabaggers as well as Greens and Indies I guess.

I don't think this ends well for DU.

[Vickers]

174. Yup, I think it's one of the most boneheaded policies they have here. n/t

[democrank]

103. Thanks for posting this, Skinner.

[tigereye]

105. wonderful idea - fascinating results!

[iamthebandfanman]

112. lmao 94% said they were liberals?

guess delusion is alive and well on DU ;)

that other 6% sure are vocal...

[Exilednight]

128. I found this quiet interesting, too. It just proves that not everyone has ..................

the same definition of liberal/progressive. On the other hand, I am also one of those people who think that others should not self identify themselves, for the simple fact that most people think more highly of themselves than they should. And that includes everyone, even myself.

[BrklynLiberal]

113. K&R

[OnyxCollie]

114. Then there's this

Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way President Obama is doing his job?

57% (1763) - Approve
26% ( 792) - Disapprove
17% ( 512) - Don't know/Other

Maybe this will put to rest that tired "80% of liberals support Obama" statistic some here cling to like a talisman against evil.

[ProfessorGAC]

119. Excuse Me, But. . .

. . .this is an ADMITTEDLY unscientific survey of a very select group of volunteer survey respondents.

So, it doesn't put anything to rest.
GAC

[OnyxCollie]

127. Fair enough.

But now it will be used to say 43% of DUers are haters who want Palin to win.

[ProfessorGAC]

131. Fair Enough, Back

I'm not defending that sort of misuse of statistics, but i'm just sayin'.

Thanks for the civil reply.
GAC

[No Elephants]

203. Some would resolve that seeming discrepancy by claiming that DUers are, on the whole,

far more liberal than the entire population of Democrats (IRL). (I've seen that claim made.)

[proud patriot]

122. Very interesting results

Thanks Skinner

[rucky]

126. This just proves that most people here agree with me.

And if you don't, you're in the minority.

[dsharp88]

132. The 'NO' Responses should have had Rationale!!!

Otherwise, you make the same mistake the media makes.

Example:
Do you approve of the job being done by the President/Congress/etc.?
1) Yes
2) No, too liberal
3) No, too conservative

is a LOT different than

1) Yes
2) No

[GreenPartyVoter]

135. True. That could have provided further useful data.

[gulliver]

133. One problem is randomness and validity.

If everyone was allowed to take the survey at will (rather than by random invitation only), then the results won't be meaningful, unfortunately. People with stronger opinions, for example, might take the survey in greater numbers. For it to work, the participants have to be chosen at random. Then, if you don't get a lot of refusals, I think the survey would be valid. Otherwise, the refusals would skew the result in the same way that self-selection in the open survey would, IMO.

[Curmudgeoness]

136. All surveys deal with the "stronger opinions in greater numbers"

situation. Even professional polls end up with people refusing to participate. Many people just don't want to take the time with any polls, especially if they have no strong opinions.

[gulliver]

145. Yes, that's why my thought was that...

...if refusals are low then they could be neglected. On DU, I would expect refusals to be low. But if the survey is not by random invitation only, then I think, unfortunately, it can't be trusted.

[Danger Mouse]

160. Random stastically significant sampling would give the most accurate results, true...

but I don't know...seems like that would've been much more difficult to do, and not necessarily very practical. :shrug:
I would've been interested to see the results of something like that, but we're not research scientists. :P

[Politicub]

144. Thanks for posting the results

It was great to see that the vast majority of members describe themselves as liberal/progressive.

Love me some DU!

:fistbump:

[HuckleB]

152. Thank you for sharing the results. -eom-

[TexasObserver]

153. I've had a chance to review the results now. What I expected.

Most of my choices were the plurality choices.

We're reasonably sane as a group.

[InvisibleTouch]

156. I'll be interested to read the "Short Answer" results...

...though I realize that compiling those is a little more difficult and will take more time.

[bertman]

157. This 'survey' reminded me of many phone and internet surveys I have

been asked to take. It asked questions with choices for answers that did not reflect my answer, so if I answered I was not answering accurately or honestly.

I felt like I was being pushed to give an answer that was not appropriate. That's why I only took part of the survey, then stopped.

FWIW.

[BlueIdaho]

158. Now What?

The golden rule of assessment is - don't ask the question unless you are prepared to do something with the answer.

So what happens next?

[madokie]

162. Just goes to show

that DU rules. If there is a better place to hang out I've not heard of it.
Thanks Skinner for sharing with us this information and letting us see a part of the window that shows how it is that you all make the decisions that control the direction this place takes and have taken. I only see good things in the future for Democratic Underground

[Historic NY]

164. Thanks but I'm sure the whiners will want a do over.

[FourScore]

166. Very interesting. Thank you for posting the results. n/t

[bc3000]

169. I got almost all of them right

[tavalon]

170. So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but basically I'm seeing that while

we may all be having trouble adjusting in the post Bush world, here at DU, the kids really are okay?

[Lasher]

171. That's my take.

Growing pains. I was a little surprised by the support for third party advocacy but on reflection it makes sense. The last two years have taught me that today's Democratic Party is not the party it used to be, or the party I thought it was.

[tavalon]

172. Yeah, that's been a hard one for me

It's also hard seeing these two parties have a stranglehold on the process.

[defendandprotect]

177. K&R for your post .... nice summation -- !! :)

[Haole Girl]

179. I'm sorry, but...

:wtf:

Which of the following is closest to your opinion about Barack Obama and George W. Bush?

88% (2690) - There are important differences between Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
6% ( 187) - Both presidents are basically the same.
6% ( 190) - Don't know/Other


Edit to clarify: If those 12% don't get it by now, they never will.

:banghead:

[herbm]

187. personaly or politicaly the same? Policy-wise they are a lot alike.

We're still fighting the wars, open drilling will begin in the Gulf, Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act aren't even challenged by the President, Gitmo is still there, DADT is still up and running even though courts have struck it down. In a lot of ways its bizniz as usual. I will still vote for the President because the GOP will not put up a good candidate.

[herbm]

185. The only response that really surprised me was 50+ saying a rule was a rule whether someone took umb...

rage or not. No harm, no foul seems more democratic to me. As a GOP I thought the 'd' in DU was small case (then again, in net adresses all d's are), but the admin has always pointed out that ironically enough, DU is not a democracy and not run by a committee larger than the admin. This I have problem with. My problem is how easily I was kicked off. My concern is that with no debate DU could turn into a Tea Party, where the only people listened to have to get past an ideological gatekeeper and all ideas are shared in a vacuum. I think the Republic is in danger, and a big part of that danger has to do with a large portion of our people balkanized and not talking to each other. This is the only explanation for people like Rand Paul, O'Donnell, Angle, Whitman, Palacio, Pallin, Bachman and that ilk of so-called Republicans, they talk only to Tea Baggers, they hear only from Tea Baggers and that is why they utter the most astounding anti-American crap when they do speak publicly. They actually think they speak for most of the rest of us. And they do not.

And I fear that could happen here, too. I think the admin here is doing the right thing. Listening at least even if the result is no change. At least they're listening to everyone. Thank you for that.

[JNelson6563]

199. Will we be seeing any changes anytime soon

based on this data?

Julie