When will the Democratic Party ask itself why it is losing so many members?

[artislife]

The Democratic Party is in the business of selling.

But the crowds are not getting excited to come out for their Big Sales Event. Instead of wondering what is wrong with the consumers, why aren't they looking at the Made in China crap that they are trying to sell? It used to be fun to look at the Wish Book and pick and choose from all the Made in America merchandise and dream of the big day it got delivered.

Now we get a crap selection and it is thrown on the porch by a disgruntled Fed Ex guy.

What would the Democratic Party have to do to regain it's loyalty customers back?

[AgingAmerican]

1. "Moderate" doesn't get people very excited

Toothless, tepid non solutions for America.

[restorefreedom]

2. when hillary loses the ge

actually i think bernie will take it all the way, but if she becomes the nom, the wh will be gone as well as,possible heavy losses in congress due to low turnout.

then dws will have to go. and maybe, just maybe, they will look at themselves. by then however, i expect a very active progressive third party to have formed

[artislife]

3. In 2008, my Kucinich voting friends

Told me that they believed we had to break the party up instead of voting for the least of the two evils.

In breaking up the structure, new life can form.

I didn't agree then, but I am almost completely there now.

[jwirr]

48. Yes, I was thinking the as the gop dies out the two party

system would automatically evolve with DLC/centrist Dems becoming the new gop and us old FDR Democrats holding the Democratic left together as our party.

[still_one]

57. the green party has been doing well, as evidenced by all the elections they have been winning

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

87. This ^^^^^^

[sabrina 1]

144. Registered Independents now the largest voting bloc in the country as voters flee both major parties

[still_one]

150. Some people register as independent because their state has open primaries, where independents have

a choice between a Democratic ballot, a republican ballot, and and independent ballot. Those who are registered to a specific party do not have that choice in an open primary state.

Though you are correct that more have shifted to an independent status, it has happened more at the expense of the republican party than the Democratic party.:

Republican identification peaked at 34% in 2004, the year George W. Bush won a second term in office. Since then, it has fallen nine percentage points, with most of that decline coming during Bush's troubled second term. When he left office, Republican identification was down to 28%. It has declined or stagnated since then, improving only slightly to 29% in 2010, the year Republicans "shellacked" Democrats in the midterm elections.

Not since 1983, when Gallup was still conducting interviews face to face, has a lower percentage of Americans, 24%, identified as Republicans than is the case now. That year, President Ronald Reagan remained unpopular as the economy struggled to emerge from recession. By the following year, amid an improving economy and re-election for the increasingly popular incumbent president, Republican identification jumped to 30%, a level generally maintained until 2007.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

So a lot of that, as far as republicans are concerned, can be attributed to the disaster that was the bush years.

Within that same link:

"It should be noted that 47% of Americans identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic party, and 41% identify as republicans or lean to the republican party, so even in spite of their registration, they still support one party over another."

[Fawke Em]

161. Not necessarily.

My state has an open primary and you don't have to register to be jack squat.

You only have to register to vote - there is no party affiliation, You don't 'check off' "independent." You don't check anything.

[still_one]

164. OK, I stand corrected for the generalization. I was speaking for my state, California, and as I

understand it that is the rules for California primaries:

"California's current "modified" closed primary system for Presidential elections was chaptered on September 29, 2000 and took effect on January 1, 2001. Senate Bill 28 (Ch. 898, Stats. 2000) implemented a "modified" closed primary system that permitted voters who had declined to provide a political party preference (formerly known as "decline to state" voters) to participate in a primary election if authorized by an individual party's rules and duly noticed by the Secretary of State."

Though my view about Open Primaries was flawed, as you pointed out, my point that the polls indicate that more people are independent than every before doesn't necessarily mean these independents do not support a political party, as demonstrated by the same polls indicating independents leaning toward one political party over the other.

Anyway, appreciate the correction on my broad based generalization.

[restorefreedom]

123. i think maybe

we have finally reached the tipping point

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Bwahahahah.

No, we've seen that movie before. They'll blame the left, like they always do, and continue to chase the Republicans ever farther rightward.

[daleanime]

95. +1

[artislife]

138. They think the left has to do all the work

And we will follow them to the right.

Maybe we are jumping off the train now.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

140. Many will claim that

if we do not get our man, we will 'take our ball and go home'.

But we don't have a ball. And we never get to even choose the game to play. We're begrudgingly allowed to simply fill the roster so that the rich kids who pretend to like us and constantly want to borrow our lunch money don't have to forfeit. But we never get one of our own even for team captain, much less get to choose what to play. And we have no ball.

[artislife]

143. ^^This

They want us to cheerlead for them, as well.


er...no.

[liberal_at_heart]

145. Well said.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. I certainly hope Progressives start their own party, should the DNC steal the election for Hillary -

Which is highly unlikely since Bernie has millennials, Anonymous, behind him and they won't allow DWS to steal the election via electronic voting machines. Sorry DWS.

In my view, if Progressives started their own party, it would be bigger than either the Repub or Democratic parties. At that point, the Democratic Party is finished. They can have their corrupt Third Way/DLC. Good luck winning without Progressives!

[BlueStateLib]

26. Green Party?

[still_one]

59. they have been winning elections all over the place

[StrongBad]

27. So now that polls show Clinton pulling away, you're pre-emptively calling voter fraud?

[still_one]

61. isn't that amazing.

[StrongBad]

126. Yes. And ridiculous.

[in_cog_ni_to]

136. Waht polls? You mean the bogus, Corpoate Owned ABC poll? Bogus. And actually,

that hadn't even entered my mind. I pay zero attention to Corporate Owned pollster's polls.

Hillary is not going to win.

[LongTomH]

44. We still have to get past the hurdle of the superdelegates - 20% of all delegates........

.........and Hillary has them in the bag.

[restorefreedom]

124. she has nothing in the bag.

if the superdelegates try to override the will of the people and tilt the election towards Hillary even if someone else has all the delegates, it will be such a civil war within the Democratic Party it will probably be the end of the party as we know it.

[LongTomH]

132. "if the superdelegates try to override the will of the people and tilt the election........."

Yes, it would produce a civil war within the party, and we will almost certainly lose the young people and formerly disaffected voters that Bernie is reaching. Our voter turnout will almost certainly be at an all-time low.

But, that doesn't mean that DWS and HRC won't do it! They could do it and just use the usual "We're not as bad as the Republicans" line; but, that line is rapidly losing its power.

If you must ask: Yes, I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination; but, I can't guarantee that we won't lose a lot of voters in the above scenario.

[restorefreedom]

133. then they better enjoy themselves

because if they pull that shit, they're basically done. Hillary will lose in a landslide, the Congress will be a bloodbath, and the country will be under Republican rule for many years to come. And I would guess that Debbie Wasserman Scholz will be looking for work.

[Scuba]

156. Nah, DWS will have work - as a "Democratic Strategist" commentator on Fox Noise.

[restorefreedom]

157. then she will fit right in. nt

[Scuba]

159. Indeed.

[emulatorloo]

62. Has DWS been involved in stealing elections via reprogramming voting machines?

If so I would love a link to a story, but not one from WND or NewsBusters.

[rhett o rick]

125. That's not the solution. If we can't keep control of our own party, we wouldn't be able to keep

control of another party. The big money has bought out the leadership of the Democratic Party. Unless we solve that problem, it will do no good to try to start another party. They would simply buy out the leadership there. The only solution is to fight like hell and kick the oligarch puppets out of our party. Some Democrats apparently are ok with the oligarchy owning the leadership of our party because they support HRC who is well part of the establishment leadership. It's obvious that the oligarchy want's to buy her the WH.

[Darb]

127. Oh For Fuck's Sake! Shark Jump Alert!!!!!

That is some strong shit you are smoking there. Some 'bagger give it to ya?

[Dawgs]

22. Yep. n/t

[jalan48]

41. I don't think she will lose if she wins the primary (I'm a Bernie backer).

What I do see for Hillary is a very tough road as President. Obama was able to claim he inherited a big mess and had to spend much of his time cleaning it up. What can Hillary say as the economic conditions continue to deteriorate for the average American? I wouldn't be surprised to see her, like Carter, limited to one term. The whole 'Republicans are worse' is a canard-eventually they will win the Presidency again and when they do? Bernie is talking about the most real and pressing issues, unfortunately we are caught up in electing the first female President-which is enough for lots of voters.

[fredamae]

5. Earlier this year

I was tracking the ebb/flow of Dem registrants in my state. The state Dem party was losing 1000 voters a Month!
When I tried to speak with mt local leaders about this trend...they A) Ignored my messages/emails and as I persisted, the guy I finally Did get to speak to...hung up on me.
They're losing because of bs like this. Once Dems (the base) realizes and experiences the "Big Freeze under the Big Tent" they no longer support Them.
DWS (and company) has all but destroyed the Dem party over the past few years and whether or not she had/has intent to help the GOP, the consequences remain the same. The GOP is Winning under her leadership of the Dem Party.

[jwirr]

58. This^^^^twice I have asked my local party leader if there is

anything going in the area or Bernie. I have yet to receive an answer to the simple question. I am going to the caucus just to let them know how angry I am.

Big Tent Party

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. They're clinging to the notion that "Not as bad" is good advertising.

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Thomas Paine

[Doctor_J]

7. AS long as the party big shots are getting rich while losing elections,

there will be no change of course.

[HooptieWagon]

21. Exactly!

As long as they remain 'viable' , the RW Third Way can continue collecting corporate $ for pretending to be Democrats. When people wise up, they are no longer viable, their corporate money dries up, and they shrivel up and die while we take the party back.

[Sheepshank]

8. The Dem party is losing members to Bernie?

is that the analogy you are trying to imply?

so I suppose he really isn't a Dem after all, and I was right about Bernie destroying the party?

[JRLeft]

10. You know that's not what the OP said.

[Sheepshank]

24. It's the analogy I'd read. And lets be fair, but I did ask for a clarification n/t

[Scootaloo]

49. Clearly your hatred of Sanders is influencing how you perceive reality

[frylock]

65. Clearly.

[Sheepshank]

71. I don't "hate" Sanders. You are very wrong on this.

You should really stop trying to mind read, you are not very good at it.

And yet, even with now twice asking for clarification, no clarification is provided.

Why not help clear this up instead of casting asparagus.

[artislife]

13. The party is just losing members

Where they do go? Many opt out, many just work on issues only and some go to other parties.


Good try, though.

[Sheepshank]

23. any actual data?

people come and go all the time within the party system...I'd heard here on DU (from Bernie supporters and without any evidence) that Bernie was signing up Republicans. How does that play into the natural ebb and flow of people joining and leaving Parties especially in the states with Primaries where the voters are playing the system to get the weakest opposing canididate nominated? Non of the OP is making any sense and there are absolutley no numbers to make any of these comparisons.

I'm not even going to give a "nice try though" on this amazingly losing OP

[artislife]

36. see post 35

Your disdain, is my badge of honor.

[Sheepshank]

74. nope, the waxing and waning of registration is THE constant

and you have not portrayed what you tried to sell in the OP

[Fawke Em]

63. This story ran yesterday...

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble

[artislife]

147. Great article

Isn't it funny that we don't hear the phrase "term limits" any more....

[SoapBox]

34. Always twisting the words...

Tiresome.

[Sheepshank]

76. nope, didn't twist anything

pretending I do is tiresome

[99th_Monkey]

68. Bernie is REBUILDING the Democratic Party, by bringing in millions of disaffected pissed-off

voters who are sick of being constantly threatened & blamed for DNC losses. Bernie is
bringing them back into the Democratic fold, and the 3rd Wayers will ignore this -- or
worse, make stupid accusations against him -- at their peril.

This is a golden opportunity for the Democratic Party to REALLY become again the party
of We the People, in the grand tradition of FDR (remember him?) .. but statements like
yours illustrate an odd obtuseness about this fact.

[Snotcicles]

96. Bernie is calling Democrats home, the ones that have moved to the suburbs don't want to return. nt

[Sheepshank]

134. This doesn't jive with the op

but you may be correct. hard to tell

[Sheepshank]

131. so then you may be contradicting the OP. The party isn't losing voters, there's a net gain?

it's gaining millions? I'd mentioned a gain (hadn't realized it was in the millions) already upthread, but I appreciate you confirming what I *thought* I'd read here before. I wonder where that info and the stats could be found?

[99th_Monkey]

141. No definitive proof of "millions", but looking at the total number of Registered Dems, etc.

The data is scarce and a bit confusing on this. One source says:

'An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be
eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered. Of
these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million
registered Democrats.

About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other
minor party or with a "No Party" designation.'
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_registered_Democrats_are_there_in_the_US

So adding these up comes to a total of roughly 170 million registered voters over-all

But Wiki says "22 states don't register voters by party"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
So I don't know how, in these 22 states, anyone really knows # of reg. Dems v. Republicans

And in 2014 Gallop said "42% of registered voters identify as Independents"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx
So these numbers, from different sources, don't seem to add up to make any sense,
since 42% of 170 million registered voters would be 70.9 million independents,
not 42 million as claimed by answers.com.

An October 2014 Guardian article says there are over 180 million registered voters in US.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/15/voter-registrations-us-election

Above sources all have somewhat different dates, but still the numbers seem wildly at variance

I guess my take-away is, with something between 170 voter - 180 million voters over-all,
my saying Bernie is drawing "millions" of otherwise disaffected voters and/or independents
into the Democratic Party may be a slight exaggeration, but i still wouldn't be surprised if
it was close to 1 million, maybe more. But i'm not sure there's a way to verify that, except
anecdotally.

[Sheepshank]

148. thank you for taking the time to put that al together

that was a lot of work and there is a "methodology" I can follow.

If even 1 million sign up, it could make a difference in some states between the Dem and and a Rep.

[99th_Monkey]

149. You're welcome.

It was actually fun to delve into it. Weird that in 22 states, we apparently don't
have a clue about party affiliation, except what peeps choose to tell Gallop. I did
not know that, so it was educational.

[Baitball Blogger]

11. Seriously, the smaller the Democratic party becomes, the easier it will be to control from within.

It's all about that primary. Those of us who don't see where we fit in because of the corruption and political machinations in the party have opted to show our discontent by refusing to become members. Yet, we will vote for the person who wins the primary, and that person is generally someone who just feeds the problems that we feel have disenfranchised us.

If there was a real revolution, it would involve someone who is savvy enough to know that the only way to break the mold is to bring the self-exiled back into the party before the primary election. That's the only way to break the status quo and the only way that any of us will find our voices.

But, damn, if it never happens. We do the same thing every election, and we continue to get the same results.

[zeemike]

64. Exactly right.

They are not concerned with growing party membership...the smaller the better. Funding the party depends on doing the bidding of the corporate interest not membership.

The only ones they want to retain are the party loyalist who see the candidate as a love interest to worship. They create the scenery in the theater.

[dreamnightwind]

73. Good post

Another point is that they think (and so far are corrrect) they can replace disaffected leftists by supporting open borders on the south, and doing an end-run around immigration quotas by granting immigrants a path to citizenship once they are in the country.

These newly arrived people have no history with the triangulation of the corporate wing of the party, see the xenophobic Republicans as the only alternative, and mostly support Democrats.

Our party's corporate donors also like the open borders approach, no need to represent domestic labor interests, instead they can in-source using immigrants.

So long as the left and domestic workers have nowhere else to go, this is sadly a winning strategy for the multinational corporate wing of the Democratic Party, and also enables the party to get away with supporting policies like the TPP.

[BlueJazz]

12. First thing would be to reinstate (something like) the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal time act.

[cprise]

43. This sounds like DU 1.0

The Fairness Doctrine was simplistic and actually reinforced the country's slide into bi-polar view of the world. I don't think there is any good way to explicitly legislate media fairness.

OTOH, Equal Time for politicians is very enforceable and worthwhile, IMO.

Another reason why parent post sounds like DU 1.0 is the amnesia over the era of mega-mergers between media companies (and companies from other industries buying into news media). We ended up with about 5 media entities reporting about 90% of the news, a drastic change since the 70s.

Most of the mergers happened after Clinton further deregulated the media in the mid-90s. We need to re-instate ownership restrictions on media just as badly as we need to break up the banks.

[sufrommich]

14. Dems retake lead in party affiliation

rty-six percent of Americans identify as Democrats or leaning Democratic, compared to 41 percent who identify as Republican or lean Republican.
Democrats have typically had an advantage in party affiliation over the past quarter century, but the GOP had taken a slight lead around the 2014 midterm elections.

“Republicans have lost ground versus Democrats over the last three months in terms of the percentage of Americans who align with each party, essentially resetting the political map to what it had been in 2013 and early 2014, and putting the Democrats in a favorable political position as the 2016 campaign is getting underway,” Jeffrey M. Jones at Gallup wrote about the poll’s implications.

He also notes President Obama’s approval ratings have been ticking up at the same time that Democrats have gained the ground.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/246738-dems-retake-lead-in-party-affliation


Poll: Obama approval highest in more than 2 years
By Nick Gass
10/19/15 02:31 PM EDT
Updated 10/19/15 08:36 PM EDT


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/poll-obama-approval-ratings-214922#ixzz3p7jsg2xa

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Precisely...

The number of true independents , those that literally swing from party to party, is in the low teens depending on the survey. The latest survey I looked at from Gallup was:

Democratic voters and leaners -46%
Republican voters and leaners -41%
Independents -13%

The suggestion that there are a massive amount of truly independent voters is not supported by the research.

[sufrommich]

17. Yep. The numbers don't lie. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. ...

[artislife]

38. see post 35 nt

[Dawgs]

28. Are you serious?

Uh, the numbers are actually...

Democrats 27%
Republicans 27%
Independents 43%

Which way you are "leaning" is a totally separate question, and a bogus one. When you ask, "As of today, do you lean to the Democrat Party or the Republican Party?', most people will pick one or the other. They don't give a third option, which makes their question ridiculous.

Yikes!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I will ignore the ad hominems as my stellar character precludes me from

I will ignore the ad hominems as my stellar character precludes me from engaging in such petty banter.

Res ipsa loquitur:

Democrats Regain Edge in Party Affiliation

Democrats regain edge in party affiliation, 46% to 41%
Parties had been even in the prior three quarters
Democrats typically have an edge

PRINCETON, N.J. -- In the second quarter of 2015, Democrats regained an advantage over Republicans in terms of Americans' party affiliation. A total of 46% of Americans identified as Democrats (30%) or said they are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (16%), while 41% identified as Republicans (25%) or leaned Republican (16%). The two parties were generally even during the previous three quarters, including the fourth quarter of 2014, when the midterm elections took place.

[frylock]

67. What ad hominem? You made an incorrect statement and were called out for it..

I'm an independent that leans Democratic. All that means is that your candidates aren't quite as bad as the Republicans. This thread deals explicitly with voters who register as Democrats. Not people that vote for Democrats, or lean toward Democrats.

[Dawgs]

84. Good luck on getting a reasoned response.

The arrogance is thick with many DUers today.

[BeanMusical]

92. +1

[cprise]

45. Sorry but Independant =/= Swing

Swing votes is not what OP was getting at.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. The percentage of voters who swing from party to party is relatively small

The percentage of voters who swing from party to party is relatively small and that's what the research indicates. This is manifested in the fact that both parties spend infinitely more time and resources on getting folks who are inclined to vote for their party's candidate to go out and actually vote as opposed to changing the minds of those folks who are disinclined to vote for their party's candidate to change their mind.

If there is empirical data that there is an inchoate mass of unaffiliated voters waiting to vote for this candidate or that candidate i would like to see it.

[cprise]

66. For empirical data, look to local/state and also 2014 midterms

Democratic politics is caught up in a rockstar mentality.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. That actually confirms my thesis

The percentage of voters who swing from party to party is relatively small and that's what the research indicates. This is manifested in the fact that both parties spend infinitely more time and resources on getting folks who are inclined to vote for their party's candidate to go out and actually vote as opposed to changing the minds of those folks who are disinclined to vote for their party's candidate to change their mind.

We have a problem of getting our voters to show up at the polls when there isn't a presidential race... The Republicants are much more dutiful voters. This is a function of the fact they are older, more affluent, and have achieved a higher level of education.

Here is a graph of participation for mid term and general elections:

[cprise]

88. Yes. But, ah, you said "our voters"

Confirming MY thesis that it'll be a very long time before I register again as D.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. Two points

-I am proud to be a Democrat.
-I wish you a propitious journey.

[cprise]

91. What you *should* do is thank us

for voting for Dems most of the time.

But I have never, *ever* heard that from a loyal party Democrat. They're like sports fiends.

[zeemike]

78. And I would like to see the data that supports your claim.

The percentage of voters who swing from party to party is relatively small and that's what the research indicates

But the spin is in the wording..."reletive and swing"
I would ask some questions like
What is "reletive"...reletive to what?
What do the independents who don't "swing" do?
Do they not vote because they don't believe either one? And if that is the case are those not the very ones the party should attract?

But the targeting resources to leaner's is what the 50 state strategy sought to change...and when used it did work. When you start conceding ground in a war it shows weakness and demoralizes the troops.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. Accumulated polling data suggests

Accumulated polling data suggests that the percentage of voters that are truly in play is relatively small...

The balance of leaned partisan affiliation among the public has changed little in recent years: 48% identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, while 39% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Since 1992, only once – in 2002 – have as many people leaned toward the Republican Party as the Democratic Party (43% each). They crossed over two times, one in 2002 as stated and once in 1994 (44% R, 44% D).

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/party-identification-trends-1992-2014/#gender

Since you are questioning my veracity it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate my lack of it.

Please post the peer reviewed research that indicates there is a significant amount of voters who swing from party to party with every election.


Thank you in advance.

[zeemike]

100. No I questioned your conclusions.

And you did not provide any peer reviewed research to back it up but just a link with data for party leaning and nothing about how they actually voted or failed to vote.

When 40% say they are independents then there is a significant number in play...whether they vote or not is the question...and my theory is that if they have something to vote for that they believe in they will...and if not they stay home.
Obama proved that theory IMO because they believed him when he promised change.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. I posted links from Pew and Gallup

When you include leaners the percentage of voters who are truly independent is small. Asking folks how they will vote is a better indicator of how they actually vote than how they identify themselves:

The balance of leaned partisan affiliation among the public has changed little in recent years: 48% identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, while 39% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Since 1992, only once – in 2002 – have as many people leaned toward the Republican Party as the Democratic Party (43% each). They crossed over two times, one in 2002 as stated and once in 1994 (44% R, 44% D).

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/party-identification-trends-1992-2014/#gender

When 40% say they are independents then there is a significant number in play

Again, if you have peer reviewed research that indicates 40% of the electorate is in play please cite it.

Thank you in advance.

[PotatoChip]

108. Check post #104. 43% identify as independents as of Jan 2015

for the purposes of that particular poll. Incidentally it was cited by the same guy as the one whose graph you are using there.

(I missed all this back and forth between your much earlier post and this one because it took me forever to post the thing. Long boring story behind that. )

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. Please see Post 107

[zeemike]

112. Again it is your conclusions I question.

You say that because they answer a question about how they lean it means they are not independents and not in play...because they lean.
There is nothing empirical about that.

[Fuddnik]

46. Many are like me and my wife.

I resigned from my County DEC in 2007, after they voted to keep funding a war they vowed before the 2006 elections, to stop.

I changedmy party affiliation to "No Party Affiliation" after votes on telecom immunity, FISA, and several other major outrages that same year. In Florida, they also had a penchant for running off lifelong progressive Dems from Congressional, State, and Local elections, and supporting Republicans who changed parties, but not political leanings. They also actively undermined and refused support for progressives who actually did win primaries against their chosen Third-Wayers.

My wife and I came back as registered Dems, as soon as Bernie Sanders announced, and we'll probably switch back after the primaries.

The numbers may not lie, but they don't always tell the real story, either.

[Sheepshank]

135. "The numbers may not lie, but they don't always tell the real story, either. "

true

[PotatoChip]

104. I think what you may be observing is a poll that asked Indies previously surveyed to chose

which way they lean, and while many stated their D or R leaning, there remained a few (13%) Independent (or some other affiliation) holdouts?

To illustrate my point, here is a poll done by the same article writer you are citing that covers some of the same time period, but included people who got to keep their Indie label for the purpose of that particular survey.

The poll below this one is what you are referring to right? (It was in the link of the poster you responded to, and has the numbers you cited.)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

JANUARY 7, 2015

In U.S., New Record 43% Are Political Independents

by Jeffrey M. Jones
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

-Record 43% of Americans are political independents
-Democrats maintain edge among those with a party preference
-Democratic advantage smaller in 2014 than in 2013

PRINCETON, N.J. -- An average 43% of Americans identified politically as independents in 2014, establishing a new high in Gallup telephone poll trends back to 1988. In terms of national identification with the two major parties, Democrats continued to hold a modest edge over Republicans, 30% to 26%.

JULY 2, 2015

Democrats Regain Edge in Party Affiliation

by Jeffrey M. Jones
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

-Democrats regain edge in party affiliation, 46% to 41%
-Parties had been even in the prior three quarters
-Democrats typically have an edge

PRINCETON, N.J. -- In the second quarter of 2015, Democrats regained an advantage over Republicans in terms of Americans' party affiliation. A total of 46% of Americans identified as Democrats (30%) or said they are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (16%), while 41% identified as Republicans (25%) or leaned Republican (16%). The two parties were generally even during the previous three quarters, including the fourth quarter of 2014, when the midterm elections took place.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183887/democrats-regain-edge-party-affiliation.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=heading&utm_campaign=syndication

In any event, interesting stuff, and it's good for our party to be seeing such a trend.

As an aside, could this Jeffrey M Jones be the same Jeffrey M Jones from The Hoover Institution? (click on full bio). Anyone know?
http://www.hoover.org/profiles/jeffrey-m-jones

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. Is this a fair way of looking at it?

Neither party is held in particularly high esteem with the Republicans hold in slightly lower esteem than the Democrats. This leads to a lot of people identifying them as independents. However when you ask them how they actually vote most independents lean Democratic or Republican and we have a tad bit more of them.

The reasonable inference from that is the number of voters who are truly in play is not large. If folks were swinging from party to party we would have 70%-30% presidential elections and not the close presidential elections we see...Heck, Barack Obama's 6% margin of victory in 08 was hailed as a veritable landslide.

George Bush caused the greatest recession since the Great Depression and got us into two unwinnable wars which one was of choice and his party received 46% of the presidential vote. That illustrates how fixed political opinions are.

[PotatoChip]

111. I don't know if it's fair or not. I'm just presenting another related poll I found interesting. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. This isn't from the data but i suspect some folks hold themselves out as independents

This isn't from the data but I suspect some folks hold themselves out as independents because it confers a certain amount of objectivity and high mindedness upon themselves.

[PotatoChip]

117. That certainly could be the case here. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

118. I vote for the most liberal and electable* Democrat in the primaries

In the general election I vote for the most liberal and electable candidate which is invariably a Democrat.






* I concede that is a subjective judgment.

[PotatoChip]

120. Me too! Always have. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. I used to live in Seminole County, FL...

At one point the Democratic party was so weak it didn't even field candidates for low ballot offices. In that case I voted for the Libertarian. I have never voted for a Republican in my life.

[PotatoChip]

130. I have never voted for a Republican either.

Or a Libertarian. So sorry you had to go through that.

I have had to vote for two left leaning Independents though. Our current Senator Angus King, and a left leaning guy named Elliot Cutler who was the Indie spoiler in a 3 way race that gave us Gov LePage... twice. Ugh!

Sorry for taking so long getting back to you. I ought to stay away from DU altogether when I'm working...

[uponit7771]

99. but .. but ... THAT'S SCIENCE DAMMIT!!!

[Gman]

16. The problem seems to be lack of education of what

The party really is. The party is not a corporation or even a nonprofit that sells a product. The party is literally a collection of groups with their own special interest Who are seeking to advance their own issues. Every body from trial lawyers to choice to labor to environmentalist all gather under the Democratic Party umbrella. These groups and many more are all interested primarily in their own issues. A consensus develops around issues and becomes the party platform. Party leaders are all elected from levels starting at the grass roots precinct level. If someone has a problem with the party leadership, there are apparently not enough like-minded individuals who care to start changing things at the precinct level. If enough people agree and start trying to change things at the precinct level then things will change. If not, then not enough people feel strongly enough that things need to be changed.

And there are two ways to have power and influence in the party. They are number one, money and number two the ability to deliver large blocks of votes. This applies to any political party.

[antigop]

18. "the only winning move..."

[artislife]

153. That was a good movie

They way not to play the game, is to elect Bernie. H and the republicans are the Russians and the Americans in this game.

[Zorra]

19. Seems to me that neutralizing the Dem party forever is their goal. nt

[whatchamacallit]

25. Too insular for introspection

They've gone too many times to the - who else are you going to vote for? - well. The American people aren't buying it anymore.

[cprise]

51. Speaking of insularity

Having a party pretend they *own* someone's vote because their politicians *imply* they agree with those voters is increasingly ridiculous.

There are third parties on the right as well as the left. Pretending they're a special threat to Democrats is one of the least democratic things about our mindset here.

[99Forever]

29. Return to working for We the People...

...instead of the warpigs and the banksters.

Easy peasy.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. The Primary is the Big Sales event, the 2008 primary saw huge gains in registration and turnout

What supporters of any Democratic primary candidate should be saying is 'my candidate will draw new voters to the polls'. Bernie supporters have a very strong case to make in that regard, I'd say better than Clinton's. But either way the message 'My candidate is running and people are leaving the Party at the same time' sucks as a device for attaining victory and I'd like to see Bernie win.

[earthside]

32. Too many leaders are Chamber of Commerce Democrats.

Being a registered Democratic Party really doesn't mean too much anymore.

The Party is perceived as only slightly left of center by most folks; so what's the point when you can declare your independence and be an independent unaffiliated voter.

The Hillary Clinton path is only going to solidify this notion -- the Democratic Party is becoming the conservative mainstream party. Where is the Justin Trudeau of the Democratic Party? Are we really going to nominate a female version of Eisenhower?

I frankly don't blame anybody for registering unaffiliated.

[Robbins]

37. days of democratic party being liberal are done

it's a center right party and GOP far right party.

what's worse is many don't seem to care and are fine with what Clinton will do.

[cprise]

54. A Bernie win would change that

Having him come in and run as Dem is a chance for the party to reform.

[merrily]

33. 2010 and 2012-historic losses at local, state and federal levels by "electable" Democrats, yet

more registered voters are registered Democrats than are registered Republicans.

Do the math. Literally. Do the math.

[artislife]

35. Interesting graph

Look at the years. If we were to go back to 1976, I am sure there would be a bigger drop. Read the fine print. They do not add in those who don't lean to either party.

The graph was out of this article.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/

As the 2012 party conventions approach, the Democratic Party continues to maintain an advantage in party identification among voters, but its lead is much smaller than it was in 2008.

In more than 13,000 interviews conducted so far in 2012, 35% of registered voters identify with the Democratic Party, 28% with the Republican Party and 33% as independents. The share of Democrats has fallen three points since 2008, while the proportion of Republicans has remained steady.

When the leanings of independent voters are taken into account, the closing of the Democratic advantage is even more noticeable. Currently, independents lean slightly more toward the Republican Party than the Democratic Party (15% vs. 13%). Four years ago, the reverse was true (13% leaned Democratic, 11% Republican).

Overall, the Democrats now have a five-point lead in party affiliation among registered voters when independents who lean to either party are included (48% to 43%). That is down from a 12-point advantage in 2008 (51% to 39%). The current Democratic edge in leaned party identification is comparable to the slim leads they held in 2004 (three points) and 2000 (four points).

For a detailed analysis of recent trends in party identification, the composition of the parties and the opinions and values of Republicans and Democrats, see the accompanying tables.

Oh and Maggi----don't send me person mail...you are not someone I know.

[SoapBox]

39. I'm the hell out of the Democratic Party sometime next year.

I don't want to cause any possible issues with my registration, of being a lifetime Democrat.

But come next fall after the general, I will be "Undeclared" in California.

DWS and her bullshit can kiss my ass.

[MissDeeds]

69. I'm out too

The party doesn't represent me or what I believe in anymore.

And I'm with you; DWS (and her supporters/defenders) can kiss my ass.

[jwirr]

40. Number one: Play fair in the Primary.

[Recursion]

42. I just did an OP on this, but: Jim Webb was a celebrity rising star in the party 10 years ago

He was recruited by MoveOn.org and Howard Dean. He was courted by the entire party leadership.

Today he's too conservative to even have a joke of a chance at the nomination.

I don't think we would have said that 10 years ago. If there had not been an Obama, Webb would have been a realistic D candidate for Presidency.

The simple fact is our party on the whole has become much, much more liberal, because we stopped supporting conservative Democrats in conservative districts.

[green917]

47. the middle of the road

One of my favorite political satirists once said, "the only thing you find in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos."

[FSogol]

50. Unrec. The Democratic party is growing. That's one of the reason the national move-to-the-left

is occurring. Make sure you thank Latinos and young people.

[Robbins]

52. The democratic party isn't left

that's clear by the polls.

[FSogol]

60. Hyperbolic nonsense. Polls? Compare our party platform to the GOP's. Ours is progressive.

Compare our candidates, (every last one of them without exception) they are also more progressive than the GOP.

Spare us the Democratic party hatred.

[Scootaloo]

72. "Compared to the GOP."

Being progressive when compared to proto-fascist theocrats isn't a great achievement.

[FSogol]

77. Neither is tearing the party down in thread after thread because HRC rose in the NH polls.

[Scootaloo]

80. I do not worship a political party.

[FSogol]

83. I wasn't talking about you. I'm a member of the Democratic party and will vote for their nominee.

I don't worship the party.

[Dawgs]

86. Really? No matter how far right the party goes you will pick their nominee? Really? n/t

[FSogol]

90. Has the Democratic party EVER nominated someone to the right of the GOP (in the last 75 years)?

So really, I'll vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it ends up being. They'll be much better than the freakish grifters and crooks on the other side and more likely to win than all the independent pipe dreams.

And anyone who doesn't is a chump for the GOP.

[Dawgs]

93. Got it and not surprised.

It's exactly what's wrong with the party and American politics.

[FSogol]

97. Over a year until the election and some on DU are already advocating not voting.

[Dawgs]

101. You talking about me? n/t

[Scootaloo]

106. Why the FUCK are we setting our standards by the GOP?

Seriously, man. Shouldn't we have our own standards, instead of constantly aligning ourselves to "just to the left of these other guys"?

[FSogol]

110. I've always pushed for progressive candidates, donating or working on campaigns

from Gary Hart to Paul Tsongas to Howard Dean to Martin O'Malley and more that I've probably forgotten. When they come up short, it is necessary to do the right thing and vote for the Democrat that did get the nomination.

Anything less allows the GOP to win. Every flawed Democratic candidate; Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Dukkais, both Clintons, Kerry, and Gore are better people than whatever candidate rose to the top of the GOP sleaze.

[Scootaloo]

113. We should not use the GOP as our yardstick.

[FSogol]

116. I'm not. Life is about choices. If you select one candidate, you are not selecting another.

If you choose not to select a Democrat, you are selecting a Repub.

I'd rather get 75% of what I want than 25%. The weakest Democratic candidate in this years election agrees with me at least 75% of the time.

[Jester Messiah]

105. Seriously. Now -there's- a high bar!

It's like being wetter than a desert, or darker than the sun.

[randys1]

53. Hillary and Martin and Joe are Made in China?

[zomgitsjesus]

55. They could start by being democratic.

DWS comes to mind.

[CharlotteVale]

75. Never. It would have to care first.

[RandySF]

79. We don't have card-carrying members

And it is 4 months until Iowa.

[hay rick]

152. NPA in closed primary Florida?

You didn't vote for real Democrat Nan Rich in the primary so you got to vote for "Republican" Crist. Now you can let registered Democrats choose between Murphy and Grayson and feel entitled to complain about the lousy choice you have in the general election. Congratulations.

[merrily]

85. I don't know if the Democratic Party is net losing members. I know it is losing elections.

[hay rick]

94. The problem is the party's brand is being defined by its deep-pocketed opponents.

And that is not going to change anytime soon. Our best means of countering the money disadvantage is volunteer effort. The Democratic Party is far from perfect but I think two truths should be obvious: 1) imperfect Democrats offer a much better alternative than even the "best" Republicans and; 2) the imperfect Democratic Party can be improved through our efforts or we can do nothing and watch it decay. In short, we get the Democratic Party that we build- that we deserve. If we do nothing except vote we may be disappointed or angry with the results, but we should not be surprised.

In my very red Florida county, the ratio of registered voters is roughly 2:1:1 (Republicans, Democrats, no party affiliation (NPA) and minor parties). Both major parties are losing new registration share to NPAs. The good news is that Republicans are losing "market share" faster than Democrats. The bad news is that new NPAs would probably trend Democratic and are less likely to vote at all. We need to reach those people or live with the consequences of failure.

Critics of the Party who are not activists are engaged in self-fulfilling prophecy. People who volunteer do not look to people on the sidelines for advice and criticism. We must be our own foot soldiers.

[uponit7771]

98. Sanders already answered that last year no? tia

[L. Coyote]

102. Who declared Bash Your Own Party day?

Or, is this everyday for you?

[Sheepshank]

139. Bashing Hillary is a losing concern. She is practically untouchable even by Gowdy....

on to bigger fish. Try and demoralize, demolish and take apart the Democratic Party.

Pure underhanded, slimy Rovian tactics, just like the longer term "R" plan of redistricting. It's not about 2016, it's about the next 20 years. The plan at this point isn't very subtle, instill hatred, conspiracies, disenfranchisement. Talk about a new direction, leaving, and be very careful to ignore the real "R" enemy (keep that target off the radar)....it's not hard to see the pattern growing here on several threads.

[raindaddy]

115. With 30% of the public identifying with the Democratic party and losing members every year...

it's a good question.

As it becomes clear that there's really no room at the table for traditional progressive Democrats in what has become the moderate Republican party more people will work to find representation elsewhere...

[mythology]

122. The Republican party is also losing members

Are you going to suggest that Republican candidates aren't trying to sell to their base?

People are disconnected from a lot of civic institutions wider than just political parties.

But you can make a pretty good argument that the parties and members being more correctly aligned is a significant part of why fewer people are joining parties. If one is closer to the middle of the political spectrum, the increasingly partisan bases can be a disincentive to join the party. Just look at this site where you see people claiming that if Clinton wins the party will be over or that it means progressives (seemingly defined as voting for Sanders) will have lost the party.

Additionally partisans in both parties complain loudly about Dinos or Rinos even as there are no longer any elected officials who vote more with the other party on either side. When somebody who votes with you 65% of the time is considered to be on the other side, it's just silly.

[NurseJackie]

128. Is it? According to whom?

The "retail sale" analogy is a bit clumsy, but I get the point you're trying to make.

Even so, I'm having a difficult time in accepting the premise of this question at face value.

Define "so many". What kind of numbers are we talking about?

It seems so hyperbolic, so some actual percentages would help.

How do we know this to be true? Who's doing the counting?

Compared to what? Compared to when?

Is this an overall net loss? Or does this refer only to a small subset of party members?

Is their loss is being offset by gains being made with other groups?

[Sheepshank]

137. good luck getting any actual facts from the OP

I've asked several times (albeit your list is more comprehensive) and am still waiting.

[zappaman]

129. Says who?

[artislife]

162. Look who is on the rise

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/


People are tired of the two parties

[liberal_at_heart]

142. The party will never question why it is losing members. It is too busy blaming the voters.

[Skidmore]

146. Who wants to know?

Codswallop.

[artislife]

154. I want to know

It has been fun to see how for some people, there is no loss and for others there is a mass exodus.

I have been a registered Democrat my entire voting life.

This may be the last election.

I hear from people I associate with and I hear it from younger people who don't affiliate with either party.

I think the 2014 elections showed how soft the support for Dems really is.

Take it as you want.

[orpupilofnature57]

151. When they realize they're turning in to Republicans, and I don't mean the ones Leaving .

Who talks and walks more like a Democrat, the Independent .

[AgingAmerican]

155. "Moderate" doesn't get people very excited

[onenote]

158. chart

http://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/

[Sheepshank]

163. doesn't seem to support the OP

from the link above, the article provides another link.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

scroll down the page and it seems Dems have been holding steady since 1994. Of course this doesn't have 2015 numbers, but 2015 isn't over yet lol

[Walk away]

160. Maybe by running Democrats for office! That might help....nt