What percentage of the Dem party is Progressive/Liberal?

[CoffeeCat]

Does anyone know what percentage of the Dem party is Progressive?

I'm wondering if the DLCer-types outnumber the Progressive wing of our party.

[MessiahRp]

1. I wouldn't think that the DLCers top 35%

The problem is they're the ones with the money so they have the ability to run for higher posts and be more visible... and with Dems we just want to win so more times than not we get behind someone that doesn't represent us.

Rp

[Syrinx]

2. Do you mean percentage of registered Dem voters, or elected Dem officials?

And what is your baseline definition of "progressive?"

I'm not being argumentative. And if you define those things, I still won't be able to give you an answer, but at least I'll have something to think about. ;)

[CoffeeCat]

13. I meant percentage of registered Dem voters...

I am curious about how much influence the DLC has over our party, and if they outnumber us.

I have no facts to support my opinion--but it feels as if there is a very broad contingent
of people in the Dem party who are against this horrible war; are are also for choice, gay rights, tough environmental policies, universal health care and helping the poor and those who need assistance (as opposed to funneling money to corporate welfare and wars).

With that said, it also feels as if the DLCers wield more power. They seem more visible. They also seem more accepted or respectable or something. They seem to get more air time.

I guess I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the Dem party (my party)...where it's going and what
will happen in the future. Like I said, it feels as if the Progressives/Libs outnumber the more centrist/corporatist Dems who seem to care more about power/money/status quo.

I'm wanting Al Gore or Feingold to secure the Dem nomination. I'm wondering if there is enough of us to make that happen.

I see Hillary as one of the DLCers, and I am petrified of a Hillary nomination. I guess that was one of the reasons for my question, also. I'm so hoping that we are the majority in the party and that when we nominate an 08 candidate, it is a true Progressive who can enact major changes, and unravel the horrendous damage that's been done since the psycho brigade took over.

[Syrinx]

14. I agree with you one-hundred percent!

Every single word you typed there.

Gore/Feingold is my dream ticket. Gore used to seem more of a DLC type, but I think he has truly seen the light.

Hillary Clinton, conversely, used to seem to be progressive, but has turned in the other direction. Nominating her would, in my opinion, be a total disaster. I doubt she could get elected, and even is she managed to... blah. (A woman president is fine with me. But please not Hillary. And definitely not Condi.)

[icymist]

17. I hear what you're saying. I'm a liberal in the FDR sense.

I'm not really sure about the DLC except that some DU's seem to, put it mildly, disagree with it. With what you say about them getting more 'air time' would that not ensue them getting more money or some other influence for that air time? If the media is already going to have an opinion, how do you suppose a counter to this be applied?

[applegrove]

3. Sorry. But all the party is Liberal. Liberal does mean trade "liberal

trade". It does not mean economic, intellectual, class or any other kind of isolationism.

[Al122]

19. Not exactly correct on definition of "liberal"

In 19th century Britain, where the use of the term began, it did primarily denote economic libralism (i.e. free trade, low taxes, as little government spending as possible). But 19th century British liberals also believed in "Home Rule" for Ireland, anti-colonialism and the extension of voting rights to a greater number of British subjects.

In the 1930s, FDR consciously began to use the term to distinguish those, like himself, who believed that government had an integral role to play in managing the national economy. So, in that respect, it looks like he was trying to give a less threatening name to the mild socialism he and his New Dealers were advocating.

[applegrove]

20. Sorry. Our middle of the road - new ideas party has always been

called Liberal. From way back. FDR borrowed the term from where it was used around the world. To mean open, economic and intellectual and class openess and enlightenment.

[Meldread]

4. Not an official number, it's a "guestimate".

However, I'd say that roughly 50% to 60% of the Democratic Party identifies as "Liberal" or "somewhere on the left", and of that percentage only roughly 35% is "hardcore" (that'd be us). Roughly another 30% to 35% identify themselves as either moderate or conservative.

That's my guess for people who consistently identify themselves as Democrats.

It's also the reason there is such a struggle in the Democratic Party. We on the left are the traditional base of the party, while those on the right wing of the party claim that we "weigh the party down" and want to throw us out the back door of the bus. There is an internal struggle, one that the right wing is winning, for the soul of the Democratic Party.

[Broken_Hero]

5. the democrats

in our area, are probably 95 percent, DLC line...they dont' care about abortion, or any civil rights...they care more about what W is doing via Iraq, health care, education, and what not.....

[cyclezealot]

6. We all know these to be guesstimates.

On the positive side. I'd say the House Democratic caucus is about 50% progressive. Remember how Dennis Kucinich got over half the Democrats to vote against Bush's war in 2003. Most oppose unfair trade. The Senate is another sorry matter. I'd say no more than 25% are progressive.
Of the Democratic electorate, I'd say 35% are progressive. Democratic activist i'd say over 50%. Enough of a sane/informed base for me to not give up .

[texasleo]

7. there are moderates, mainstream liberals, and socialists

I would say
30% moderates
40% mainstream liberals
30% socialists

[cyclezealot]

12. the problem with socialists . Americans don't know what it means.

If they knew it mean't control of monopolies. COntrol of basic services and vital services for all. Does not mean government regulates your every moment. It is really corporations that are doing the socializing of the American psyche with it's control of the American mind via TV ads and control of the news.
Try living in a supposedly socialistic country. You will find more divergance of opinion and a freer expression of opinion.
Yes. Proud to be a socialist. America forgets it's roots before the intervention of socialists in the 1890's, when robber barrons ruled iron fisted. Almost like today.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Not the DLC again!

Well, actually, I think the DLC gets far too much attention -- and anxiety -- than it deserves. It was mainly an organizing committee, and its time had come and gone in Clinton's first term. They were always a small organization, and have never "outnumbered" anything.

Fussing over the DLC is like fussing over EMILY's List. The DLC was influential and important, but its ideology was largely irrelevant. How we at DU came to fear and dread it, has puzzled me since the first time I logged on.

The Democratic Party is relatively unorganized right now. This is a wonderful time to remake the party to be more progressive, but a lot of progressive Democrats are convinced that they're being cast out into the desert, just because Hillary said this or Richardson said that. It's a thin-skin reaction. Everybody has the right and the moral duty to speak up.

But the idea that the DLC or any other group stomps on people?

It's nonsense. The DLC never had that kind of power, nor did it demand it. So step up and talk back! There's only one way to be an activist partisan, and that's to speak your mind to your fellow partisans. The "fight" starts here first, the normal conversation among friends. A couple years of that, and Conservatism -- which depends on obedience, acquiescence, and silence -- will be dead.

It's also the best way I know to keep the Democrats going in a progressive direction. We won't all agree on the jots and the tittles, but at least the compass will keep pointing in the same general direction. And that's what counts.

--p!

[Peace Patriot]

9. I think the question should be, what percentage of the American people

is progressive? And I think a lot of folks would be very surprised at what the issue polls over the last several years show, for instance: almost 60% disapproval of the Iraq war, over 60% disapproval of torture "under any circumstances," and great concern about the rights of detained "terrorist" suspects. The majority of Americans have disagreed with every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, and are way over 60%, up in the 70% range, on issues like Social Security, the deficit, women's rights, and stem cell research. Virtually the only issues on which Americans could be said to be leaning right are the death penalty (but not for under 18) and anti-gay marriage (but with support for civil unions). The overall picture is one of a far more progressive country than most people realize, and than is portrayed by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. Rough guestimate: I'd say we have a largely progressive country--55% to 60%--with a couple of rightwing fetishes that need to be worked on, and could easily be turned around, with education and information.

And this, after five and a half long years of relentless war mongering and fear mongering, and 24/7 rightwing propaganda and hugely twisted and narrow--almost delusional--political commentary and manipulated "news," on all channels.

So, NOW look at the question you're asking: about the Democratic Party rank and file. The political spectrum alters with this information about the general population. If the general population is anti-Iraq war (on average, prior to this year, nearly 60%; it's much higher now), and was over 60% on disapproval of torture back in 2004, what would Democrats be? 80%? 90%? Another thing: The Democrats are far more reflective of the general population than the Bushite Republicans. In fact, the new voter registrations in 2004 were a blowout success for the Democrats, nearly 60/40--paralleling the issue polls. These facts definitely raise the issue of stolen elections.

Personally--though I have no stats on it--I think the DLC or Corporate wing of the party is very small, and may be limited to certain politicians and a few business types and a few multi-millionaires. The bulk of the party consists of workers and the poor. My wild guess would be at least an 80/20 split (80% leftist, pro-worker, pro-peace), and possibly even bigger. And I think there is a great divide between them, not just on numbers, but on most issues, and on money class (rich vs poor). The 10%-20% DLCers are believers in Corporate Rule, and have deep money ties to the Corporate Rulers and the military-industrial complex, and the rest of us peons would like to see the Corporate State dismantled. We (speaking generically) support capitalism, but by that we mean business and trade, tempered by strong socialist programs, and strong regulation, NOT rule by giant global corporate predators. (Corporations should act for the common good, and, if they don't, goodbye corporation--and if they are monopolistic, bust them up.) And the workers and the common people of this country and the poor have been grossly betrayed by the DLC Dems, starting with NAFTA, GATT and other unfair trade agreements, and recently by their cooperation with--and sometimes corruption with regard to--Bushite-controlled electronic voting machines run on "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code with virtually no audit/recount controls. How they can have been SILENT about THAT is beyond me to explain--even with DLCers!

Speaking of stats and guestimates: One of the tragedies I see is that 25% of Congress--the more leftist Dems--have been burdened with trying to represent the majority of people in the country (that 60% from above), while having the albatross on their backs of the collusive and DLC type Dems, and while being bullied, restricted and silenced by the Bushite "pod people." I think the bulk of the Congress has been as illegitimately elected as Bush has been. In other words, people like John Conyers and Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold are NOT far lefties--as they are portrayed by all the powers (by the Bushites, by the collusive Dems and by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies) but they represent the MAINSTREAM of the country.

[mmonk]

10. 25%?

[KharmaTrain]

11. Now Define Who Is Progressive and Who Is Liberal

...and then put on your hazmat suit and be prepared for flames...

[cyclezealot]

15. To me they are pretty much the same.

We know we let Reagan's pr machine destroy liberal. I am liberal and proud. Progressive, I fear often is just another word for liberal used by those who want to avoid liberal.
The crux. We let Reagan's people convince the American public that liberals are child molesters and condone immorality.
I find the liberals I know are tremendous family people and raise their kids with lots of forethought. I'd predict a child from a liberal home will be far better adjusted than some up tight Freeper home.
Politics or religion has little to do with morality. We let Reagan's henchmen paint us with broad strokes. Now our cherished civil liberties we uphold has been confused with promiscuity. Shame on us for letting them do it. LIberals have a proud tradition to uphold.

[eridani]

16. There's another divide transcending liberal/conservative

--and that is "people who are paying attention" vs "people who are not paying attention." The latter have about 70% of the population, and the former are all over the political map.

[Terran1212]

18. Most/many of the voters, very few of the politicians

It's a failure of democracy when our officials don't match the people.