Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sami

Is Democratic party becoming too liberal?

Is Democratic Party becoming too Liberal?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Democratic Party becoming too Liberal?

    • Yes (and I am Republican)
      3
    • Yes (and I am Democrat)
      1
    • Yes (and I am unaffiliated or independent)
      3
    • Yes (and I am moderate)
      3
    • No (and I am Republican)
      0
    • No (and I am Democrat)
      6
    • No (and I am unaffiliated or independent)
      4
    • No (and I am moderate)
      0
    • No change according to me (and I am Republican)
      0
    • No change according to me (and I am Democrat)
      1
    • No change according to me (and I am unaffiliated or independent)
      1
    • No change according to me (and I am moderate)
      1


Recommended Posts

I watched last primaries even if I'm not American (in holidays in Canada!)

And I was surprised of the number of activists who won in Dems primaries, for example the businessman Abel has ben beaten by a pro control on guns activist.

And as we saw the last primaries and Trump-era election...

My question is: Are democrats becoming too-liberal?

To make it honest I will create more options of Yes and No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sami said:

I was surprised of the number of activists who won in Dems primaries, for example the businessman Abel has ben beaten by a pro control on guns activist.

It's almost as if voters prefer progressives instead of Republican-Lite, weird right .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

It's almost as if voters prefer progressives instead of Republican-Lite, weird right .

Indubitably

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, I don't consider myself a Democrat, but I reliably vote Democrat. I don't like polls that ask if someone is Independent, because the spectrum within that is too great. The establishment of the party is not that liberal at all (compared to Western left-leaning parties). I think the center of the party should massively shift toward where Warren is with Sanders being to the left of her. I know a conservative would think that's absurd, but for anyone that thinks liberal politics are preferable to conservative ones, it makes sense. For conservatism, I draw a line at Rubio. Anyone more conservative than Rubio is dangerous in my opinion. However, I understand that someone that is a conservative wouldn't feel that way. I'd say my range of tolerance is Bernie Sanders to Marco Rubio. My range of acceptance is Bernie Sanders to Joe Manchin. My range of preference is Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vcczar said:

Technically, I don't consider myself a Democrat, but I reliably vote Democrat. I don't like polls that ask if someone is Independent, because the spectrum within that is too great. The establishment of the party is not that liberal at all (compared to Western left-leaning parties). I think the center of the party should massively shift toward where Warren is with Sanders being to the left of her. I know a conservative would think that's absurd, but for anyone that thinks liberal politics are preferable to conservative ones, it makes sense. For conservatism, I draw a line at Rubio. Anyone more conservative than Rubio is dangerous in my opinion. However, I understand that someone that is a conservative wouldn't feel that way. I'd say my range of tolerance is Bernie Sanders to Marco Rubio. My range of acceptance is Bernie Sanders to Joe Manchin. My range of preference is Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. 

My range of tolerance is from Ted Cruz to Elizabeth Warren, I can tolerate mostly all views, but I do think Bernie is dangerous. My range of preference is Ted Cruz to Marco Rubio or Rand Paul. This is using a sort of Sanders-Warren-Hickenlooper-Manchin-Collins-Kasich-Rubio-Cruz scale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

My range of tolerance is from Ted Cruz to Elizabeth Warren, I can tolerate mostly all views, but I do think Bernie is dangerous. My range of preference is Ted Cruz to Marco Rubio or Rand Paul. This is using a sort of Sanders-Warren-Hickenlooper-Manchin-Collins-Kasich-Rubio-Cruz scale. 

Ron Paul > his son > daddy Trump > Cruz > everyone else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No(i am a Democrat).It is actually not liberal enough for majority of its base that is very annoyed with centrist approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On social issues and immigration, I'd say yes. On economics and foreign policy, definitely not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

My range of tolerance is from Ted Cruz to Elizabeth Warren, I can tolerate mostly all views, but I do think Bernie is dangerous. My range of preference is Ted Cruz to Marco Rubio or Rand Paul. This is using a sort of Sanders-Warren-Hickenlooper-Manchin-Collins-Kasich-Rubio-Cruz scale

The scale I use is Stein-Sanders-Warren-Pelosi-Manchin-Bloomberg-Kasich-Rubio-Trump-Cruz. This scale is mainly in regards to social issues, since I'm less flexible on those, but I can be flexible on economic issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is I consider the party to be too liberal in some aspects and not liberal enough on others. Too much identity politics and not enough focus on underlying structural issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IonicAmalgam said:

The problem is I consider the party to be too liberal in some aspects and not liberal enough on others. Too much identity politics and not enough focus on underlying structural issues.

Social issues are pushed heavily from ends of the spectrum by both major parties as big "smoke-and-mirrors" campaigns to try to hide from the voters, or at least distract them from the fact, that both parties have had consistent abysmal, failed records in fiscal, infrastructure, law-and-order, and and foreign policy for decades now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems, according to me of course, that in the last primaries, left-wing activists are designated in most of the dems primaries, and right-wing conservatives in most of the Reps primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2018 at 10:16 AM, Rodja said:

No(i am a Democrat).It is actually not liberal enough for majority of its base that is very annoyed with centrist approach.

I feel like the more liberal it gets, the more it becomes centrist. We can't forget that liberalism, atleast when it comes to US politics, is generally going in the path of a Clinton-ite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wolves said:

I feel like the more liberal it gets, the more it becomes centrist. We can't forget that liberalism, atleast when it comes to US politics, is generally going in the path of a Clinton-ite.

Bill Clinton was actually a centrist who friends with Nixon. Hillary Clinton would have seemingly been closer to Lyndon B. Johnson - domestically a social reformer (or at least an attempted one), but in foreign affairs showing definite hawkish attitudes. Neither of them seem actually representative of what the growing trend of the main camps of the party are becoming, to be honest. A very clumsy analog there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Patine said:

Bill Clinton was actually a centrist who friends with Nixon. Hillary Clinton would have seemingly been closer to Lyndon B. Johnson - domestically a social reformer (or at least an attempted one), but in foreign affairs showing definite hawkish attitudes. Neither of them seem actually representative of what the growing trend of the main camps of the party are becoming, to be honest. A very clumsy analog there.

Clinton-ite is often associated with Bill not Hillary, though to be fair they don't need to be absolute on either issues to safely slot into the label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wolves said:

Clinton-ite is often associated with Bill not Hillary, though to be fair they don't need to be absolute on either issues to safely slot into the label.

The modern Democratic Party, except maybe for the Blue Dogs and a few other member, mostly older, are moving, and moved, sharply away from the Bill Clinton days. I still believe it's a clumsy and arbitrary, and ultimately inaccurate, analog. Probably originally conceived by some pundit for slander or stereotyping purposes to enhance their own (largely fallacious) rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2018 at 7:37 PM, Patine said:

The modern Democratic Party, except maybe for the Blue Dogs and a few other member, mostly older, are moving, and moved, sharply away from the Bill Clinton days. I still believe it's a clumsy and arbitrary, and ultimately inaccurate, analog. Probably originally conceived by some pundit for slander or stereotyping purposes to enhance their own (largely fallacious) rhetoric.

How exactly have they moved away from the Bill Clinton days? Older members within the party are probably more intertwined with the centrism from those days than ever and it's even more evident when we've literally seen leadership elections within the DNC that have led to safe centrists winning over progressives. Can you provide examples aside from people such as Leahy and Sanders who have always been strictly progressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I've thought about this issue some the past few weeks. I think this (and the corresponding thread for republicans) are both good mental exercises, they forced me to confront my own biases.

The way I figure, given the demographic trends of the country, and the nature of national elections (Presidential and House), for the vast majority of people, at most one (national) party is going to try and win your vote (i.e. maximizing turnout). For a few people, they may be part of swing voter demographics that both parties are targeting (i.e. persuasion), though that probably changes in every election (presently it seems to be upper-middle class, college educated white suburban women, who both parties are fighting for).

As an Independent – who was a Dem in the past, and who now am siding with the GOP more given its recent direction – I would be fairly conceited to want the Dems to pursue policy I have in mind, in addition to wanting the Dems to shift course and move back towards me. So I want to apologize for my haughtiness in calling for them to do so above - it's not my place to decide.

The circumstances are fairly fortunate. There are a lot of political orphans who don't find themselves close to either party. These seem to be primarily on the very far right (anarcho-capitalists) and very far left (hardcore environmentalists), and I empathize with both (note: when I use the right-left scale, I'm primarily referring to degree of government intervention, particularly in the economy; it seems on here it's used more for social issues, so just wanted to clarify and avoid confusion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2018 at 10:39 PM, thr33 said:

You know, I've thought about this issue some the past few weeks. I think this (and the corresponding thread for republicans) are both good mental exercises, they forced me to confront my own biases.

The way I figure, given the demographic trends of the country, and the nature of national elections (Presidential and House), for the vast majority of people, at most one (national) party is going to try and win your vote (i.e. maximizing turnout). For a few people, they may be part of swing voter demographics that both parties are targeting (i.e. persuasion), though that probably changes in every election (presently it seems to be upper-middle class, college educated white suburban women, who both parties are fighting for).

As an Independent – who was a Dem in the past, and who now am siding with the GOP more given its recent direction – I would be fairly conceited to want the Dems to pursue policy I have in mind, in addition to wanting the Dems to shift course and move back towards me. So I want to apologize for my haughtiness in calling for them to do so above - it's not my place to decide.

The circumstances are fairly fortunate. There are a lot of political orphans who don't find themselves close to either party. These seem to be primarily on the very far right (anarcho-capitalists) and very far left (hardcore environmentalists), and I empathize with both (note: when I use the right-left scale, I'm primarily referring to degree of government intervention, particularly in the economy; it seems on here it's used more for social issues, so just wanted to clarify and avoid confusion).

I prefer an 8 axis political map rather than a single axis of left/right. Neither party represents me, and I'm not far left or far right, but pretty centrist. I oppose the centrist Republican/Democrats for corruption and cronyism so there's not many people left to vote for. Supported Sanders since at least he was against Corruption but I oppose some of his proposals myself. I feel like the far left likes social issues and catchphrases rather than solving real issues, the center pretends everything is fine and dandy, and the right likes social issues and catchphrases rather than solving real issues. If the center stopped sticking their head in the sand and offered real solutions I'd vote for them. If only the Greens or Libertarians were better...both choose the worst local candidates. We had some decent Independents here though.
(Have voted for Green, Independent, Democrat, and Republican candidates in the last 2 elections)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×