The fallacy that the very liberal Democrats are the base of the Party

[CajunBlazer]

The media sometimes refers to those Democrats and Independents who supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries as the base of the Democratic party. We are also used to hearing those on DU who are far left or very liberal state make the same claim.

All of these people are operating under a delusion. Some people seem to be allergic to facts, but bare with me for a bit.

A recent Gallop showed the following following results:

Of all Americans, 38% self identify as conservative, 34% self identify as moderate and only 24% identify as liberal, In addition that 24% was the highest percentage identifying as liberal in Gallop annual polls in recent memory. We (all liberals) are in the minority in this country folks. And remember, people who self identify as very liberal are subset of that 24% so comprise they are even a smaller percentage of all Americans.

The same poll also has these finding: Among Democratic Party members the percentages broke down in this manner: 19% self identify as conservative, 34% self identify as moderate and 44% identify as liberal. When you add to those identify moderates and those who identify as conservatives, together they make up 53% of members of the Democratic Party. With liberals at 44%, liberals don't even make up the majority of the our Party and again, remember those self identifying as very liberal are a subset of the 44%.

Here is the link to the results of that poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

If you have doubts about a single poll, be assured many other polls had very similar results. The results of three polls showed that the percentage of all Americans self identifying as liberals grew from 23% in 20014 to 25% in 2015.
Link: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/08/wsj-more-americans-self-identifying-as-liberal/

On request I will post the links to several other polls with very similar results, but let's explore how many people self identify as very liberal - those sometimes referred to as "the base of the Democratic Party": Those self identifying as very liberal were unsurprisingly Bernie Sander's biggest supporters in the primaries, but Edison Research data of voters in the primaries showed that 36 percentage of voters in the Democratic primaries identified themselves as somewhat liberal and only 26% identified as very liberal. Most of the results identified as moderates.

Link: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-have-gotten-more-liberal-since-2008-but-not-enough-to-nominate-sanders/

Now 26% is decent percentage, but its only a little over 1/4 of Democratic primary voters. And we know from experience that a good number of those very liberal voters were not Democrats; they were independents voting for Bernie Sanders. Folks, fewer than 1/4 of the Democratic voters in the primary cannot be considered the base of the Democratic Party.

And remember we are talking about only Democratic voters here. We know that Democrats and Democratic leaning independents make up only about 45% of the American electorate. If 26% of those voters identify as very liberal, we can conclude that only 11.7% of the American electorate identify as very liberal.

So if you identify as very liberal - and many on DU obviously do, you are a small minority of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents and a tiny minority of the overall American electorate. Think of that the next time you are tempted to brag about how important your voting block is.

[fleabiscuit]

1. Thanks for the analysis CajunBlazer. n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

2. I have always thought

I was very liberal. But I am not authoritarian, i.e., an all or nothing person which is where the radical LW and radical RW meet, IMO. I see nuances and realize that no human being is perfect.

In 2015-2016, I have been a Hillary Clinton supporter from the get-go.

I used to like and respect Bernie Sanders. But that has changed, based on his own behavior since April 2016, not so much by my perception of his political philosophy.

[Her Sister]

7. "since April 2016" Do you mean around the time of the Vatican Trip?

... and the NYDN editorial? ...and NY's primary?

[BlueMTexpat]

11. It was the first time

when some tried to overturn the results of the NV caucus. Things went downhill from there, IMO.

[Her Sister]

20. Ah yes, April 2nd!

Very beginning of the month! Yep, underhanded!!

[OKNancy]

3. I am very liberal, but I also understand real-world politics

and as long as there are moderates and Republicans in Congress we aren't going to get what we dream of.
For example, I bet you anything Hillary would love it if we had universal healthcare, free of insurance companies.
She and I know it won't happen any time soon, so best to plug away, chip away. We always win in the end, we are just arguing about the time-table.

The base of the party are the reliable Democratic voters. The voter who always votes for Democrats no matter what. The base are NOT people who say " I vote for the person" or the registered Independent.

Backtracking a little... I'm a very liberal person, but I'm probably more hawkish that the super liberal. I believe in humanitarian use of our military like in Kosovo.

[realmirage]

25. Good post, I agree!

[BobbyDrake]

4. It has less to do with numbers and everything to do with behavior.

"Base" voters are those who are absolutely loyal to the party. Not the ideology, not the platform, not one candidate, but the PARTY as a whole. Real base voters with don't flirt with alternate parties, or boast about not coming or protest voting. That's poseur behavior right there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(politics)

The Democrats' real base is the minorities and women who vote Democrat in every election they can. It's not the white progressive men who act more like Rand Paul's libertarians than they do actual liberals.

But they LOVE to loudly proclaim they're the base, because they think it means they must be catered to at every turn. No sale.

[BainsBane]

5. Exactly. Nt

[DemonGoddess]

6. ^^^This!!!

This year will be my 36th in voting in any kind of election. I have voted, every election, no matter how small for Democrats.

Exactly what you said, BobbyDrake. WE are the base.

[Her Sister]

8. HRC won the base!

[SharonClark]

19. Yes, she did!

[Il_Coniglietto]

10. Exactly!

How can you be the base of the party if you don't even like the party?!

[CajunBlazer]

14. I would like to think I am part of the base of the Party

And I am a moderate progressive white man - and a Southerner at that, but I understand what you mean.

[BobbyDrake]

15. Admittedly, I generalized a bit. But again, it's based on behavior most of all.

If you consistently vote Democratic, don't flirt with third parties, and would back Democratic candidates that you didn't agree with on 100% of issues, you're a base voter I'd be proud to stand with.

I'm neither a woman nor a minority, but I too consider myself a Democratic base voter. My point there was to highlight that for the second time, the candidate who won women and who won minorities ended up winning the primary. Obama did it, and then Hillary did it again. That's what makes those voters the current base, IMO.

[CajunBlazer]

18. I mostly agree

I differ only in believing that the base of the party consist of those people vote consistently. We may also want to consider those who in addition support the party with their efforts and/or their contributions. As shown on my posts they could range people who range from those who are very liberal (or even be characterized as far left) to maybe a few conservative Democrats.

There women (even single women), young women, and minorities who are Republicans or consider themselves Democrats, but they rarely even vote. So saying women, young people and minorities are the base of the party is an over generalization. Maybe we say that the base of the Party or those who really care.

[LiberalFighter]

23. Exactly right. I've only missed a primary in my 48 years of voting.

I've only voted for a Republican once because he was endorsed by my local union and the other guy was flaky. I have never voted in a Republican Primary or voted for a Republican in a primary when I could.

I am a older white male and find it disheartening that there aren't more older white males voting Democratic. But, the much older voters are being replaced by the next generation that tend to be more liberal. But at least the older Democratic voters tend to vote in a higher percentage than other groups.

Even though I don't agree with every position of a Democratic candidate I know they will be better than most any Republican. I will work to move that candidate's position in the right direction. And like everything else, I will not see eye to eye with most any candidate. Mainly because there are 300+ million in this country.

[Her Sister]

9. Is very liberal the same as am only interested in economic issues?

This election very liberal or progressive seemed more to mean am with HIM! That's about it. Found their beliefs in his agenda to be more beside the point and convenient when it served them. Of course he himself could not even explain his agenda in detail and always answering with the same bullet points!

Remember these?

TRANSCRIPT: Bernie Sanders meets with the Daily News Editorial Board, April 1, 2016
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

TRANSCRIPT: Hillary Clinton meets with the Daily News Editorial Board, April 9, 2016
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-hillary-clinton-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2596292

[BobbyDrake]

13. The biggest difference between the two candidates was that one didnt promise her supporters a payout

if she were to get elected. Which means her support is more genuine and based less on individual self-interest and more on common ground, cooperation, and concern for the entire community. Clinton's voters demonstrate an ability to work for others rather than themselves in a way I just don't see from the primary opposition.

[LiberalFighter]

24. I agree. And it is the way I feel about myself too.

Sure I am interested in making it better for myself. But it can also be accomplished by making it better for others too. There is a rippling effect when the lives of others are improved that really need it. To improve the lives of the rich not so much.

If education is improved it can effect so many aspects of life. Health care for one. Income equality would make a strong impact by also improving education and also reducing crime.

[CajunBlazer]

16. Of course, you only have to remember who lead the movement

Bernie Sanders self identifies as a Democratic Socialist, "not that there is anything wrong with that". Socialism is all about economic justice. Now many socialists are also concerned with social justice, but they always seem to believe it they obtain perfect economic justice, social justice will automatically follow so they put their all of their efforts into obtaining economic justice.

That's why Sanders sometimes seemed less than fully concerned about economic justice issues which many in the minority communities sensed and interpreted as lack of concern for their situations.

I think Socialists are the wrong by the way. First, perfect economic justice is impossible to achieve give the nature of most human beings. Second, improvements in economic justice do not always improve social justice. If you want proof, ask the wealthy black man who is accosted on the street simply because some cops assumed he was looking for trouble because he is black.

[Her Sister]

21. Most countries that Bernie used as examples for his ideas have more homogeneous populations.

For some reason he provided mainly European countries as examples.

[forjusticethunders]

22. The theory isn't "wrong" per se.

Slavery and racism were social constructs, explicitly created, lobbied for, and implemented by the planter capitalists, designed to buttress the raw economic exploitation that slavery entailed. This was by design. They even admit to it in their writings. The wages of whiteness, the psychological wage of Du Bois was invoked time and time again to prevent black and white solidarity. However, at this point in time, racism is self-reinforcing. Racism isn't "real", neither is "race", but that doesn't matter anymore - even if the oppressive social construct is bullshit, the oppression itself is not. And neither is the psychological wage or the little benefits and perks to being white that make up "white privilege" (or rather, the perks and benefits that are denied to blacks). So even if you overthrew the economic structure racism was created to protect, you would still have racism.

Furthermore, how *do* you overcome that structure with a divided working class? The key thing with racism is that it gave even the poorest, most oppressed whites, especially white males, a stake in the system. And solidarity is a REQUIREMENT for successful action. How do you carry out a strike when the bosses bring in black scabs? Not only do they get the factory running again, but you've further divided black workers and white workers. But how do you stop black people from taking the scab jobs when the white workers won't organize with them? How do you gain black support for union negotiations when the union has been okay with letting blacks make a lower wage? How do you get government programs designed to help workers implemented when white voters are so angry and resentful at black prosperity that they would vote down those programs just because they would help black people too? Thus, you have to address the social justice issues at the same time, not just because justice goes beyond pocketbook issues, but because it's bigotry, hatred and resentment that undermine the solidarity needed to accomplish economic justice! And of course, economic justice issues aren't a monolith as well - a black worker may face racism on the job, a woman worker may suffer from lack of childcare, a black woman worker may suffer from both, a trans woman worker may suffer from trans-misogyny, and a black trans woman worker may suffer from all of these at once.

Any successful socialist movement MUST BE INTERSECTIONAL. MUST. MUST. MUST. It must address both purely social issues, and economic issues both in general, and economic issues experienced by disparate marginalized groups. That is how you build solidarity. And solidarity is how you change the system. Furthermore, a socialist movement must at least attempt to bring in those who are not naturally inclined to socialism, even if it means having to moderate somewhat. Even if people may not be socialist, seeing a socialist movement fight for key local and state interest, and support people who are struggling and marginalized may at least make them sympathetic. The CPUSA grew relatively strong in the 30s and 40s not by just pushing class warfare 24/7, but by working with other forces in society for social justice, thus gaining credibility among the marginalized, not least among the black community.

[yallerdawg]

12. When the going gets weird...

Things really aren't what they seem to be.

The much vilified and demonized Third Way movement (from wiki):

In politics, the Third Way is a position akin to centrism that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. The Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right. The Third Way is promoted by some social democratic and social liberal movements.

Social democracy is described as:

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.

Notable social democrats:

Bernie Sanders

[DemonGoddess]

17. So...when they scream against 3rd way

they're screaming against themselves? PRICELESS!

[Cha]

26. This is brilliant.. Mahalo, Cajun!

[Her Sister]

27. CajunBlazer i'd like to get your take on this loooooong article related to some of your points

Thinking About Hillary — A Follow-up
https://medium.com/michaelarnovitz/thinking-about-hillary-a-follow-up-2e01a963a632#.gnogn8elt

BTW he also wrote this other article earlier:

Thinking About Hillary — A Plea for Reason
https://thepolicy.us/thinking-about-hillary-a-plea-for-reason-308fce6d187c#.dv3rqf5lm

[AgadorSparticus]

28. Excellent post! Thank you.

[NurseJackie]

29. Paragraph two, sentence one, all nine words ... YES! Exactly! (Thank you!)

[Her Sister]

30. lol!

[creon]

31. I am

I am, first, a social liberal. I believe in tolerance and letting people alone unless there is compelling reason not to leave them alone. In other matters, I am practical. That is, practical in economic matters; practical in foreign policy.
I believe in making a law that moves in the direction of solving problems; I do not believe in making a statement.