Reading other threads about what democrats did in the last election makes me wonder just what we mean by a "democrat".  Off the top of my head a democrat could be ..

1) someone who more often votes democrat than for another party;

2) someone who leans progressive/liberal more often than conservative;

3) someone who supports that party and what it stands for;

4) someone who is pro-labor and supports issues favoring the working class;

5) someone who thinks the purpose of government is to improve the quality of life for as many as possible.

The list could go on but my point is that not every interpretation supports the assumption that democrats will always vote for a democrat.  For someone who (1) is simply more often a democrat there is no reason to count on their vote regardless of the context.  For some one who leans progressive/liberal (2), a candidate like Hillary might be perceived as too centrist/conservative.  Obviously a lot working class people (4) didn't feel that their needs would be supported by Hillary because of her acceptance of the inevitability of a world marketplace.  People who want to use government pro-actively to engineer a better society (5) can disagree on the workable scope of such ambitions.

So only people who strongly identify as a democrat (3) are people you can count on to vote party line, and their numbers are decreasing.  Really, such allegiance is antithetical to being a progressive.  Being wed to a tradition is the stuff of conservatism.

Upshot: editorials expressing a sense of betrayal toward 'democrats' who sat out the election or didn't vote for Hillary are probably illogical.

I would personally never identify myself as a democrat. It's not because I dislike democrats, but more because I think party labels should be reserved for the politicians. It's really just an organization in the end that we aren't really a part of. You identified part of the problem that I agree with. Once voters start carrying the democrat or republican labels for themselves, there is a tendency to just vote for that party and ignore what the actual issues are really about.

If you want me to explain what a democratic politician is these days, then I really don't know anymore.

Um . . .


democrat, or True Democrat®

Democrats -were- the populist wing of our authoritarian right leaning, corporatist coopted, political process.  Who knows what they'll transform themselves into going forward, something different, I hope.

(November 14, 2016 at 1:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Who knows what they'll transform themselves into going forward, something different, I hope.

Perhaps something a little more, you know, democratic?

I'd like to express some enthusiasm for the party  being able to protect itself from ne'er-do-wells too.

If they STILL haven't pulled Anthony Weiner's membership A) I'm aghast  B) I'm not surprised.


And recent events have indicated strongly there is some Politics 101 stuff that is unknown by the party poohbahs, and when they find out their heads will explode.

Here's a good place to start with at the re-education center:





Any candidate that doesn't know about this shouldn't be running.

See how much smarter you get when you read my posts ?

(November 14, 2016 at 1:18 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: See how much smarter you get when you read my posts ?

I know and for just three easy payments of $9.99!  Keep em coming, my next check is in the mail.

I'm a registered Democrat, but not a party loyalist. 

It just so happens that it's a party that can win elections and is closer to espousing my beliefs as a whole than any other. It does not represent everything I believe; far from it. But it's close enough to get my vote most of the time. 

The Democratic party is the most inclusive in the U.S. It manages to gather people from all races and backgrounds, all manner of religious and non-religious belief, and basically almost everyone who isn't a Republican under the same tent. It's the party of "At least some good things can get done here." That is, it still tries to make life better for its constituents. It doesn't always do so in an efficient, evenhanded, or even intelligent way, but it has to accommodate many different people, and so it can often get in its own way. 

And it has shown the ability to be progressive. Maybe not rapidly enough for some people, but rapid change just doesn't happen in the U.S. 

And the alternative to the Democrats is Trump and the GOP. Enough said on that.

Just what is it about a constant rightward drift that's supposed to be progressive?

IMO, the dems get alot of underved credit from progressives, and for being progressive. Remember Hillary;s stance on gay marriage? It only turned when the tide of public opinion turned and became overwhelming. The same could be said of many dems and most democratic party platform statements. -They- aren't progressives, it's just that progressives have no one else to vote for, so they get to be the coat-tail riding party to a progressive population.

Used to be you put a lame horse down. If it didn't pull the plow behind it, you put it in front of the damned thing.