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.
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.
