Party ID History Matters

[sampsonblk]

The Democratic Party appears to have a natural majority. What jumps out at me is that the GOP has played base politics and won consistently. While Dems have played for elusive middle. If either party should have considered base politics, it seems it should have been Democrats.

From where I stand, we have squandered elections that should have been ours to win. Why not stick to our guns when we're right?

http://www.pollingreport.com/institut2.htm

[wyldwolf]

1. what is termed "base politics" really means appealing to the most idealogically rigid

With Bush and the GOP, we've seen what government of the "base," for the "base" and by the "base" has done. I certainly wouldn't want the most ideologically rigid elements of the left to take the role.

I would also argue that "base politics" doomed the Democrats in '68, '72, '84, and '88.

[sampsonblk]

9. What is a Dem ideology?

I don't see Democrats as ideologues at all. If you look at the things that unite Democrats, they are common sense things that most Americans support. Human rights. Fair compensation. Open government. The difference is the rigidity that you talk about. I believe rigidly that all men are created equal. The Republicans that I know believe very loosely that most men are created equal. That's why I am a Democrat and not a Republican.

[Apollo11]

2. It all dates back to 1984

Reagan-Bush won a majority of votes in 49 states. Walter Mondale only won in his home state of Minnesota.

That's where the idea comes from that Democrats can only win by moving to the center and attracting votes from moderates and independents who don't identify themselves as "True Blue" like me and you.

Each swing voter is worth 2 votes. One more vote for us and one less for the other side.

That is what led to the creation of the DLC and the Clinton's "New Democrat" approach.

But I would agree that times have changed because of the negative perception of Bu$h-Cheney, and I hope that more people might be ready to vote for a more "progressive" or "populist" direction that includes universal healthcare, tackling poverty, dealing with climate change, investing in renewable energy ...

[wyldwolf]

5. It actually goes back a bit further. I would say to '68...

...when many on the left sat out the election. In '72, "base politics" was as disastrous as it was in 1984.

The DLC, formed by Dems who came of age in the Truman-Kennedy style of Democratic politics, reacted to those elections.

Times may have changed, as you say, but I'm quite certain the electorate doesn't want a left version of the governance of Bush meaning "of the base, for the base, and by the base."

[notadmblnd]

3. ah, because it's easier to shut their mouths and put the money in their pockets?

That's the only reason I can think of for the Dems constantly lying down for the repubs.

[brazos121200]

4. The Democratic Party has since 1932 maintained a natural majority

of the voters. They had a huge lead until the coming of Ronald Reagan, when they lost many of the "Reagan Democrats" to the Republicans. These were moderate and conservative Democrats who had voted for Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson but were essentially conservative in outlook.

The Democrats were dominant in 1964. What happened to change that was the Vietnam war, which allowed Nixon to sqeeze in to the White House in 1968. The civil rights legislation Lyndon Johnson passed alienated many Democrats in the south for many years to come, causing many of them to go over to the Republican party. It is a fact that the Democrats have not carried a single southern state (Florida excepted) since 1996.

The Democrats have been able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for election after election. They should have been able to win the 1988 election easily, but Dukakis became a victim of Republican dirty tricks and managed to lose.

Clinton changed all that. He found a way to stand up to the Repubs and present the true issues to the American People.

[Captain Hilts]

6. No, since 1945, most of those who now identify themselves as 'Independents' have come...

at the expense of the Democratic Party.

The quest for Independents, as compared to their base, is an attempt to get that middle they've lost, back.

Republicans who voted for Dewey in 1944, are still voting Republican.

[Apollo11]

8. Dewey generation?

"Republicans who voted for Dewey in 1944, are still voting Republican."

Yes, but if you were over 21 in 1944, you will be over 85 in 2008.

[skipos]

7. Interesting. However, most people do not consider themselves "liberal"

At least in the polls that I have seen.

VOTE BY IDEOLOGY
Liberal (21%)
Moderate (45%)
Conservative (34%)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[sampsonblk]

10. Makes sense to me!

Liberal has become a dirty word because there is no one to champion it. Being liberal is GOOD. But there isn't one Dem politician I can think of who will say "Vote for me, because I am a strong liberal." That is the saddest fact of all.