Democrats Favor More Moderate Party; GOP, More Conservative

[AbsolutSurgen]

Democrats Favor More Moderate Party; GOP, More Conservative

"As the country has become increasingly polarized politically, Democrats have become more likely to describe their political views as liberal, while most Republicans continue to think of themselves as conservative. A majority of Democrats favor a shift toward the middle, while Republicans prefer a more conservative shift for their party.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party that aligns with Bernie Sanders has become increasingly vocal and had some electoral success in the past year but had mixed results in the 2018 elections. Looking ahead to the 2020 presidential campaign, Democrats overall may think that a move to the center might make their party's presidential candidate more electable. At the same time, Republicans may be thinking that doubling down on a more conservative approach would be a winning strategy if voters perceive the opposition party as moving to the left. Ultimately, the ideology of each party's presidential nominee will offer insight into the direction in which partisans would like to see their parties move."

 

More evidence that the new socialist bent from new congressmembers is likely to cause more harm than good to the Democrat's 2020 prospects-- and they are probably actually playing into Trump's hand.

[PaladinSolo]

Its not a surprise that the GOP has shrank as moderates leave the party leaving it more ideologically pure, and those moderates had to go somewhere, if this poll were of just dems/Reps i'd care more, but it includes those independent leaners.  Dems have a 11 point lead over the GOP nationally in states with party registration, and the GOP has almost been over taken by independents as the party shrinks.  Its not as if they're all of a sudden going to return to vote GOP as they continue to push to the right which is why they left in the first place.

 

Put another way, there are a lot more dems/Dem leaners, than GOP/GOP leaners.

[SaysWho?]

But what's the definition of moderate? In the 2000s, being "moderate" meant voting for the Iraq War, opposing gay marriage and marijuana legalization, and not even pursuing health care. In the late 2000s, being "moderate" meant opposing the Affordable Care Act. Now that's a moderate and normal thing to do with its significantly higher levels of support that easily outnumber opposition now.

 

Unless there's a specific thing 'moderate' means, it just seems like Dems being try-hard and saying what feels good since so many who go, "I agree with a little bit over here and a little bit over here," are usually extremely liberal and don't realize it from my experience.

[RedSoxFan9]

lol Democrats 

[Kal-El814]

I swear to Christ, 2016 just broke some people. 

[marioandsonic]

33 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

I swear to Christ, 2016 just broke some people. 

Can you blame them?  It certainly broke me.

[Greatoneshere]

The Overton Window has shifted - it's not a surprise that the Democratic Party favors moderates.

 

We need to make them favor progressives and shift the Overton Window in the complete opposite direction, and with strength, it can be done.

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, marioandsonic said:

Can you blame them?  It certainly broke me.

I mean... kind of?

 

2016 sucked and was horrible and we’ve got issues but this whole “the continued existence of HRC and the mere discussion of progressive policies will doom Democrats in 2020” is a BIT much. 

[PaladinSolo]

 

[SaysWho?]

3 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

 

 

If you click the link, it breaks it down by affiliation as well. 4% of Republicans identify as liberal.

 

I still want to find these people.

[RedSoxFan9]

A majority of Republicans support M4A so it’s more likely that people don’t have a clear definition of moderate and conservative.

[marioandsonic]

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

I mean... kind of?

 

2016 sucked and was horrible and we’ve got issues but this whole “the continued existence of HRC and the mere discussion of progressive policies will doom Democrats in 2020” is a BIT much. 

I'm not talking about HRC or progressive policies.  I'm talking about the fact that Donald fucking Trump got elected as president, leading me to believe there is absolutely no hope for this country anymore, and even if the Dems take back the Senate and the WH in 2020, the damage will already be done, and we will never recover from it.  That's why I got so freaked out when Kennedy resigned from the SCOTUS.  And unless RBG hangs on for 2 more years, we're all fucked.

 

There was also a ton of personal issues I had to deal with in 2016 and early 2017 that I dont really want to get into.

[Spork3245]

Soon to be Fox News headline: even Democrats are leaning right!

[Massdriver]

The poll is almost useless. I guess it somewhat shows that the parties are becoming more extreme on both sides, but since it doesn't define the terms, it is pretty empty to me. A lot of Democrats these days wouldn't even qualify as "liberals". They're more like social democrats, or even some democratic socialists. 

[CitizenVectron]

3 hours ago, marioandsonic said:

I'm not talking about HRC or progressive policies.  I'm talking about the fact that Donald fucking Trump got elected as president, leading me to believe there is absolutely no hope for this country anymore, and even if the Dems take back the Senate and the WH in 2020, the damage will already be done, and we will never recover from it.  That's why I got so freaked out when Kennedy resigned from the SCOTUS.  And unless RBG hangs on for 2 more years, we're all fucked.

 

There was also a ton of personal issues I had to deal with in 2016 and early 2017 that I dont really want to get into.

 

There's hope for the country in the sense that many people voted for Trump because they are totally ignorant of reality around them. Those same people can also vote for a Democrat because they are ignorant of reality around them. There are probably people out there (the "moderates" of America, i.e. ignorant spineless morons) that voted for Bush, then for Obama because they caught the anti-Bush bandwagon, then for Trump because they are racist.

[Anathema-]

Oh hey another concern troll thread about the same damn thing. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Liberalism isn't Socialism.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

57 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

Liberalism isn't Socialism.

Conservativism three years ago isn't conservativism yesterday or tomorrow. Unless you're talking a multiple choice political science test, these terms are fluid

[Anathema-]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Conservativism three years ago isn't conservativism yesterday or tomorrow. Unless you're talking a multiple choice political science test, these terms are fluid

 

It seems to me that conservatism is finally what Goldwater envisioned, as combined with trumpism it  having reached escape velocity away from the power hungry wing that only tried to coopt the brand and the people who were successfully propagandized into hating liberalism. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Conservativism three years ago isn't conservativism yesterday or tomorrow. Unless you're talking a multiple choice political science test, these terms are fluid

Liberalism and Socialism are two completely different words that have very different meanings, that are not even close to being equivalent.  Arguing they are fluid misses the point.

 

Although a number of members of D1P like to redefine words to meet whatever point they are trying to make.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 hours ago, mikechorney said:

Liberalism and Socialism are two completely different words that have very different meanings, that are not even close to being equivalent.  Arguing they are fluid misses the point.

 

Although a number of members of D1P like to redefine words to meet whatever point they are trying to make.

What is liberal in 2008 and 2018 are radically different, to the point @SaysWho? Made earlier. These generic terms are made to that they can evolve with time as the electorate changes. It's part of the reason why conservatives haven't shunned Trump like, say, Bill kristol has, the meaning of what a conservative is has changed in many details, but the big picture is largely the same.

 

Unless you want to get into the nitty gritty of line by line, issue by issue comparison of the two terms, socialism and liberalism are used somewhat interchangeably, especially by detractors, and don't really mean a whole lot either way.

[SaysWho?]

What does 'liberal' mean? What positions should a liberal take? Have liberals taken the same position for the pats 40 years? Are we suggesting liberals and conservatives have consistently had the same positions for the past 260 years in the US?

 

The Blue Dog 'moderate' Democrats all support the ACA now, but it was "moderate" to oppose it in 2009/2010 when it was being debated and passed. In fact, the ACA was attacked as being socialist; now Republicans are falling over one an another to promise that, if they repeal the ACA, they're basically not going to change anything the law does since it's popular.

 

I was far-left for opposing the Iraq War in 2003; now I just have common sense.

 

I was far-left for supporting gay marriage; now you're an extremist for opposing it. "Moderates" used to support civil unions; now most of them are backers of gay marriage being legal.

 

It was considered extremely liberal and out of the mainstream to let gays in the military a few decades ago and Republicans were confidently warning people about the "homosexual agenda."  Don't Ask Don't Tell was the "moderate" compromise. Then Don't Ask Don't Tell was supported by Republicans and a full repeal was supported by Democrats, with moderates fully supporting gays serving openly.

 

Ronald Reagan fought against Social Security in the 1960s. Then he raised taxes to preserve it in the 1980s.

 

There's a good chance Medicare-For-All will eventually be seen as a normal position for both parties to take; what is considered far left and moderate always changes, and there's not really room for debate on that since we have tangible, quantifiable evidence. Humorously, many positions considered to be "too liberal" eventually become the mainstay sensible positions that moderates take later and pump their chests out for supporting years after the fact.

[thewhyteboar]

47 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

What does 'liberal' mean? What positions should a liberal take? Have liberals taken the same position for the pats 40 years? Are we suggesting liberals and conservatives have consistently had the same positions for the past 260 years in the US?

 

The Blue Dog 'moderate' Democrats all support the ACA now, but it was "moderate" to oppose it in 2009/2010 when it was being debated and passed. In fact, the ACA was attacked as being socialist; now Republicans are falling over one an another to promise that, if they repeal the ACA, they're basically not going to change anything the law does since it's popular.

 

I was far-left for opposing the Iraq War in 2003; now I just have common sense.

 

I was far-left for supporting gay marriage; now you're an extremist for opposing it. "Moderates" used to support civil unions; now most of them are backers of gay marriage being legal.

 

It was considered extremely liberal and out of the mainstream to let gays in the military a few decades ago and Republicans were confidently warning people about the "homosexual agenda."  Don't Ask Don't Tell was the "moderate" compromise. Then Don't Ask Don't Tell was supported by Republicans and a full repeal was supported by Democrats, with moderates fully supporting gays serving openly.

 

Ronald Reagan fought against Social Security in the 1960s. Then he raised taxes to preserve it in the 1980s.

 

There's a good chance Medicare-For-All will eventually be seen as a normal position for both parties to take; what is considered far left and moderate always changes, and there's not really room for debate on that since we have tangible, quantifiable evidence. Humorously, many positions considered to be "too liberal" eventually become the mainstay sensible positions that moderates take later and pump their chests out for supporting years after the fact.

Goddamn Fright bringing the fire. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

 

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, where social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

[SaysWho?]

3 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

 

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, where social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

 

I didn't ask you to copy/paste definitions.

 

What positions have liberals consistently had, and moderates consistently had, for the past 2 and a half centuries of America's existence? Why are moderates changing their position on health care, civil rights, and the economy depending on the decade?

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I didn't ask you to copy/paste definitions.

 

What positions have liberals consistently had, and moderates consistently had, for the past 2 and a half centuries of America's existence? Why are moderates changing their position on health care, civil rights, and the economy depending on the decade?

My point was that equating socialism to liberalism is factually incorrect.

 

Socialism is not "moderate" under any POV.  And while it is absolutely possible for a liberal to be a Socialist, it is ALSO very possible for a liberal to be very much against Socialism.

 

Liberalism is not inherently a left-wing POV, in fact it is in-fact possible to be a RIGHT-WING liberal.  Or, aghast,  even a moderate liberal.  Liberals have a VERY WIDE RANGE of beliefs.

 

AOC (and many of the new Democrats) are self-avowed socialists -- which has virtually nothing to do with the Iraq war, human rights or equality.  It is about the economic system that is put in place.

[SaysWho?]

3 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

My point was that equating socialism to liberalism is factually incorrect.

 

Socialism is not "moderate" under any POV.  And while it is absolutely possible for a liberal to be a Socialist, it is ALSO very possible for a liberal to be very much against Socialism.

 

Liberalism is not inherently a left-wing POV, in fact it is in-fact possible to be a RIGHT-WING liberal.  Or, aghast,  even a moderate liberal.  Liberals have a VERY WIDE RANGE of beliefs.

 

AOC (and many of the new Democrats) are self-avowed socialists -- which has virtually nothing to do with the Iraq war, human rights or equality.  It is about the economic system that is put in place.

 

I'm pretty sure a Democratic Socialist doesn't find what they believe to be extreme. 

 

None of this really explains what "moderate" is" What positions do moderates hold?

[AbsolutSurgen]

35 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I'm pretty sure a Democratic Socialist doesn't find what they believe to be extreme. 

 

None of this really explains what "moderate" is" What positions do moderates hold?

I think Democratic Socialists recognize they are pretty far on the left of the spectrum.  Where are you getting "extreme" from?

People who self-identify as moderates hold a wide range of positions.  Why are you trying to make them out as a homogenous group?

[SaysWho?]

30 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

I think Democratic Socialists recognize they are pretty far on the left of the spectrum.  Where are you getting "extreme" from?

People who self-identify as moderates hold a wide range of positions.  Why are you trying to make them out as a homogenous group?

 

I don't even know what the first line is supposed to say, so:

 

You're posting a follow-up from your old thread about how Democrats need to be more moderate. Two threads in and I still don't know what that means. One by one, then:

 

 

What's too far-left about this and what's the correct "more moderate" position?

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I don't even know what the first line is supposed to say, so:

 

You're posting a follow-up from your old thread about how Democrats need to be more moderate. Two threads in and I still don't know what that means. One by one, then:

 

 

What's too far-left about this and what's the correct "more moderate" position?

 

Legalize it but don't make white people feel uncomfortable about it.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I think an interesting thing to consider is the Bernie vs Hillary primary. They pretty much agreed with each other in principle on most issues, but disagreed on methods and other detailed minutiae of policy. For example, on health care, Bernie pushed for M4A, while Clinton advocated for essentially the same thing, but by first expanding Medicare to those over 55 first as a way to shore up the ACA and Medicare by making both pools healthier.

 

The bigger issue was her lack of likability and her very obvious insider status (not to relitigate the election again).

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I don't even know what the first line is supposed to say, so:

 

You're posting a follow-up from your old thread about how Democrats need to be more moderate. Two threads in and I still don't know what that means. One by one, then:

 

 

What's too far-left about this and what's the correct "more moderate" position?

  What point are you trying to make right now?  What does marijuana have to do with Socialism?

 

AOC (and for that matter, Rashida Tlaib) are both members of the Democratic Socialists of America -- that self identifies as one of its major objectives of "strengthening the left wing of the Democratic party".   I could create a summary of what makes the fundamental beliefs/purpose of that organization "not moderate" -- but I don't think you're an idiot, and you can figure it out yourself.

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

  What point are you trying to make right now?  What does marijuana have to do with Socialism?

 

AOC (and for that matter, Rashida Tlaib) are both members of the Democratic Socialists of America -- that self identifies as one of its major objectives of "strengthening the left wing of the Democratic party".   I could create a summary of what makes the fundamental beliefs/purpose of that organization "not moderate" -- but I don't think you're an idiot, and you can figure it out yourself.

 

You don't seem to understand what socialism is, what liberalism is, or what you view as a "more moderate" party. Socialists want marijuana legalized. Is that moderate or is that extreme? If so, what's the proper moderate course that you're looking for? Social Security and Medicare are socialism. Are they too extreme, or should Democrats support that? Because they did, and now Republicans have ran on protecting them.

 

You've literally not backed up your rationale whatsoever or given it any meat. Why is M4A bad? What is wrong with the premise of UBI and trying to figure out a way to make it work, especially when a state like Alaska has a basic income? What actually is too extreme?

 

It's like... you just wanna say, "Dems need to be more moderate," without explaining where and what's wrong with more progressive policies, especially since laws like the ACA were called socialist and are now viewed as standard, boilerplate Democratic positions that even conservative Democrats support. 

 

And that's exactly what's wrong with your OP. A chunk of Dems want the party to be "more moderate" and they don't know what in the actual fuck that means.

[RedSoxFan9]

Who amongst us doesn’t want crappy healthcare and irreversible climate change

 

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Do you understand that I didn't write the summary in the OP?  That was written by Gallup.

3 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Socialists want marijuana legalized. Is that moderate or is that extreme? If so, what's the proper moderate course that you're looking for?   Are they too extreme, or should Democrats support that? Because they did, and now Republicans have ran on protecting them.

Marijuana has nothing to do with Socialism.  There are socialists that don't want Marijuana legalized (i.e in Russia).

It doesn't matter what I think.  It matters what the Democrats who want the part to be more "moderate", and independents think.  That is, if the goal is to re-take control of the house and the presidency in 2020.

3 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

You've literally not backed up your rationale whatsoever or given it any meat. Why is M4A bad? What is wrong with the premise of UBI and trying to figure out a way to make it work, especially when a state like Alaska has a basic income? What actually is too extreme?

My rationale on what?  I've never personally stated an opinion on M4/UBI or basic income in Alaska.  When have I ever used the term "extreme"?  Where is this coming from?

3 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

It's like... you just wanna say, "Dems need to be more moderate," without explaining where and what's wrong with more progressive policies, especially since laws like the ACA were called socialist and are now viewed as standard, boilerplate Democratic positions that even conservative Democrats support. 

I said "More evidence that the new socialist bent from new congressmembers is likely to cause more harm than good to the Democrat's 2020 prospects-- and they are probably actually playing into Trump's hand.  "  That was specifically targeted at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib.

 

Arguing whether ACA is "socialist" or not is an academic/semantics discussion that I don't really have the desire to get into.  

3 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

And that's exactly what's wrong with your OP. A chunk of Dems want the party to be "more moderate" and they don't know what in the actual fuck that means.

Argue with Gallup (who wrote the summary) and the self-identified "moderate" Democrats who answered the poll on what the strict definition of "more moderate" is, and what they want.

 

Winning elections (and getting rid of Trump) should be the priority -- and appealing to a "wider"-breadth of people is what I am advocating.  Understanding what those people want is probably the first step towards that.  Because, based on the 2016CY election, and not even being able to defeat a terrible candidate like Trump, indicates that the leadership of the Democratic party doesn't (or at least didn't) get it.

 

I can tell you as someone (if he was eligible to vote in the U.S.) would be considered an independent, I'm scared to death of the new "socialist bent" that I am seeing in the Democratic party.

 

I am definitely a liberal capitalist (who believes that government should have a significant role in place where efficient markets and price transparency don't exist - such as health care, roads, water, etc.).  But (if I could vote), a more-socialist party in the Democrats (such as that advocated by the Socialists) might even make me hold me nose and vote for Trump and the generally intolerant-of people different than them-GOP.  Am I representative of "moderates"? Probably some, but probably not the majority.