The Incredibly Shrinking Democrats

Didge wrote:One of the standard assumptions of political punditry is that the 2016 presidential election is the Democratic Party’s race to lose. There is some truth to this thesis since any objective reading of the Electoral College math shows that the Democrats have a near built-in majority with a large number of deep blue states like New York and California (the biggest prize of them all) that Republicans have virtually no chance to win. Since the deep red states that are equally uncompetitive don’t pack the same clout, the GOP has to sweep the swing states in order to win the White House. This has bred some triumphalism in Democrats as well as a faith in some of the liberal media that conservatives are doomed.

Yet another just as important piece of the electoral puzzle needs to be taken into account before we start making assumptions about what will happen in November. Though we speak of deep blue and deep red states, the hold of either political party on the loyalties of the voters is as tenuous as our political discourse is stridently partisan. As the latest Gallup survey shows, the number of voters who think of themselves as independents rather than hardcore Democrats and Republicans remains high with 42 percent of Americans claiming that status. Just as important, the number of those identifying with either party is declining. But while there is plenty of bad news in that result for both parties, it is important to note that the losses for Democrats are greater than those for the GOP. In fact, the number of those calling themselves Democrats is at an all-time low in the 64-year-old history of polling by the venerable Gallup organization.

That number tells us something that confirms the party’s decline in just about every metric since Barack Obama became president. Democrats have lost ground across the board since 2008 and not just in terms of the number of Americans telling Gallup they support the party. The GOP has made huge gains in terms of state legislatures and governors, and they control of both chambers of Congress. Indeed, in terms of every measure of political strength other than control of the White House, Republicans are at their highest point since before Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president.


https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/gallup-incredibly-shrinking-democrats/

I have come to the conclusion that the Democrats are as clueless as the Republicans and maybe what the US does need is Independents.

Didge wrote:You of all people do not speak for all the Americans, and far from it.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You of all people do not speak for all the Americans, and far from it.

Yep, I'm afraid I do.  But it's not just me.  It's the chorus of voices speaking with me.  Republicans are a warm-up act, nothing more

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You of all people do not speak for all the Americans, and far from it.

Yep, I'm afraid I do.  But it's not just me.  It's the chorus of voices speaking with me.  Republicans are a warm-up act, nothing more

Is American becoming more liberal? A growing set of data says the populace is shifting to the left, both in general and on a score of major issues, a seismic change from the days when social conservatism, anti-immigration anxieties, reactionary crime policies and more kept the populace—and their elected leaders—in a right wing crouch.

For proof, look no further than the fact that people are willing to call themselves liberal, a label long deployed by the right as a tag of decadent unelectability. Per a Gallup poll released last week, the number of people self-describing as liberal on social issues matched those calling themselves conservative for the first time in the poll’s history—an eighteen point shift from 1999, when 39% of the population identified as socially conservative, versus only 21% as liberal.

One main reason: liberal issues are becoming more popular. As the Washington Post pointed out, the liberal positions on ascendant issues, namely marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage, have rapidly gained in popularity in the past ten years.

In the 2004 election George W Bush arguably snatched victory from the jaws of narrow defeat by motivating evangelical voters to the polls over gay marriage. It appeared at the time, and has subsequently proven to be, the death throes of the obsolete opposition. The public opposed same-sex marriage 42-55 in 2004; those numbers are exactly reversed today, a massive 26-point swing. (For even more dramatic context, opposition was 68% in 1996, during a Democratic administration.)

The public opinion has shifted even more on marijuana legalization. Two-thirds opposed legalization ten years ago, a situation that has almost completely flipped in the decade since. In 2014, as various state-level legalization measures were passed, 58% of the population approved of its legalization.

Shifting attitudes on immigration have also pushed the public leftward. In 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed, immigration was uncontroversial and non-partisan; most people supported the act, which opened up immigration to Latin America and Asia.

But by the 1990s, PEW reports, “by wide margins, Americans saw immigrants as burdens on society rather than as strengthening the country through their hard work. Also, many thought that the growing number of newcomers would threaten traditional American values and customs.”

Those attitudes have changed. According to PEW, "By 2014, a healthy 57% majority had come to the opposite point of view, saying that immigrants strengthened the country through their hard work; and just 35% now say that the increasing number of immigrants is threatening American values." As the Republican Party continually fails to bring its radicalizing conservative wing around to immigration reform, pro-immigration attitudes are becoming increasingly allied with liberals—which in turn strengthens other liberal views (see below).

It’s not just social issues. While not as liberal on economic issues as they are on social issues, neither are Americans as conservative on the role of government as commonly assumed. This is not seen in the top-level polling numbers, which reliably show a distrust of government, and a general disinclination toward an active rather than a limited government.

Didge wrote:I have no problem with Americans becomeing more liberal as long as they are not regressives and the democrats are regressives.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:I have no problem with Americans becomeing more liberal as long as they are not regressives and the democrats are regressives.

How so?

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:I have no problem with Americans becomeing more liberal as long as they are not regressives and the democrats are regressives.

How so?

As already mentioned.

We have been critical of President Obama’s campaign against ISIS, and we will continue to be. The air campaign against the terrorist state should have been far more vigorous from the outset and we should have more boots on the ground.

In fairness, though, there are indications that ISIS is finally being pegged back. ISIS has lost a significant amount of territory. In Iraq, according to the Washington Post, up to one-third of its territory has been retaken, including Tikrit and the Baaji oil refinery. In Syria, an alliance of Kurdish and Arab forces, backed by coalition air strikes, has taken key areas near ISIS’s capital city, Raqqa.

These territorial setbacks are significant not just in themselves, but also because they deprive ISIS of revenue. The Post points out that ISIS relies on the heavy taxation of the population in areas it controls, plus oil revenue, confiscated property, ransom money, extortion, and antiquities smuggling. Revenue from taxation, confiscation, ransom, extortion, and smuggling diminishes as territory is lost. Oil revenue is diminished when oil fields are taken or disabled and when bombing destroys infrastructure.

There’s no sound way to quantify the financial impact of the campaign against ISIS. It is reported, however, that the salary of ISIS fighters recently was reduced from around $400 a month to $300. In addition, there are reports of serious economic hardship in ISIS controlled areas, along with cut backs in the provision of social services.

Didge wrote:Yes i think his foreign policies have allowed extremism to grow and expand, that is fundemental to me. His appeasement to Iran is nothing short of a joke, where recently they launched Ballistic missles where they threatened sanctions and nothing has come to light. The US really is trying to juggle a dangereous game that is being played out by two powers inm the Middle East by Iran and Saudi, where in reality they are trying to pander two extremist nations, which is not the smartest idea. Now yes Obama has been a failure in his foreign policies, his hom policies have been great. He is no worse than Bush, but equally bad in his foreign policy espcially his awful appeasement

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Yes i think his foreign policies have allowed extremism to grow and expand, that is fundemental to me. His appeasement to Iran is nothing short of a joke, where recently they launched Ballistic missles where they threatened sanctions and nothing has come to light. The US really is trying to juggle a dangereous game that is being played out by two powers inm the Middle East by Iran and Saudi, where in reality they are trying to pander two extremist nations, which is not the smartest idea. Now yes Obama has been a failure in his foreign policies, his hom policies have been great. He is no worse than Bush, but equally bad in his foreign policy espcially his awful appeasement

Yeah, because another U.S. led war in Iraq is just what the world needs right now ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Yes i think his foreign policies have allowed extremism to grow and expand, that is fundemental to me. His appeasement to Iran is nothing short of a joke, where recently they launched Ballistic missles where they threatened sanctions and nothing has come to light. The US really is trying to juggle a dangereous game that is being played out by two powers inm the Middle East by Iran and Saudi, where in reality they are trying to pander two extremist nations, which is not the smartest idea. Now yes Obama has been a failure in his foreign policies, his hom policies have been great. He is no worse than Bush, but equally bad in his foreign policy espcially his awful appeasement

Yeah, because another U.S. led war in Iraq is just what the world needs right now ...

eddie wrote:Hahahaha I can't believe some people still think that the USA went in and killed Bin Laden, the most wanted man alive....they just turned up, shot him and then.....and then!!!! they gave him a Muslim burial

Fucking hell gullible

eddie wrote:Hahahaha I can't believe some people still think that the USA went in and killed Bin Laden, the most wanted man alive....they just turned up, shot him and then.....and then!!!! they gave him a Muslim burial

Fucking hell gullible

eddie wrote:Hahahaha I can't believe some people still think that the USA went in and killed Bin Laden, the most wanted man alive....they just turned up, shot him and then.....and then!!!! they gave him a Muslim burial

Fucking hell gullible

Lurker wrote:The Democrats are not shrinking. That is right-wing idiotic wishful thinking. Our biggest growth is among millennials. I'd say 90% of them are supporting Bernie Sanders. Didge reminds me of Karl Rove and CArnold. They live in a fantasy world.

Lurker wrote:The Democrats are not shrinking. That is right-wing idiotic wishful thinking. Our biggest growth is among millennials. I'd say 90% of them are supporting Bernie Sanders. Didge reminds me of Karl Rove and CArnold. They live in a fantasy world.