5 ms·

> liberal-progressive base (i.e. the core of the party) ? I thought the core of the party is establishment centrist gerontophiles. If there was a liberal-prog

> liberal-progressive base (i.e. the core of the party) ? I thought the core of the party is establishment centrist gerontophiles. If there was a liberal-prog core then Bernie would have been a two term president already.

woodruffw 2y ago
That was meant to be +1 SD on the "left" side of the party. If I did +1 SD on the "right" side of the party, it would be liberal-centrist. (The point is not that the DNC's progressive base is dominant, but that it's big enough to influence the party's direction. Compare this with the +2 SD left part of the party, which is currently being almost entirely ignored by the party's +0 and +1 leadership.)
Jensson 2y ago
> If there was a liberal-prog core then Bernie would have been a two term president already. He meant socially, not economically. Democrats are made up of very left social issues and centrist economic issues, Bernie who is very left economically of course has a hard time there. But still the Democrats are very left, just not in terms of taxes, but in terms of affirmative action etc. Those are very left wing and USA is more left wing on those issues than most of the world, even Europe is much more reluctant to go that hard on those things. So yes, Democrats are very left wing, just not in the ways that makes things better for poor people, they are social signaling kind of left wing and center/right on taxes and wealth transfer.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  That isn't really what I meant :-) What I meant was that the DNC is still, somehow, a "big tent" party. The plurality demographic within that party is liberal; if you add the next biggest groups on either side you get progressives (left) and centrists (right). The problem the DNC would face in a two-party ticket is that centrists would willingly go for such a split, liberals would be reluctant, and progressives and onwards would sit out of the vote in substantial numbers. Those sit-outs don't matter at the party level, but they do matter in general elections. (This is true regardless of the social/economic axes used to distinguish the party's demographics internally.)
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    I’m not so sure they’d sit this one out in swing states.
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      Me neither, but I know people who would! If I could get them to vote like me, all of this democracy stuff would be much easier :-)
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > The plurality demographic within that party is liberal Not the European kind of liberal. They are "liberal" in that they want to track the race of everyone in the country etc. So not very liberal at all, in Europe those things are called extreme. Liberal means individualism, freedom of thought, meritocracy, Democrats are not very into those things, at least those things are not the strongest factions in the party today.
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      Sure. I'm talking about US politics; do you do this to Australians too[1]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia
      - Jensson 2y ago
        The topic is how Democrats compare to politics in other countries, why do you bring up something unrelated? My point is that the Democrats are very left wing on some issues when compared to the world. Sure not all democrats are as hard into those things, but they are still very into it compared to what is normal in other countries. So cooperating with Republicans might not be problematic in an economic kind of sense, but given that Democrats are so strongly to the left on other issues its a no-go. That was the topic.
        woodruffw 2y ago

woodruffw 2y ago

That was meant to be +1 SD on the "left" side of the party. If I did +1 SD on the "right" side of the party, it would be liberal-centrist. (The point is not that the DNC's progressive base is dominant, but that it's big enough to influence the party's direction. Compare this with the +2 SD left part of the party, which is currently being almost entirely ignored by the party's +0 and +1 leadership.)

Jensson 2y ago

> If there was a liberal-prog core then Bernie would have been a two term president already. He meant socially, not economically. Democrats are made up of very left social issues and centrist economic issues, Bernie who is very left economically of course has a hard time there. But still the Democrats are very left, just not in terms of taxes, but in terms of affirmative action etc. Those are very left wing and USA is more left wing on those issues than most of the world, even Europe is much more reluctant to go that hard on those things. So yes, Democrats are very left wing, just not in the ways that makes things better for poor people, they are social signaling kind of left wing and center/right on taxes and wealth transfer.

woodruffw 2y ago
That isn't really what I meant :-) What I meant was that the DNC is still, somehow, a "big tent" party. The plurality demographic within that party is liberal; if you add the next biggest groups on either side you get progressives (left) and centrists (right). The problem the DNC would face in a two-party ticket is that centrists would willingly go for such a split, liberals would be reluctant, and progressives and onwards would sit out of the vote in substantial numbers. Those sit-outs don't matter at the party level, but they do matter in general elections. (This is true regardless of the social/economic axes used to distinguish the party's demographics internally.)
- sokoloff 2y ago
  I’m not so sure they’d sit this one out in swing states.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    Me neither, but I know people who would! If I could get them to vote like me, all of this democracy stuff would be much easier :-)
- Jensson 2y ago
  > The plurality demographic within that party is liberal Not the European kind of liberal. They are "liberal" in that they want to track the race of everyone in the country etc. So not very liberal at all, in Europe those things are called extreme. Liberal means individualism, freedom of thought, meritocracy, Democrats are not very into those things, at least those things are not the strongest factions in the party today.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    Sure. I'm talking about US politics; do you do this to Australians too[1]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia
    - Jensson 2y ago
      The topic is how Democrats compare to politics in other countries, why do you bring up something unrelated? My point is that the Democrats are very left wing on some issues when compared to the world. Sure not all democrats are as hard into those things, but they are still very into it compared to what is normal in other countries. So cooperating with Republicans might not be problematic in an economic kind of sense, but given that Democrats are so strongly to the left on other issues its a no-go. That was the topic.
      - woodruffw 2y ago