Skip to main content

It seems like the present day Democratic Party has no discernible principles. None. Zero.  They will eagerly sell out their historic base and all their once professed policy principles in a hot second to capture some yokels they've identified as critical swing voters in let's just say Stark County, Ohio or Hillsborough County, Florida or Loudon County, Virginia or to appease a handful of large influential/rich contributors. All because they feel safe that their historic base has no viable alternatives.

These modern "pragmatist" Democrats will eagerly participate in cutting Social Security, slashing education funding, shredding the Bill of Rights, murdering American citizens abroad with no legal process, giving torturers and war criminals along with the perpetrators of the largest criminal fraud in human history absolute immunity from even investigation, never mind prosecution.  They will do this and more because the only variable in their calculus is that which is necessary to remain in power.  There are no principles that are sacred or off limits, no ideology at all other than what serves the immediate need of remaining in office through the next election cycle.

Republicans on the other hand have principles- wrong and dangerous principles needless to say but principles nevertheless.  They aren't about to sell out those principles in the hopes of getting a handful of "swing voters" in some God forsaken exurb to cross over.  They have a perverse integrity born from an actual ideological basis that the Democrats completely lack.

People sense this too, that the Republicans are based on ideas and principles whereas Democrats are simply winging it, making whatever deals they can and hoping nobody notices.  Nobody respects people without principles, people who have no positions they won't bargain away to make a deal, whose only purpose is re-election.

The brand is being soiled and very likely irreparably damaged by this unprincipled and cynical Machiavellian opportunism.  People aren't stupid when it comes to this stuff, people will get that they cannot rely on the Democratic Party for anything except unprincipled opportunism.

Yet the alternative- of actually standing for principles, for having a coherent vision of where the Party wants to take the country, of having values that are sacrosanct and not on the bargaining table, is seen as completely antithetical to the "grown ups" who run the Party and have surrendered to cynicism and see declaring principles only as an unacceptable risk that only limits their options when the next polling data from Akron rolls in.

The Democratic Party could be so much more, could destroy the Republicans over the longer term by simply being principled, being steadfast even when the polling data says being so might entail some short term risk.  On key issue after key issue the electorate polls right into the sweet spot of what should be the core values of a Democratic Party, true to its historic principles.  The natural Republican demographic of old, fearful, racist rural white people is the fastest shrinking demographic in the country, yet the Democrats relentlessly chase the near fringe of this demographic in some short sighted electoral chess game and they do so at the expense of representing their actual natural constituency; a constituency that is growing inexorably, of the young, the non-white, the non racist, the working class, the poor, the majorities or soon to be majorities that want thieving financiers made accountable, want same sex marriage a reality across the nation, want to see the senseless and counterproductive war on drugs reassessed, want defense spending slashed and our troops brought home now, want climate change addressed, want the savings and simple fairness of single payer universal health care, want the wealthy to pay a fairer amount of taxes, want their earned entitlements off the bargaining table, want education protected and nurtured, want renewable energy aggressively developed, want out critical infrastructures maintained.

To hell with the billionaires and corporate campaign contributors and a few dimbulb alleged swing voters in Ohio and Florida.  They don't add up to more than a tiny handful of votes put together in the end and surrendering to them will kill the Party's brand and limit its potential looking out further than the next ephemeral election cycle.  The only reason the Party needs the deep pocket contributors to sell its message is because it has no actual message beyond fear of the other. People don't need to be hard sold what they already want.

This madness, this unprincipled cynicism, this craven pandering to narrow special interests at the expense of the party, the nation and our collective future must end. Enough. The Democratic Party needs to have clearly enunciated principles, ones that proudly represent the interests of the majority of Americans and needs to defend those principles with fierce and unrelenting determination. Without compromise, without equivocation, without cynical Machiavellian backroom dealing, without selling out to billionaires. The party that stands for nothing but its own self interest and hanging on through the next election cycle needs instead to stand for principles, for the people, for the future of America.

Originally posted to Kurt Sperry on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:40 AM PDT.

Also republished by The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party and Trolls.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (20+ / 1-)

    Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

    by Kurt Sperry on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:40:10 AM PDT

  •  Already diaried. eom (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Libral Antibagger, kalmoth

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:47:54 AM PDT

  •  "Republicans have principles." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elmo, kalmoth, skohayes

    How many times has this happened:

    A GOP politician, in a moment of clarity, criticizes, say, Rush Limbaugh.

    Before the period hits the end of the sentence, that same politician will walk it back, grovel, and do whatever it takes to get back in Rush's good graces.

    What kind of day do you think Jeb Bush is having today, after he said what he said about the modern GOP? I'm guessing it's not a good one. And I'm guessing he'll "clarify" his remarks, assuming he already hasn't.

    There are principled Democrats, just as there are principled Republicans, and while you bemoan cynicism in politics, your diary is so thick with cynicism that I could use it to safely transport crystal.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:10:19 AM PDT

    •  Rush Limbaugh Nearly Defines Republican Principles (4+ / 0-)

      criticizing him is counter to those principles.  Walking back criticism of Limbaugh is an embrace of Republican principles, As Jeb Bush counters those same principles by not obediently tripling down on the crazy.  All the crazy stuff are Republican principles and they defend them like a starving dog defends a steak.

      And pragmatically this ideological discipline, however wrongheaded, has not hurt the Republican brand but rather strengthened it.  People have a clear sense of what Republicanism means ideologically and they have leveraged a minority into power by being clear and unambiguous about that.

      What bedrock principles define today's Democratic Party- principles that absolutely aren't on the bargaining table?  Can you think of even one?

      Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

      by Kurt Sperry on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:26:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's see... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Remembering Jello, elmo, skohayes

        How about a woman's right to choose? How about women's rights in general? National healthcare? Yeah, I know, the law isn't perfect, but it's the first time that a president was able to get any semblance of national healthcare enacted into law. And it passed without any Republican support.

        How about the environment? Because of President Obama, carmakers agreed to the highest mileage standards in the history of this country. I think that's a principle.

        Gay marriage? Gay rights? Again, Democratic principles.

        And while it's fashionable for those on the far left to say that Obama put Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block, the reality is that he didn't. And anyone making this ridiculous claim needs to show incontrovertible proof.

        Now, not every Democrat walks in lockstep. That's the nature of our party. We are a big-tent party, and that is our strength.

        How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

        by BenderRodriguez on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:36:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There are many factual claims in this diary, (8+ / 0-)

    with no supporting evidence to support them.

    "Do it my way, and victory is inevitable" is a faith-based solution.

    Before demanding the largest party in the United States adhere to his personal vision, perhaps the diarist should articulate the empirical basis for his claim that trying to get the votes of independent, swing voters is a losing strategy, and that the only rational alternative is to run on a platform of dogmatic liberalism.

    In a country where self-identified liberals number at most 25% of the population (22% in 2008 vs 34% conservative and 44% moderate).

    Perhaps the diarist can point to the last unabashedly liberal candidate to win the Presidency.  

    Or, better yet, the diarist can point to his track record of winning elections on any level of significance.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:29:59 AM PDT

    •  But it'll be a pure Democratic party that loses (7+ / 0-)

      For some folks, that's a victory.

      Myself, I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the " hell of a lot better than the alternative".

      I suppose that's somehow a moral failing on my part.

    •  And just look how far we have come! (10+ / 0-)

      slipping and sliding, trying to grab the elusive independent swing voters.
      We've gone so far, so fast, that it almost feels like we're going backwards..

      Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act. - Al Gore

      by Burned on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:51:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What if doing liberal things and having liberal (6+ / 0-)

      policies is the right thing to do, Geekesque?

      So what if 5% of people supported it? Do we drop immigrants' rights, women's rights, gay rights because they are not popular enough? Or do we try to do the right thing and fight like hell for it?

      The party loves to justify its rightwing bent by saying we are a conservative country. But every conservative I know or have ever known HATES the Democratic party with a passion. You can't have those voters and you cannot reach them. The conservatives have their party and they are trying to ruin the world with it.

      How about we be a a force that opposes that instead of aiding it? The party does everything it can to keep liberals from succeeding within it and then points to their lack of success.

      But keep hating your base, guys. Keep stabbing them in the back. The people are wising up as the truth becomes glaringly apparent.

      Rich people have two parties and we have none.

      •  If you're the minority party, you (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes, fcvaguy, FG

        don't get to do anything.

        That's the rub.  

        From 2000 through 2006, the Democrats' platform was irrelevant.  

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:30:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have some poll numbers (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes

        or anything to support your claim that the base hates this President?

      •  I'm not sure you represent the "base" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rustbelt Dem

        The base votes for Democrats. All the time. That's why they're called "the base" of the party.
        You are the disgruntled left. Of course, there's nothing wrong with being disgruntled, we need people pushing our party from the left.
        But don't claim to be the base, because you aren't.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:03:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Historically, progressives and lefties are also (4+ / 0-)

          a reliable Democratic vote. Do you think that has changed? I promise you, all but a small minority of DKos lefties will vote for the President's reelection. Many of us will no doubt be "conflicted" about that choice, but an unenthusiastic ballot counts exactly the same as does the most gung-ho vote.

          I don't understand the urge to define the "Democratic base," much less exclude some people from it. The "base" has always been a coalition of diverse groups working--mostly--towards common goals of economic justice and social equality; in the Party's heyday, that's been a bedrock principle and the source of the Party's strength.

          Either progressives are a meaningful part of the Democratic base, in which case we deserve a meaningful seat at the table; or the "disgruntled left" is as insignificant as you imply. In the latter case though, the oft-repeated charge that criticism from the left undermines Mr. Obama's prospects in November is nonsensical.

          Can't have it both ways.

          "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

          by PhilJD on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:10:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The base is the reliable voter (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi, Rustbelt Dem

            who turns out in every election, who donates to the party, who makes phone calls and gets voters to the polls. The base is the solid core of committed Democrats, not the ones who threaten not to vote in the next election every time the president does something they don't like.
            Progressives are a meaningful part of the party and part of the base, but by no means are they the only part of the base that the president should pay attention to.
            To steal a line from the Rolling Stones, you can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.

            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

            by skohayes on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:35:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is all I'm arguing: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WB Reeves
              Progressives are a meaningful part of the party and part of the base
              I emphatically never said this, nor do I believe it:
              [Progressives are] the only part of the base that the president should pay attention to.

              The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

              by PhilJD on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 06:31:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Not to mention (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, Geekesque
      In a country where self-identified liberals number at most 25% of the population (22% in 2008 vs 34% conservative and 44% moderate).
      85% of self-identified liberals (the base) support the President.

      We've certainly had unabashed liberal candidates. Without splitting hairs, I'd say Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis, and McGovern were the most liberal in the past 50 years.

      Mondale, Dukakis and McGovern got absolutely trounced. Kerry did respectable enough, but he should have won against a President with low approval ratings.

  •  shorter version: Current Democratic Party... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice

    does not speak to or embody the interests of a minority of the big tent but that minority is large enough that this is a problem for all.

    75-80% of Democrats are satisfied with the Party. That might seem like a lot but it's not enough. I assume if the Democrats reverted to caring about unions, the middle class, the poor that they'd lose satisfaction on the other end and probably lose some big donors too.

    The Party, as a whole (and I mean the leadership) has decided it's better to do whatever it is it's doing. And there we are and there we'll stay until this election is over and maybe longer.

    •  So were you not paying attention (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WB Reeves

      in Wisconsin when the Democrats were fighting for the recall, and the unions, and the unions were fighting right alongside?
      Not paying attention in Florida, where the DoJ is suing to protect voters?
      Not paying attention as the Democrats in the Senate have ignored every anti-woman bill passed in the House?
      Not paying attention to the House Democrats and what they have tried to get through the House, even though they're in the minority and have no chance of getting their voices heard?
      And you think they don't care about unions, or the middle class or the poor? Really?
      Do you think "the Democrats" are just the leadership of the House and Senate and the president?

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:16:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Absolutely correct, but... (7+ / 0-)

    ...because most elected Dems have sold out they lack any credibility where principles are concerned.  Republicans have only 2 principles, objectives really: achieving power and serving the rich. And they have no problem going so far as to undermine democracy to achieve these.

    A real democratic party could expose the modern GOP for what is, but it doesn't seem our current establishment democrats have a desire to do so, likely because so many have wrapped themselves up in the same service to the rich as the republicans.

  •  So let me see if I understand (6+ / 0-)

    You think the key to everything is for Democrats to become the rigid, inflexible ideological mirror images to modern wingnut Republicans?

    Gee, thanks anyway, but if the Democratic Party becomes like that, count out this lifelong liberal.

    •  So you're opposed (9+ / 0-)

      to Democrats having a platform and standing behind it?

    •  Having a Few Non-Negotiable Core Values (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher

      is not the same as being the ideological mirror image of the right.  Here's a short list of positions that the majority of Democrats could probably agree we've to varying degrees lost the plot on:

      [We] want thieving financiers made accountable, want same sex marriage a reality across the nation, want to see the senseless and counterproductive war on drugs reassessed, want defense spending slashed and our troops brought home now, want climate change addressed, want the savings and simple fairness of single payer universal health care, want the wealthy to pay a fairer amount of taxes, want their earned entitlements off the bargaining table, want education protected and nurtured, want renewable energy aggressively developed, want out critical infrastructures maintained.

      These are some of the issues we should (and could) show a little spine on without kicking significant segments of the members from our tent, common sense issues a consensus of the average Democrat could be comfortable with without splitting the party or giving a gift to the Republicans advocating.  Heck I think we'd get crossover voters if people actually believed we'd fight for this stuff.

      Even rank and file Republicans would have trouble defending their opposition to much of this.

      Ever read the last official Democratic Party party platform? (PDF)

      http://www.democrats.org/...

      Simply standing firm behind that enunciation of principles and policies would be a huge step in the right direction.  We by and large don't need to change who we are and what we believe in to do the right thing, just be true to ourselves and remember what we stand for.

      The Democratic Party should not time and again be a willing accomplice to shifting the Overton Window rightward chasing a small demographic of alleged "swing voters" who by and large don't share our beliefs or philosophy, and particularly so when doing so is counter to both our stated principles and the will of the majority of the party's voters.  It's bad policy and it's bad politics.  

      Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

      by Kurt Sperry on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:25:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What you consider "standing firm" (0+ / 0-)

        on those principles and what I consider to be "standing firm" will differ dramatically, I suspect.

        For example, I see the Obama administration "slashing defense spending" and ending wars. I suspect that you don't see this.

        When you want these principles to be "non negotiable," how do you wish Democrats to proceed in a legislative environment where some Republican votes are needed to get a bill passed?

        Do you want no bills passed, rather than make any compromises?

  •  I think you've been snookered. Republicans have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenderRodriguez, kalmoth

    principles?  Gimme a break.

    Republicans talk about principles.  They claim that principles are what's guiding them.

    But they're just shills for the rich and oily.

    It's been my experience that those who talk about principles, don't have them.  It's usually just a cover.  Usually.  Sometimes it's just their ego.

  •  Quite possible the best diary ever on the DKos!!!! (5+ / 0-)

    It never ceases to amaze me the amount of deference, respect and seriousness that people on this site, and Dems in general give to the current Dem Party, Obama, Congress. I find it incomprehensible that we as a constituency would consider the current lot acceptable in almost any way!!

    As the diarist says.... they are war mongers, craven, unprincipaled, weak, scared shitless, and quite frankly, destroying the country. Sure they do it at a slower pace than the GOP, and sound nicer as they go about their dirty work..... but dirty work it is nonetheless!

    At the same time, they aren't stupid, so they should be able to learn from the GOP and Tea Party that actually standing for something is a winning formula. The fact that they don't learn is just more testament to how craven, and immoral they are as a Party. They DON'T represent our best interests unless it bloody well suits theirs!

    Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

    by Lucy2009 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:33:43 PM PDT

    •  Addendum to the above....... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KYrocky, PhilJD, gooderservice

      I believe wholeheartedly what I wrote above.  

      At the same time.... we are in a snarled ball of bullshit right now with our election/campaign laws. I personally believe that if the Dem Congress and President had done exactly what they promised, and fought for each of those items like their lives depended on it for the last 4 years, that they wouldn't have to worry about campaign contributions this time around. They wouldn't have to behave like prostitutes to get money to get re-elected. BUT.... that's not what happened. They played the game, for whatever reasons, and now they have to play it again, or get snookered royally by misinformation ads that Romeny will be SWAMPING the airwaves with. This election is going to be grotesquely expensive, and horribly vicious I should think. One person wins. It needs to be Obama.

      Obama may or may not be a good guy, but I do know for a fact, that if Romney gets in office it will be MUCH worse. We will put the downward trajectory of this country into 5th gear, and watch it drive off a cliff. Nobody on this site, or in the country (whether they know it or not!) can afford that. So please, be honest about the Dems. Try to figure out ways to get them to come home to their roots, principles and Party Platform, but do it concurrent with voting the bastards back in office!!!!

      Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

      by Lucy2009 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:49:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a marvelous rant, or screed, or (6+ / 0-)

    impassioned plea.  I am totally in your corner.

    But they can't ignore the billionaires because the billionaires control the airwaves, and the airwaves, to a large extent, control people's perceptions--and people's perceptions are the heart of politics.  Or, rather, its nervous system.

    That's why money power can beat people power when money power outspends people power by a big enough margin.  Hell, that's why money power can beat people power ever.

    They aren't chasing a shrinking constituency of swing voters.  An article from a few days ago suggested that politicians from both sides were neglecting even swing states in order to spend more time with wealthy donors. 5 months out from the election, that should be a big red flag to everyone. They think the power to elect them lies, not with the people, but with the billionaires. And unless/until we find a way to counter the power of the airwaves, they will be right.

    Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:24:48 PM PDT

  •  This is on my mind today (9+ / 0-)

    I called Congressman Loebsack's office earlier to inquire whether he would vote no on a "grand bargain" that included cuts to Social Security and Medicare, specifically raising the retirement age and chained CPI.  The young person answering his phone didn't know, but said I would get a letter.

    In the old days, i.e. when the Democrats were still protecting their brand, if I had called the office of a Democratic House member, the young person would have known that there was no way in hell Congressman Putz (D) would vote for cuts to Social Security. Period.

    That Democrats can't look at the 2010 election and draw the conclusion that going wobbly on Medicare was a terrible idea, says that they just don't get it. They do not get how unpopular the nostrums of the Catfood Commission are, and how damaging it will be for the party to vote for them.

    If Bush had proposed what Obama has proposed (in last summer's failed "grand bargain"), he would have been stopped the way his privatization scheme was stopped.  But because these awful proposals are coming from a Democratic president, his party is falling in line behind them.  I think they will pay a high price for this, perhaps sooner rather than later. If the voters are not in a mood to punish them for cutting social insurance, the big GOP PACs will help them with that.  Once reelected, the President will never run again, but the party he leaves behind will be a long time climbing back to credibility if Simpson Bowles becomes law in late November of 2012.

  •  This statement simply ignores reality (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, WB Reeves, BenderRodriguez
    To hell with the billionaires and corporate campaign contributors and a few dimbulb alleged swing voters in Ohio and Florida.  They don't add up to more than a tiny handful of votes put together in the end
    Here are some facts:
    Studies released this week about key swing states confirm that the numbers of voters who identify themselves as independent are growing, that Barack Obama is facing a serious challenge in battleground states, and that swing voters will almost certainly determine the outcome of the 2012 election.
    The poll shows that, in total, 48% of voters disapprove of the work of the Republican Assembly. But the bad news for Republicans is that 52% of Independent voters disapprove. By far, the biggest block of voters in Ohio are Independents.
    http://daytonos.com/...
    A USA TODAY analysis of state voter registration statistics shows registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party. Republicans dipped in 21 states, while independents increased in 18 states.
    The trend is acute in states that are key to next year's presidential race. In the eight swing states that register voters by party, Democrats' registration is down by 800,000 and Republicans' by 350,000. Independents have gained 325,000.
    http://www.usatoday.com/...
    Of the more than 57,000 people who registered to vote last month in Florida, the largest percentage by far signed up as independent voters, new state figures collected and released by Democrats show.

    Democrats still could claim a good month, with 34 percent of new voters signing up with their party, outpacing Republicans.

    But perhaps the most interesting numbers in the new data were the figures on registration of new Hispanic voters – a key demographic both parties are trying hard to woo ahead of the 2012 election.

    Of the self-identified Hispanics who registered in March, 37 percent registered as Democrats and 46 percent registered as independents or without a party, while only 17 percent registered as Republicans.

    http://htpolitics.com/...

    Now we can be pure Democrats that stand on the principles you think are important, or we can be a big tent party that understands that not everyone thinks like  the most liberal in our party do, and win elections.
    It's nice to be pure, but it doesn't win elections.

    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

    by skohayes on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:59:25 PM PDT

  •  And what would those principles be? And no, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kurt Sperry, Brown Thrasher

    meaningless phrases like 'standing for middle class' don't count.

  •  This diary made it onto Buzzflash... (0+ / 0-)

    ...despite the same old putdowns from turn-the-other-cheek,  wait-tll-tomorrow and give-up-the-gains Democrats.

    No more "single payer." No more "universal coverage." Just say, "Medicare for every American."

    by masswaster on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 06:18:56 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site