Are Democrats a big tent party? Should they be?

The Democrats are the big tent party and have been for decades now. Anyone is welcome to be an equal member of the Democratic Party.

But equality isn’t enough for some people. They insist that they should be recognized as being better than other people. Those people are going to be happier in the Republican Party.

If you believe men are better than women, join the Republican Party.
If you believe white people are better than non-white people, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people who were born in America are better than people who are naturalized citizens, join the Republican Party.
If you believe religious people are better than atheists, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people whose ancestors came from Europe are better than people whose ancestors came from somewhere else, join the Republican Party.
If you believe rich people are better than non-rich people, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people who live in the country are better than people who live in a city, join the Republican Party.
If you believe Christians are better than people from other religions, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people who speak English are better than people who speak another language, join the Republican Party.
If you believe straight people are better than gay people, join the Republican Party.

If you believe all Americans are equal, join the Democratic Party.

I thought it was cool when they stopped the public option out of fear of being seen as too liberal and then got blown the hell out in 2010 anyway. Sweet legacy.

Those are good, also: massive infrastructure spending which can double as a jobs program (Trump ran on this and outflanked the Dems, embarrassing), end the wars, legalize weed, scale back the drug war, anything to help with insane college costs, break up monopolies, and put the boot on criminal financial institutions. Also find a way to stick it to ISPs, which everyone seems to hate. Note that this requires actual political outreach, not sticking it on a website somewhere with a million qualifiers and means testing public services to hell and back. This will be harder than it has to be since the Dem party has proven themselves to be complicit, but maybe if the leadership is cleaned out the public will take a new message seriously.

I swear whenever the party get too popular they start talking about gun control to tank their ratings on purpose. Maybe don’t do that.

Like I said, organize – they haven’t made that illegal, yet. If people can’t spread progressive ideas and class consciousness in the middle of the second gilded age when the Republicans are 19th century capitalist caricatures running around with big sacks adorned with dollar signs then we may as well give up.

In addition to that, the Democrats have this maniacal obsession with courting moderate Republicans. The real prize is the great mass of people out there who don’t vote, especially the ones who are disgusted with the system. Energize these people.

It’s the GOP that applies unreasonable “purity tests.” This was brought home at the GOP debates back in 2016. When asking candidates about healthcare the Moderator (from FoxNews) prefaced his question with words like “Of course you’re all Republicans so you’re all opposed to Obamacare.” :smack:

As others have said, this liberal purity test idea is pure fiction. You should back it up with specific examples of what you think that this implies.

And if you want to talk about Americans who feel their party has left them, why are we talking about the speck in someone’s eye and the plank in one’s own? The Republicans are rife with voters who supported Reagan and the Bushes who walk around in a daze, looking at Trump and wondering, “What the fuck has happened to us?”

According to old Pew Research data, about 20%(*) of voters with liberal values voted for Romney, while only about 5% of conservatives voted for Obama. Viewed this way, perhaps Democrats need to “broaden their tent” to include more "liberals."

(* - These are approximate figures from memory.)

The democrats might act like a big tent party but at the top, the DNC decides.

It should probably be mentioned that registered Independents make up almost 40% of the electorate. Of these, about half lean liberal. Maybe thinking about why those people aren’t Democrats would be advisable.

Decides who is a Democrat and who isn’t? Seriously, what are you talking about?

Back to the article, I did a quick read but I did not see any description of why the people interviewer consider themselves Democrats. Like the racist truck driver guy: what makes him identify as a Dem? Is he pro-union? Is he a Keynesian? Does we want a more modest military? Is it a family tradition? Or, in an extreme case, might he be one of those holdovers of “I will not be in the party of Lincoln, who invaded the South etc etc.”

Including Bush 41 himself who voted for Hillary in 2016.

Gay marriage is one.

I know little of indiana politics. I can check out votesmart, and get some basics, but I don’t really know the guy. I’d have to have more of an idea of his legislative record, what bills he has written, sponsored, or voted for in order to get a good gauge on where he stands politically as regards to those positions. For instance, Joe Biden is against abortion personally, but supports a woman’s right to choose politically.

We aren’t talking about the presidential nomination here, we are talking abut people in the party. There are plenty of people in the democratic party that have views that I consider to be too far to the left to be a viable candidate as well.

So, yeah, I don’t think that he would be a viable presidential nominee for the democratic party, but, should he win the nomination, I would probably vote for him over most republicans, but I’d have to see who that was. There is a good chance I would vote for Kasich over him. If he ran for lower office over here in Ohio (well he wouldn’t win as a democrat, anyway), I wouldn’t have much of a problem with him. Most of our democrats from Ohio are pretty moderate, many supporting positions that are not stereotypically left wing ideologies.

I apologize if you though I was going for a dig, and while I did reference any earlier comment that you made, the point was that I am articulating the exact things about the candidate that I do and do not like, not just dismissing them because they come from a state that leans in a different direction than I prefer.

As the OP, I figure you have an opinion on what it is that the dems should do. I see it a bit differently, being from a right leaning area of a moderate state. I get that you have your “west coast liberals” that are very set in their ideology, but that is not all democrats. As you yourself have pointed out in this thread, there are democrats in office who hold positions that are pretty far to the right of what one would stereotypically think of.

I don’t see how the democratic tent can get any wider, without caving completely on all progressive values.

As to the points about getting out a better ground game, supporting more local offices, I absolutely agree, and I do think that the democrats have not done well at this in the recent past.

I think everyone* is on board with gay marriage now. Even Trump didn’t campaign against it. The fight now is over florists and cake bakers, but I don’t hear anyone complain about gay people having the right to marry.

*I’m sure there are exceptions, but they’re rare.

What are the progressive values you see as essential to keep the party from caving completely?

I don’t really understand the question. If someone wants to vote for a Democratic candidate for office, I’m not sure why I should care all that much about their values. (I say this while recognizing that the voter could be a deplorable, but if they want to cast a vote for someone who isn’t, then great!)

As far as Democratic candidates for office, well, the Democratic Party as an institution really doesn’t have a strong role in policing who is allowed to run for office, do they? Look at Joe Manchin. He’s a pretty conservative guy, all things considered. He would fit right in with the “old” Republican Party, with the exception of a handful of issues, like labor. He wins a primary and office in West Virginia, because he seems to also fit right in with West Virginia values, and Dems are going to fight to keep his seat in the upcoming elections.

One more time, so what is this liberal litmus test that you believe Democrats are applying, and how specifically does Joe Manchin pass it but some other unnamed people are not?

What would the republicans from those same districts have voted for? How is that better? How is having a republican who votes liberal 0% of the time be better than a blue dog who votes liberal 80% of the time?

Hopefully economics alone can appeal to blue collar whites. But the democrats just give lip service to economics while not doing much actionwise.

Because liberals and minorities are the base of the democratic party, giving up the democrats egalitarian social issues isn’t really negotiable. However egalitarian social issues tends to alienate rural whites. I’m not sure how to fix that.

Guns are a non-issue, I don’t really understand why that is partisan in the first place. For example, my mother is ultra conservative, but absolutely hates guns, so much so that she wouldn’t even let my father keep his father’s WWII rifle in the house. I also know many liberals who are fairly supportive of gun rights. It would be better if we could find a way to work together to decrease the damage that guns do in our society, but that is something both parties need to work together on. Terry Goodin answers b) Maintain and strengthen the enforcement of existing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns. on gun control, and did not commit to easing or removing restrictions. He is a supporter of CCW (which I am as well, for well trained and vetted individuals). The only difference I see between myself and him on this issue is that I would have selected g) Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows. And of course, The last prepositional phrase there is unnecessary, and only adds to the confusion. You want to make exceptions for family, I can see them being carved out, you should know if your family member is prohibited from possessing a firearm. If you want to consider a current valid CCW to be used in place of a background check, I can get behind that too. If you (a complete stranger) walk up to me, and say , “Hey, nice gun, can I buy it from you?”, I should be required to do some level of due diligence before I transfer it to your possession.

Abortion is a bigger deal, but there isn’t much support for elective abortions after 20 weeks on either side of the aisle, the liberal you pointed out isn’t really an anti-abortion figure, as he did not say that abortion should always be illegal, or that it should only be in the first trimester. He affirmatively said that they should be legal in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother. I don’t think that I would have filled out that section any differently, other than maybe a g) Other or expanded principles, and then describing my position with more nuance than a multiple choice can allow.

Those are what we tend to fight about, but that is only a small part of the platform.

What is really core to the progressive platform is progress. (It’s in the name!) Are things getting better? Are people treated more fairly than they were in the past? Are people being treated equally by society and government? Are there those who need assistance that are not getting it? What other improvements can we do?

If you check out the rest of Goodin’s “bio”, you see that he is also very strong on increasing funding for education, healthcare and infrastructure. He is for decreasing funding on welfare, and so on that we would disagree. He supports limiting the campaign contributions that can go into not only his direct campaign, but also on PACs and from corporations.

He is against SSM, which is probably my only really big sticking point there, but that’s still not really a core progressive value.

Anyway, I could go on, point by point through his positions and what we agree and disagree upon, but really, the fundamentals are similar, for the most part. Overall, his most of his positions are those that would benefit those who are the most marginalized in our society, as well as to benefit society as a whole.

My final analysis, I may not vote for him in a primary, but I wouldn’t have to hold my nose to vote for him if he were nominated.

First off, of course, the Dems got to be nicer. No more of the vicious sarcasm and crude ridicule, Americans are genteel and easily offended. But they are ready for us…

Republicans can be like Louis “Goober” Gohmert, warm and generous, good natured and good hearted.

And humor! They could unleash Dennis Miller for a multi-state conservative comedy tour. He would totally fill the Banquet Room at the Holiday Inn out on Highway 9! Then, move into religion, Scientology first, then move on to rigid pickle-up-the-butt Calvinists. “You’re poor because God hates you!” is an excellent start for an “outreach” effort!

Shit, got a million of them, great ideas for the Republicans. No need to thank me, least I could do, and the most I’m gonna.

I’d say a core progressive value is a bare minimum of Civil Unions, which is what people were pushing for in the mid-2000s. It’s agnostic on whether this should be full-blooded civil marriage. It’s the conservatives who were against both gay marriage and civil unions (the latter for no other reason than homophobic spite), with the progressive mostly (but not entirely) for some form of either Civil Unions or SSM. Now that the courts have made SSM legal I find it hilarious that the conservatives are trying to rewrite history by saying “why couldn’t they just have been satisfied with civil unions?”

Here’s a quote from the OP’s article:

Yeah. Fuck those guys. Like we should be super concerned about the poor, sad, Trump voters whining about how they’re too dumb to have a conversation with Nancy Pelosi. The actual problem these guys have is that they are bigots and don’t want to be called out on their bigotry or made to be nice to Muslims and gay people, plus a bunch of the usual Republican nonsense about guns and “Elites”.

As a Liberal, a Progressive and a Democrat - I firmly believe that Democratic success will come from embracing the anger and energy of poor women, particularly women of color, and convincing them to vote and run for office. Chasing dead enders like the losers in this article is just a waste of time.

Turning the Democratic Party into a safe space for bigots is not the path to success for us.