2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Why Most Conservatives Are Secretly Liberals" (And how Bernie can revitalize the Democratic Party.)
Several DUers have characterized Bernie's support from self-identified conservatives as something scary and a as a bad thing.
On the contrary, when many self-identified conservatives are queried on policy (rather than label) a surprising number of them actually agree with traditional liberal ideology.
Perhaps Bernie's Conservatives will be the national antidote to Reagan's Democrats.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/06/why-most-conservatives-are-secretly-liberals/
But when it comes to saying what the government should actually do, the public appears more liberal than conservative. Ellis and Stimson gathered 7,000 survey questions dating back to 1956 that asked some variant of whether the government should do more, less, or the same in lots of different policy areas. On average, liberal responses were more common than conservative responses. This has been true in nearly every year since 1956, even as the relative liberalism of the public has trended up and down. For decades now there has been a consistent discrepancy between what Ellis and Stimson call symbolic ideology (how we label ourselves) and operational ideology (what we really think about the size of government).
Looked at this way, almost 30 percent of Americans are consistent liberals people who call themselves liberals and have liberal politics. Only 15 percent are consistent conservatives people who call themselves conservative and have conservative politics. Nearly 30 percent are people who identify as conservative but actually express liberal views. The United States appears to be a center-right nation in name only.
..
But other self-identified conservatives, though, are conservative in terms of neither religion and culture nor the size of government. These are the truly conflicted conservatives, say Ellis and Stimson, who locate their origins in a different factor: how conservatives and liberals have traditionally talked about politics. Conservatives, they argue, talk about politics in terms of symbols and the general value of conservatism and news coverage, they find, usually frames the label conservative in positive terms. Liberals talk about policy in terms of the goals it will serve a cleaner environment, a stronger safety net, and so on which are also good things for many people. As a result, some people internalize both messages and end up calling themselves conservative but having liberal views on policy.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Suddenly there's no room for a tried and true FDR-like candidate, nor
is there room for pissed-off conservatives who don't want to loose their
Social Security & Medicare.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)but the problem with the Big Tent, it swooped up traditional (D)s that espoused conservative ideology and ignored self-identified conservatives that actually align with traditional thought.
I.E., we have written off the South and Southwest for many decades. Huge (or as Bernie would say, "Yooge" mistake.
Dean was spot on with his 50 state strategy. Spot on. The DNC allowed Dean's strategy to wither and die
pretty much letting whatever, few in number but enthusiastic Democratic infrastructure, that Dean For America had built to without any ongoing support.
Bernie wants to change that. His answer to "why Louisiana" is "exactly Louisiana". His answer to "why Arizona" is "exactly Arizona."
Someone had a post recently claiming that Bernie is doing nothing to build the Democratic Party. Hello? Visiting states as a Democratic candidate and where most Democratic candidates have written off the Democrats and probable Democratic voters who live there, is the epitome of building a strong Democratic Party.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)is to freakin' deprogram these people to the best of our abilities.
He is especially connecting with the disaffected non-voter who has given up on politics. That's how we win
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)The DNC pretty much abandoned Texas (except when it needed big money).
We're starting to feel a little enthusiasm again. Bernie has done that, not the DNC.
Go Bernie.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I see it happen every time I visit home: discuss a topic without using slogans and television buzz-words, and they will agree almost every time.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)conservative support it's absolutely awesome.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Are you referring to working class individuals or business institutions?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)or did I just mess up that quote?
SunSeeker
(51,579 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)When I try to pin them down on which issues they are behind, so far the three that I have asked are quick to inform me that they are 'strict Constitutionalists'. Perhaps it is wrong of me to be judging them unlikely of having even a rudimentary working knowledge of the Constitution itself so I have chosen NOT to push the issue by having them explain what a 'strict Constitutionalist' might be. Now I should be quick to point out that I don't have much of a working knowledge of the Constitution myself so let me assure anyone reading this that I am not feeling politically superior to my neighbors. That said, I have found full agreement between myself and these 3 'strict Constitutionalists' on this concept: In a government of by and for the people, the people as a whole have to be, (by definition), the top of the foodchain in the government.
This is my way to force them into thinking along avenues that they haven't considered before. They have been programed by right wing propagandists into thinking that money as a form of speech is a good thing.
I point out to them that their meager dollars translate into very little in the way of speech when it comes to getting their needs done by their representatives in Congress. I further point out that those individuals who contribute lots of money have no problems getting things done for them regardless of how many small time donors are in disagreement.
I then ask them if it is right for money to be above the needs of the citizenry, if they are happy with a government of by and for those individuals with the most money. They are faced with an interesting dilemma at that point: supporting the citizenry or supporting big money. So far each of the three has scratched their heads but eventually they are forced to admit that money as a form of speech is a bad idea.
It is my goal before election time 2016 to have these three 'strict Constitutionalists' debating among themselves how the case of Marbury vs Madison has come down through time and what affect it has had on the powers our SCOTUS should or should not currently have.