Have the democrats shifted left?

[krazen1211]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

[greenforest32]

A little on social issues (mostly matching the change in the overall population), not really on economic issues and definitely not anywhere near the extent Republicans have shifted right on both social and economic issues.

As best as I can see it, the D.C. Dems' short-term master electoral plan is status quo on ideology while they:

* Hold the WH in 2012, win it in 2016 & 2020 with Clinton/Cuomo/etc
* Narrowly hold/tie the Senate in 2012/2014 and increase that hold/break the tie in 2016 and on
* Narrowly win/lose the House in Presidential election years (2012/2016/2020) while losing seats in the midterms (2014/2018)

so that in 2022/2024 they will have undone the 5-4 conservative majority on SCOTUS and potentially break the Republicans' gerrymandered hold on the House (FL/OH/PA/TX/NC/etc) while being competitive in new states in the Senate/Presidential map (Arizona, Georgia, Texas?, etc).

This is going to be the most bipartisanly plutocratic decade yet. I'm not looking forward to it.

[Peter the Lefty]

The Republicans have shifted right, and the Democrats seem to have shifted to the right with them, overall.  But the Democrats are a coalition.  Always have been.  The factions (along with the rough percentage of democratic voters who correspond to each faction)

Blue Dogs: 10%.  Southern rural rightwingers in the wrong party.  Social and economic conservatives.  Would be Conservatives in any other country (and very right-wing ones at that.). Max Baucus, and Mary Landrieu, and others of the sort would fit in this category.  
New Democrats: 30% Would be considered centrist here, though they'd be center-right in most other countries.  Basically Clintonians.  Economically pro-business and pro-welfare reform.  Generally more socially liberal.  While they're roughly 30% of Democratic voters, it would seem that at least half, if not more, (probably the latter) of Democratic officeholders are New Democrats.  (or blue dogs).  Would either be moderate conservatives or right-leaning Liberals in most countries.  Some examples would include Hillary (and Bill) Clinton, Harry Reid, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Warner, and others.  
Liberals: 15%. Would be considered left-liberal in other countries.  Basically generic democrats.  They are a bridge between the New Democrats/Blue Dogs and the Progressives.  Usually socially liberal, and economically center to center-left.  Usually pro-universal health care, mixed on labor, and plenty of them clash with labor on occasion.  Also tend to be Greenie-ish.  Open to cutting social security spending when they see it as "necessary." Essentially, they are a gray area that could be applied simply to democrats that aren't "progressive" or "New Democrats/Blue Dogs".  Amy Klobuchar, Deval Patrick, and some others would fit in this group.  
Progressives: 45% the type who would be seen as social democrats and possibly democratic socialist in other countries, though only a small few would dare openly call themselves social democrats, and certainly not socialist, since socialism has been demonized to an unbelievable degree in American society.  Economically and socially left.  While close to half of those who would identify as democrats would be considered progressive, only some legislators who identify with this ideology are elected.  It's also quite rare for people who are considered "progressive" to actually be elected to executive office.  While Barack Obama's roots may be in this faction, his 2008 campaign appeared to be more "liberal," and he has governed as a New Democrat.  Russ Feingold, Denis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, etc. would be prime examples.  I, for example, would be comfortable in this faction, but are too irked by the other factions too call myself a Democrat.  Therefore, I count myself as an independent socialist/social democrat.  
In the early 1960's, it would have been:
Progressive/Social Democrats: 55% with people like JFK and Adlai Stevenson, as well as others, with the war on poverty being crucial.  Would've blended with the "liberals."
Southern White Conservatives: 30%.  Segregationist racist bastards like George Wallace who ditched the Democrats for the Republicans later because they hated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Those that remained might've evolved into the Blue Dogs.
Those that would become New Democrats: 15% There were plenty of pro-business folk in the Democratic Party at that point, but they didn't wield the influence that they do today.  

[dead0man]

Not economically, no. It's a shame; they'd probably get more votes.

From who?  Who are these people voting for now?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Are you in fact aware that political issues other than this one and whatever populist claptrap du jour may catch your attention exist at all?

[smoltchanov]

Blue Dogs: 10%.  Southern rural rightwingers in the wrong party.  Social and economic conservatives.  Would be Conservatives in any other country (and very right-wing ones at that.). Max Baucus, and Mary Landrieu, and others of the sort would fit in this category.  

I had a very good laugh reading this. Baucus is not Southern and not a conservative. Landrieu is a Southern, but not a conservative - very much a moderate. Have you ever heard about Larry McDonald? Bob Stump? Phil Gramm (he was a Democrat)?. And a thousands of other. Have you studied  and analyzed a composition and voting records of many legislatures (not only southern)? It seems that by your criteria evetyone to the right of Barbara Lee and Maxine Water is a "hard right conservative"))))))

[Dereich]

The Republicans have shifted right, and the Democrats seem to have shifted to the right with them, overall.  But the Democrats are a coalition.  Always have been.  The factions (along with the rough percentage of democratic voters who correspond to each faction)

Blue Dogs: 10%.  Southern rural rightwingers in the wrong party.  Social and economic conservatives.  Would be Conservatives in any other country (and very right-wing ones at that.). Max Baucus, and Mary Landrieu, and others of the sort would fit in this category.  
New Democrats: 30% Would be considered centrist here, though they'd be center-right in most other countries.  Basically Clintonians.  Economically pro-business and pro-welfare reform.  Generally more socially liberal.  While they're roughly 30% of Democratic voters, it would seem that at least half, if not more, (probably the latter) of Democratic officeholders are New Democrats.  (or blue dogs).  Would either be moderate conservatives or right-leaning Liberals in most countries.  Some examples would include Hillary (and Bill) Clinton, Harry Reid, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Warner, and others.  
Liberals: 15%. Would be considered left-liberal in other countries.  Basically generic democrats.  They are a bridge between the New Democrats/Blue Dogs and the Progressives.  Usually socially liberal, and economically center to center-left.  Usually pro-universal health care, mixed on labor, and plenty of them clash with labor on occasion.  Also tend to be Greenie-ish.  Open to cutting social security spending when they see it as "necessary." Essentially, they are a gray area that could be applied simply to democrats that aren't "progressive" or "New Democrats/Blue Dogs".  Amy Klobuchar, Deval Patrick, and some others would fit in this group.  
Progressives: 45% the type who would be seen as social democrats and possibly democratic socialist in other countries, though only a small few would dare openly call themselves social democrats, and certainly not socialist, since socialism has been demonized to an unbelievable degree in American society.  Economically and socially left.  While close to half of those who would identify as democrats would be considered progressive, only some legislators who identify with this ideology are elected.  It's also quite rare for people who are considered "progressive" to actually be elected to executive office.  While Barack Obama's roots may be in this faction, his 2008 campaign appeared to be more "liberal," and he has governed as a New Democrat.  Russ Feingold, Denis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, etc. would be prime examples.  I, for example, would be comfortable in this faction, but are too irked by the other factions too call myself a Democrat.  Therefore, I count myself as an independent socialist/social democrat.  
In the early 1960's, it would have been:
Progressive/Social Democrats: 55% with people like JFK and Adlai Stevenson, as well as others, with the war on poverty being crucial.  Would've blended with the "liberals."
Southern White Conservatives: 30%.  Segregationist racist bastards like George Wallace who ditched the Democrats for the Republicans later because they hated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Those that remained might've evolved into the Blue Dogs.
Those that would become New Democrats: 15% There were plenty of pro-business folk in the Democratic Party at that point, but they didn't wield the influence that they do today.  

I don't think that any of these catagories really apply to the Democratic minority voters. I doubt, for example, you could call the black and hispanics who voted for proposition 8 as progressives. They also aren't really in favor of welfare reform so new democrats are out, and no other catagory is large enough to hold them. All in all, I really think you overestimate the number of true leftists in the Democratic party.

[Zioneer]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Seriously? You're basing a theory of Democratic leftward swing on education spending? And you're calling the student:teacher ratio nonsense? And do you even pay attention to where more spending comes from these days (hint: it's not unions)?

[krazen1211]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Seriously? You're basing a theory of Democratic leftward swing on education spending? And you're calling the student:teacher ratio nonsense? And do you even pay attention to where more spending comes from these days (hint: it's not unions)?

Seriously, you just made a bunch of bull up.

It is of course no coincidence that the nation somehow grew by roughly 600,000 teachers between 1970 and 1995 while the student population declined!

[krazen1211]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Are you in fact aware that political issues other than this one and whatever populist claptrap du jour may catch your attention exist at all?

Well, the Democrats have also succeeded in growing government health care spending at far faster rates than inflation, population growth, GDP growth, or whatever metric you choose.

Here in New Jersey the Democrats succeeded in doubling state government spending and state debt between 1999 and 2008. They didn't just go left; they fell off the map.


Indeed, here is one of my favorite charts. It is truly amazing how much compensation the teachers unions managed to acquire in a short 17 years!

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_188.asp?referrer=list

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Krazen, even without the effects of teacher unions, one should expect that teacher salaries would rise faster than average salaries.  Females have a far wider choice of professions these days than they once did.  Hence the supply of potential teachers is down.  You might wish to return to the days of the 1950s when teaching was one of the few professions an educated woman could aspire to, but it ain't gonna happen.

[hopper]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Are you in fact aware that political issues other than this one and whatever populist claptrap du jour may catch your attention exist at all?

Well, the Democrats have also succeeded in growing government health care spending at far faster rates than inflation, population growth, GDP growth, or whatever metric you choose.

Here in New Jersey the Democrats succeeded in doubling state government spending and state debt between 1999 and 2008. They didn't just go left; they fell off the map.


Indeed, here is one of my favorite charts. It is truly amazing how much compensation the teachers unions managed to acquire in a short 17 years!

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_188.asp?referrer=list

No the Republicans in NJ did have the Governors Mansion from 1999-2001 (well 1994-2001) before the Dems took it over from 2002-2009. The Dem Legislature has worked well with Christie  though since he took over as Governor in 2010.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The Democrats don't "shift", they move around in a continuous triangle.

[krazen1211]

Krazen, even without the effects of teacher unions, one should expect that teacher salaries would rise faster than average salaries.  Females have a far wider choice of professions these days than they once did.  Hence the supply of potential teachers is down.  You might wish to return to the days of the 1950s when teaching was one of the few professions an educated woman could aspire to, but it ain't gonna happen.

Well, that is a funny theory, I suppose, but given that the supply of teachers declined between 1970 and 1995, one wonders what sort of Spartan madness led to the hiring of 600,000 excess teachers rather than merely maintaining the existing stock of teachers.

Of course, the voters no longer tolerate the bolded. Mathematics also does not tolerate the bolded as the states no longer have the money to pay such astronomical compensation. If the salary of an individual teacher is going to continue to go up the quantity of teachers will finally begin to decline slowly back to 1990 levels.

[krazen1211]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Are you in fact aware that political issues other than this one and whatever populist claptrap du jour may catch your attention exist at all?

Well, the Democrats have also succeeded in growing government health care spending at far faster rates than inflation, population growth, GDP growth, or whatever metric you choose.

Here in New Jersey the Democrats succeeded in doubling state government spending and state debt between 1999 and 2008. They didn't just go left; they fell off the map.


Indeed, here is one of my favorite charts. It is truly amazing how much compensation the teachers unions managed to acquire in a short 17 years!

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_188.asp?referrer=list

No the Republicans in NJ did have the Governors Mansion from 1999-2001 (well 1994-2001) before the Dems took it over from 2002-2009. The Dem Legislature has worked well with Christie  though since he took over as Governor in 2010.

Well, it is certainly true that Christie Whitman is a vile and horrid ex governor, yes. But the fastest rate of government spending growth occurred under McGreevey.

[hopper]

The Dems are to far to the left on economic issues for the electorate as a whole I think as ObamaCare and Stimulus were controversal. They should just move to the center on economic issues and learn that the government can't do everything. I believe if they suffer another "schollacking" as they did in 2010 this decade the party's platform on economic issue's will be re-evaluated. I do like their platform on social issues though and it is where it needs to be as most moderates agree with their platform on social issues.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Dems are to far to the left on economic issues for the electorate as a whole I think as ObamaCare and Stimulus were controversal. They should just move to the center on economic issues and learn that the government can't do everything. I believe if they suffer another "schollacking" as they did in 2010 this decade the party's platform on economic issue's will be re-evaluated. I do like their platform on social issues though and it is where it needs to be as most moderates agree with their platform on social issues.

Most of the electorate doesn't have clearly defined preferences in terms of policy. They are manipulated by public opinion polls, different kinds of media, politicians, and other figures and institutions. There's so much misinformation and disinformation out there about "Obamacare" and such that it's rather pointless to try to extrapolate anything from the (largely manufactured) "controversies."

[hopper]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Are you in fact aware that political issues other than this one and whatever populist claptrap du jour may catch your attention exist at all?

Well, the Democrats have also succeeded in growing government health care spending at far faster rates than inflation, population growth, GDP growth, or whatever metric you choose.

Here in New Jersey the Democrats succeeded in doubling state government spending and state debt between 1999 and 2008. They didn't just go left; they fell off the map.


Indeed, here is one of my favorite charts. It is truly amazing how much compensation the teachers unions managed to acquire in a short 17 years!

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_188.asp?referrer=list

No the Republicans in NJ did have the Governors Mansion from 1999-2001 (well 1994-2001) before the Dems took it over from 2002-2009. The Dem Legislature has worked well with Christie  though since he took over as Governor in 2010.

Well, it is certainly true that Christie Whitman is a vile and horrid ex governor, yes. But the fastest rate of government spending growth occurred under McGreevey.

I don't know about vile and horrid. She did have a good first term but her second term wasn't as good as her first. She did make a couple mistakes like the tax cut and going into the pension fund to balance the budget in 1997 I think? The rate of spending that went on under McGreevey I thought continued under Corzine?

[krazen1211]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Are you in fact aware that political issues other than this one and whatever populist claptrap du jour may catch your attention exist at all?

Well, the Democrats have also succeeded in growing government health care spending at far faster rates than inflation, population growth, GDP growth, or whatever metric you choose.

Here in New Jersey the Democrats succeeded in doubling state government spending and state debt between 1999 and 2008. They didn't just go left; they fell off the map.


Indeed, here is one of my favorite charts. It is truly amazing how much compensation the teachers unions managed to acquire in a short 17 years!

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_188.asp?referrer=list

No the Republicans in NJ did have the Governors Mansion from 1999-2001 (well 1994-2001) before the Dems took it over from 2002-2009. The Dem Legislature has worked well with Christie  though since he took over as Governor in 2010.

Well, it is certainly true that Christie Whitman is a vile and horrid ex governor, yes. But the fastest rate of government spending growth occurred under McGreevey.

I don't know about vile and horrid. She did have a good first term but her second term wasn't as good as her first. She did make a couple mistakes like the tax cut and going into the pension fund to balance the budget in 1997 I think? The rate of spending that went on under McGreevey I thought continued under Corzine?

Basically, yep.

Whitman and DiFrancesco and the NJ Republicans spearheaded legislation in 2001 to artificially boost public sector pensions in a desperate attempt to cling to the legislature. It didn't work as they lost the legislature anyway. That artificial pension boost was rolled back by Chris Christie.

McGreevey boosted spending by so much that he had to use borrowing to fund operating expenses, and of course raided state transportation and unemployment funds. That was ruled illegal by the New Jersey Supreme Court, but since the NJSC is a hack destructive organization, they let him do it anyway.

Corzine didn't actually do quite so bad; in 2006 and 2007 he continued to increase spending but he was kind of screwed by McGreevey. He wasn't willing to fight the NJEA, so he stuck it hard to the private sector taxpayers instead.

[CARLHAYDEN]

According to Gallup, 29% of Democrats were Liberals in 2000, and 39% in 2011.

Also according to Gallup, 21% of Independents were Liberal in 2000, and 20% in 2011.

Republicans were 6% Liberals in 2000, and 4% in 2001.

So, yes, the Democrats have drifted to the left.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

According to Gallup, 29% of Democrats were Liberals in 2000, and 39% in 2011.

Also according to Gallup, 21% of Independents were Liberal in 2000, and 20% in 2011.

Republicans were 6% Liberals in 2000, and 4% in 2001.

So, yes, the Democrats have drifted to the left.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

Does it occur to you that self-identification based upon the vague and nonsensical terms used in American politics and media might not be the best metric for this, or that ten years might not be the timeframe most germane to the initial question?

[Brandon H]

It's not so much either party shifted left or right, but rather less and less moderates are getting elected. So the actual office holders are getting either further left or further right than in the past.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's not so much either party shifted left or right, but rather less and less moderates are getting elected. So the actual office holders are getting either further left or further right than in the past.

Yeah. 'Liberal' (American sense) Democrats are probably less liberal than they used to be but there are also a lot fewer non-liberal Democrats than in previous decades.

[Zioneer]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Seriously? You're basing a theory of Democratic leftward swing on education spending? And you're calling the student:teacher ratio nonsense? And do you even pay attention to where more spending comes from these days (hint: it's not unions)?

Seriously, you just made a bunch of bull up.

It is of course no coincidence that the nation somehow grew by roughly 600,000 teachers between 1970 and 1995 while the student population declined!

I didn't make anything up; you've been the one talking about how the student: teacher ratio is nonsense. How is it nonsense?

And do you deny that corporations spend more on politics (both sides) than unions do these days?

Either way, I can't understand how you're inferring a complete left-ward swing based on those too factors, one of which is completely false.

[smoltchanov]

It's not so much either party shifted left or right, but rather less and less moderates are getting elected. So the actual office holders are getting either further left or further right than in the past.

Yeah. 'Liberal' (American sense) Democrats are probably less liberal than they used to be but there are also a lot fewer  non-liberal Democrats than in previous decades.

Not sure about first your statement ("less liberal"), but VERY sure about second. Even more so about Republicans. As a result - no real "center", and vey boring and predictable politics in country: in 98-99% of all cases you can describe a behavoir and voting pattern of federal legislator simply by looking on a letter after his name...