Progressives, we have a problem...

[MellowDem]

The party that most aligns to your views, the Democratic Party, isn't all that progressive, and a significant chunk of self-identified Democrats are bigots, homophobes, racists, sexists, and conservative.

This isn't from a collection of twitter posts. This is from polling. Feel free to dispute it, buy I think it represents a fairly accurate view.

First, keep in mind that only 32% of Americans describe themselves as Democrats. (2015)

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

8% of Democrats are not willing to vote for a Jewish president. (2015)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

11% of Democrats oppose interracial marriage (from 2011, the latest survey that split out by party affiliation).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx

15% of Democrats oppose universal healthcare (2015)

http://kff.org/uninsured/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-december-2015/

19% of Democrats identify as conservative. (2014)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

32% of Democrats don't identify as "pro-choice". (2015)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx

36% of Democrats are not willing to vote for an atheist. (2015)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

36% of Democrats identify as moderate. (2014)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

41% of Democrats are not willing to vote for a socialist. (2015)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

41% of Democrats are classified as "young Earth creationists". (2012)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

44% of Democrats oppose gay marriage. (2015)

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

A large portion of Democrats have views that are ban-worthy on DU. The way our electoral system works, progressives must work for a fairly conservative party. Only 44% of Democrats identify as "liberal".

It's hard to get excited working for a moderately conservative party. It's hard to have enthusiasm working with bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes and conservatives towards a watered down common goal. Without any political party that represents their interests, and no chance of one happening anytime soon (see corporate donations and lobbyist control), I think many progressives are disillusioned and apathetic, and may become more so, with the only motivation being fear of the far right.

[Iol59]

1. Maybe this election

Will actually make way for more than a 2 party system!

[RobertEarl]

6. whoa, dude

The reality is the party is polluted. And that's part of the reason the country has so many problems.

And then we get some of those who are polluters coming around and yelling their conservative, NO YOU CAN'T negative crap and then cry like little kids when we tell them we AIN'T voting for someone who does not represent our ideals.

We do have a problem in the party. You can choose to be a part of the solution or the pollution.

Remember this in the OP? Many Democrats, were they to post their politics on DU would be summarily banned.

[Hoyt]

3. I'm not sure about that poll. For example, I think most Dems will vote for Sanders if he gets

nomination. But, yeah, there are still some Dixiecrat types around. Fortunately, not many.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. There is no poll that says they wouldn't, you are making that up. Fact is any LGBT Democrat can tell

you that it was not Republican minds we sought to change, they still have not changed. What we needed was to get enough Democrats to drop the bigotry and support equality. Democrats were the opposition. Republicans still are. Straights on DU get very upset at LGBT disruptive activists 'why don't they interrupt some Republicans' they say. What good is taking action to influence Republicans? No good at all. Who were the people blocking our progress who might listen? Democrats.

On DU, like it or not, many of the Straights who pose as being all about equality and justice opposed LGBT equality a few years ago, some still do. Every day I read nasty comments, many Straights on DU feel that the closet is a privilege and that's really the worst sort of bigotry there is, soft and nasty and self excusing.

[BillZBubb]

16. Hey Blue, not to be argumentative but

I think disrupting republicans on any issue is a good idea, especially for LGBT activists. Why? Because you push them farther to the right. Your influence on them is that they double down on the crazy. When that happens people in the middle actually start to think seriously about the issue--and they start pulling away from the republicans.

[Hoyt]

17. Whoo. I'm responding to lines like 41% of Dems would no vote for a socialist.

I don't think it is that high, at least I hope not.

[Old Codger]

4. we

work with what we have until we can have what we work for..

[Dem2]

5. Only 44% of Democrats identify as "liberal".

Perhaps that's changing?

[BillZBubb]

7. Or perhaps the meaning of liberal has been totally degraded by the move to the right?

If those voters were true liberals, Sanders would have won every primary. Moderate is the new liberal.

[Art_from_Ark]

8. Yup-- and '60s mainstream liberal (like JFK, RFK, Frank Church, Mike Mansfield)

is the new "left fringe"

[Dem2]

12. Ahhh, so liberal means "march in lockstep"

Got it.

[BillZBubb]

15. No, liberal means, you know, supporting a real liberal candidate.

Anyone can say they are a liberal, but the meaning of the term had degraded significantly over time. More people want to think of themselves as liberal given how crazy the conservatives have gotten. But a lot of those self-identified liberals espouse policies that were solidly republican a few decades ago. They aren't FDR liberals.

For instance, many third wayer's consider themselves liberal. And they are to varying degrees on social issues. Hillary is like that. On economic issues and foreign policy though, she's a conservative. That's the third way.

[yawnmaster]

9. The Democratic party has always been a very diverse party. More so than the Republicans and most...

other parties that I can think of.
The Spectrum is wide from conservative to liberal and covering many issues.
A "pure" party it isn't and isn't meant to be.
It is a pretty good representation of American opinion.

[Hydra]

10. IMO, it's because the many of the people who care about those issues were forced out of the party

So the question comes- salvage the party, or start a new one?

[VulgarPoet]

14. Start a new one. This one is beyond salvaging. n/t

[dreamnightwind]

11. I think we have an even worse divide on economic and corporate issues

The takeover of the party by DLC/Third Way types has left us at war with our own party members over issues like ramping up leveraged finance, profiteering, militarism, return to a simpler lifestyle with smaller carbon footprints, americans workers competing dollar for dollar with workers in other countries who make 1/10 as much, police state and incarceration, unsustainable corporate agricultural practices, etc.

So on the one hand we have members still part of the old guard who have yet to evolve substantially on social issues, conflicting with a newer demographic that is more generally accepting.

On the other hand, we have corporatists and populists fighting for control.

Plenty of overlap between the two schisms.

Personally my priority is electing people who don't accept corporate money. If we can perfect a methodology for doing so, we can get our party to be a legitinate force for political change.

If we can't accomplish that, I don't think the party serves any useful purpose, we're always getting triangulated to death, literally, and we will desperately need to start a new one that right from the start disavows corporate money.

We all have different priorities, those are mine.