With several threads about DU's purpose and TOS, I'll add a quote:

[wyldwolf]

"What is the background of the name 'Democratic Underground?' We were the "Underground" fighting against the Republicans, who were in power at the time. Ironically, it seems that many people took the name to mean 'Underground fighting against Democrats.' I was so naive. Back when I started this site I had no clue so many Democrats hated Democrats." - Skinner

[livetohike]

1. K&R

[BlueMTexpat]

2. Skinner is so right,

at least about the tenor of too many here discussions lately.

But I do not believe that all of the individuals here who apparently hate Democrats are actually Democrats.

There are too many persons who seem to become politically aware only for the four-year Presidential elections. They know nothing about all the hard work grassroots-level organizers, most unpaid volunteers, do even when there is no election going on. Nor do they pay any attention to the importance of local and state elections, where party organization is vital.

We have three excellent "Democratic" candidates. One has been a lifelong liberal Democrat and has the public service record to show that. One began as a liberal Republican, but has since earned and proven her loyal Dem credentials for the past 40+ years and is, hands down, one of the most qualified candidates for the Presidency ever. One is an appealing self-styled Democratic Socialist, registered as Independent, but who has historically joined the Dems in Congress and is looking for a place on the Democratic ticket.

Make no mistake. I will be proud to support any one of these three if that individual is the Dem nominee in the GE.

But I have been surprised, not that Hillary is currently the overwhelming favorite of Democratic voters at this point (if she weren't, I would be very surprised), but why Martin O'Malley - who has none of her perceived baggage - has not had more traction. I know for a fact that when Hillary groups were organizing before her official entry into the race, Martin O'Malley was perceived as a very strong candidate who was searching for support from many of the same groups. Those groups were definitely leaning towards him if Hillary didn't enter.

The thing about Bernie that most of his supporters here don't seem to realize - or perhaps some of them do - and, if so, that in itself is food for thought.

If, by some chance Bernie does win the Dem nomination, he must work with that very same Dem "establishment" that is so vilified by some (too many, IMO) here. The moment he makes his first political compromise - as he will have to do - some of his current "supporters" will throw him right under the bus. Mark my words.

[Omaha Steve]

9. I hear there is a lot of hate aimed at Democrats in the new invite only Hillaryland

What was that about hating Democrats?

[BlueMTexpat]

11. I must confess that I have

absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I am talking about DU. I am not at Hillaryland, whatever the f*** that is.

I am sorry that you are taking such a tone, OS. I i have always respected your posts, whether I agree with them or not. Is now the time for that to change? I would be sorry if so.

[Omaha Steve]

25. On the button

[BootinUp]

27. Its so easy to write that, isn't it? Just another anonymously

written and completely unsubstantiated forum post on the internet. Just to be clear, I don't question every single word in it. No, its the nasty parts.

[BlueMTexpat]

39. LOL - had been offline and

returned to find that someone's response to me had been hidden by jury decision. Thanks to whoever alerted on it if it was that bad. I'm at the point where I just use "Ignore" for such. My "Ignore" list has been growing rapidly lately.

So to those who want to post nasty comments in response to me in order to trash my candidate or her supporters, please don't bother. I won't be reading or responding.

If you want to discuss facts, issues, and differences in a reasonable manner, fine. But if all you're are doing is to regurgitate GOPer-generated TPs and discredited slurs or to dramatically announce that "we" and "the establishment" (whatever the f*** that is) are somehow the "enemy" because we support a different candidate and you somehow know more than we do about what's best for the country as a whole even though you have absolutely NO clue about who we are or what we have experienced, forget it.

No one has an exclusivity on "truth" and we should be careful how we treat each other.

What you actually manage to do with such is to taint your candidate by association - which is never a good idea when you are trying to win hearts and minds. That is a shame because these three individuals are ALL outstanding candidates.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. + 1,000,000

[Nitram]

26. I stopped posting in Bernieland because the slightest hint of criticism was met with threats. nt

[BlueMTexpat]

41. I've been banned from

the Bernie Sanders group.

Anyone who knows me in person would find that absolutely hilarious.

[BlueCaliDem]

54. I've been banned, too. :-(

I didn't know I had wandered into the Bernie Sanders group, and I made the cardinal mistake by writing in my post, "when Hillary Clinton becomes president". I didn't think that was all too bad but it was too much for the Bernie Sanders group's host to ban me on the spot instead of pointing out my mistake and giving me a chance to rectify it. I would have deleted the post had I had the chance. Oh well.

[Omaha Steve]

50. This is not the Hillary Group here

Go read the locked reply about what was going on there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251768652#post16

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. You do know that is not a sanctioned DU site right?

they did that on their own...

[Omaha Steve]

59. Yes I do

And I'm shutting up because I don't want a lock like the one above..

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. then what is the gripe?

You can always start your own! And I still have no idea what you are saying....

[cwydro]

44. But this OP is about DU, is it not?

Who cares what happens at other sites?

[Omaha Steve]

46. They are DUers acting like the Conservative Cavers

And they should be kicked out of the DU for things they have done and continue to do.

[cwydro]

47. I can't imagine that the admins here would presume to "punish" DUers (if they are DUers)

for things they do on other sites.

The admins are in charge of this site. I'll bet that takes up plenty of their time.

You really think they should spend valuable time scanning other sites to see if someone is talking about this site? From what I understand Discussionist posters frequently talk about DUers also.

Who cares? How is it hurting anyone what someone says on another site?

If it bothers you so much, you shouldn't frequent those sites. Sheesh, don't take the interwebs so darn seriously.

[Omaha Steve]

48. Well it just cost a DUer a hide talking about it

You will have to click show read it since I don't need a hide too: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251768652#post16

[cwydro]

67. I saw the post, and I wouldn't have voted to hide it.

But this is DU, and we have the jury system. The admins had nothing to do with that hide.

I just think it's silly to worry about other websites "making fun" or "picking on" DUers.

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. Since when did your favorite become a Democrat?

[sahel]

12. the presidential race is a bit like the Kentucky derby

It's the only race that attracts the publics attention once a year, and its important, but the seasoned gamblers will all tell you that theres better value on hand at any number of other races held during the year.

It rarely matters who the nominee is in policy terms. Edwards, Clinton and Obama all promoted similar healthcare proposals in 2008 and had broadly comparable outlooks on other issues.

But they can only be as liberal as congress allows them to be. Imagine if the Bernie supporters were willing to turn up at primaries for congressional members. They could easily flay the establishment dems and turn an election given the pathetically low turnout in the midterms.

No surprise that o malley is struggling. He is doing the traditional john edwards ploy of running five degrees to left of the frontrunner. Perhaps in ordinary times he would do respectably well, but times are tough and no one is going to vote for a faux leftist when they have a real one in Sanders.

[BlueMTexpat]

14. While I believe that most of what you say is

absolutely true, I cannot under stand how your logic finds O'Malley to be a "faux leftist."

I am certain that the O'Malley supporters would have a lot to say about that. O'Malley was also my governor and he was a damned good one. He has also been a lifelong Democrat.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. Well there is this...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marylanders-dont-like-martin-omalley-so-why-would-the-rest-of-america/

[BlueMTexpat]

64. Nate is spot on about

Hillary's basically taking all the air out of potential Dem endorsements for Martin. That's not her "fault" or part of any conspiracy as some like to insist here, it's just the way things are. And yes, then Bernie's candidacy basically took all the air out of positions to the left of Hillary, leaving Martin with not too much of a Dem constituency. Again, no conspiracy ....

But Nate should not attribute Larry Hogan's victory last year primarily to unpopularity for O'Malley. O'Malley's Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown was the one whose responsibility it was to oversee MD's implementation of Obamacare. If successful, this would have provided him with a great stepping stone to the highest state office. For whatever reason, MD had problems with its website, which caused problems for Brown (and O'Malley to a lesser extent as the outgoing Gov). Most of all though, Brown ran a terrible campaign, similar to the very poor campaign of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in 2004. As a final straw, MD Dems didn't take Hogan seriously.

Hogan also ran on a strategy of cutting taxes - always popular among those who can't count - which has since gotten him into trouble with the Democratic-controlled legislature, especially wrt to infrastructure projects. His actions will eventually come back and bite him, unless cancer does him in first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Hogan

As a cancer survivor myself, I am sorry to hear that Hogan has that horrible disease. But I didn't vote for him and never would unless I suddenly took leave of all my senses.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. well...

Yet Maryland voters have long viewed an O'Malley presidential candidacy skeptically. Two years ago, 21 percent of state voters said they would back him in a White House bid, 7 points better than in the new poll. In February, Clinton outpolled O'Malley nearly 10-1 among state Democrats, another Sun poll found.

"Democrats in Maryland, like other states, are expecting and wanting a Hillary candidacy," said Steve Raabe, president of OpinionWorks, the Annapolis-based firm that conducted the polls for The Sun. "That works against anybody who is not Hillary.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-sun-poll-omalley-20141012-story.html

[BlueMTexpat]

66. I believe that is more or less

what I said in my first sentence. MD Dems are pretty solidly in Hillary's column for the most part. Two years ago, Hillary had not declared. So yes, she has picked up some of Martin's support since then.

I'm not sure why we're arguing this point. Or are we?

[magical thyme]

17. If O'Malley posed a strong challenge to Clinton

I have no doubt that the PUMAs would attack him and his supporters just as hatefully as they currently attack Sanders and his supporters.

[BlueMTexpat]

20. Well, it seems to me that

the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) rhetoric seems to be coming more from Bernie's side than from Hillary's in this election, certainly as evidenced by anti-Democratic party rhetoric here on DU.

But we won't see whether your assertion has any truth unless and until that happens. I, for one, believe that O'Malley has at least one major trump card over both. He's quite a bit younger than either Hillary or Bernie. He's only a couple years older than three of my sons. At least one of them is indeed an O'Malley supporter.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

75. This ^^^^^^

[Mbrow]

18. I'd like to add this about Bernie supporters

Most of us Bernie people will vote for HRC if she wins, there are some who feel that she is just another tool of the rich and who knows? Maybe they are right, but she still will be so much better then any of the assholes running on the repug's ticket.

Most of us Bernie supporters also know that even if Bernie is elected it will be still a long row to hoe, but help is on the way. remember there is a growing black and progressive caucus and the millennials are coming to vote and they do things very different then most of us older folk do. I'm hoping the ground swell is coming, we saw some of it when BHO was elected and with some hard work and luck we can make this work for Bernie and us as well.

Just to make that point a little stronger, my wife and I worked with the local Dem's in our state. My wife was a precinct captain and when we had our caucus in 2008 we had about 10 times our normal showing, all for BHO, it was great! all the emails were collected and so many young people asked to volunteer.

So what happened next? My wife asked for the email address so she could get some organizing done an was told she couldn't have the address. When we asked why, we were told that the info was sent to the state and they would do the organizing. So we got ahold of the state people and were told "why didn't you just keep a copy?" It seems that there was a lot of foot dragging with a lot of the "good old boy" locals and the more progressive state people. Basically a whole lot of infighting that we as new comers did not see. I could spend days on this but won't.

So there is a lot of support for the progressive side of thing and the younger folk are getting tired of being push aside by the DNC.

If we get a truly progressive person in the white house I think we will start seeing a lot more grass roots support.

Just a few random thoughts.

[BlueMTexpat]

21. Nice post! eom

[DinahMoeHum]

23. +1000s

[zappaman]

49. +1

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

74. Spot on

[reformist2]

3. But what are we to do when Dems vote like Repugs? Are we to deny this fact and vote Dem anyway ???

[Yurovsky]

6. Roll over, play dead. Maybe the DLC crowd will rub your tummy...

yes, just ignore the fact that fat cat corporate interests are pouring MILLIONS, potentially BILLIONS into a certain candidates campaign. And ignore the fact that these special interests are bent on crushing the poor and working class of America, the people who voted for Presidents like FDR and Harry Truman and JFK so that they - and their children and grandchildren - might have a fighting chance against corporate slave drivers who profited from their toil.

Yes, just forget all that. Fall in line. STFU.

YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS YOU ARE TOLD!!!

When people question my motives or beliefs, I wonder just who the hell are they? I imagine more than a few are on the HRC payroll, Social Media Division (yes, I know it exists, and I know the people involved are either uninformed or have no problem with serving a corporate overlord). You want my support? Don't sell out to PURE FUCKING EVIL. If you get money from corporate special interests who oppress the poor and working class, SEND IT BACK. And when you say you will fight for poor and working class Americans and fight the 1%, make sure that your actions and deeds are consistent with your rhetoric. Stop pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.

p.s. In 2007/8 I believe I was hearing the same BS as people came after me for supporting then-Senator Obama. Some things never change...

[ejbr]

7. Excellent

This should be its own diary. What Skinner's quote seems to indicate is that this country should have more than a 2 party system. I'm sure the repugs are bickering as much as we are during this season.

[Amimnoch]

8. I frequent several battleground sites, and am a troll on a couple of conservative sites.

in 2008 they had a LOT of bickering and heated discussion.

The conservatives seem extremely dispassionate about all candidates this go around. I do feel the office of the President is ours on a silver platter if we just take it.

[Lazy Daisy]

82. If what you say is true

Then you should see the similarities of '12 Republican sites to here now. The RNC shoved Romney down everyone's throat and said vote for him. The "people" didn't want him as their candidate. (they had boat loads of crazy to pick from, but still)

Look how well that has worked out for them. Their party is a joke now. Their front runners are a couple of men who should scare the shit out of the entire world if elected. Yet they will come out in droves in rabid hatred to vote AGAINST Hillary. Someone who has been at the forefront of their hatred for 2 generations.

[classykaren]

19. I am not

[gollygee]

28. Some Dems vote with Republicans on some issues

but none vote with them on all issues, and I remember when Republicans were in control and pushed whatever they wanted through. It was horrible, and not something any Democrat, including Clinton, would have done.

TPP - they both like.
Roe v. Wade - they are different. (as an example.)

So I'll vote for Sanders in the primary, but if it's a choice between Clinton and any of the Republicans, I will vote for her.

[cantbeserious]

32. TPP Represents Corporate Profits - Roe vs Wade - Not So Much

eom

[gollygee]

33. Yeah but my life and the lives of my daughters rely on Roe v. Wade

If it ends up being a choice between corporate interests plus roe v. wade, or corporate interests minus roe v. wade, I'm all about voting for roe v. wade. I would never sit out an election because my chosen candidate didn't get the nomination.

[cantbeserious]

45. Maybe - However Thos Is An Issue The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Are Not Interested In

That is why the GOP can use it to control the political dialog in the US.

[Cha]

4. Yeah, but you can't really be sure they're dems who are hatin' on Dems.. They're just anonymous

posters on the internet who claim that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. I was told this just this week

The poster told me DU wasnt about electing Democrats....they thought it was about bashing Democrats....

[Demeter]

10. I don't see hatred of Democrats--I see hatred of people who call themselves Democrats

who aren't, except they have the coveted D after their names by some miscarriage of Party policy. Being accepted as a Democrat by others (the Public, as it were) is what counts. Not what one calls oneself.

[Bonobo]

13. Yup, that right there. nt

[kath]

40. Exactly - hatred of all the DINO ThirdWay/DLC types who have infiltrated the party of FDR.

How the hell do we get those assholes out of the Party?

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. who gets to decide?

I know one running under the Dem flag this election IS most assuredly NOT a Democrat.

[Promethean]

15. Where does policy fit in all of this?

Isn't the point of supporting the Democratic party because they have policy that we agree with? This is where the disconnect is. The Clintons are firmly members of the Democratic party. Nobody can honestly deny that. However when you examine the policy we are likely to get with a Clinton, history tells us we are just getting a Republican lite that will screw us on everything important while making comforting noises. I'd rather elect someone who actively avoids corrupting influence. Who fights against corruption every opportunity. Who pushes policy that will improve the lives of the citizens of our nation. In the end party affiliation is merely somewhat of an indication of how someone will act in office. If the goal is to simply empower the party and the reason for empowering the party is secondary then we deserve the corrupt monster we elect screwing us over.

[Vattel]

22. especially progressive democrats!

[Hoppy]

24. No, Skinner. It's not that we hate Democrats.

Rather, we have the votes and actions of some Democrats whose votes and actions hurt the American public.

Hillary and the war.

Hillary and Wall Street

Mary Landreu and health policy vote

N.J. state Democrats fucking over the public unions.

and on and on....

[leftofcool]

29. Yea, John Lewis endorsing Hillary and on and on.

[BootinUp]

30. I wish he would engage that discussion here

we could sell tickets and everything, and after Skinner kicked ass and all we could try to actually have some more positive discussions.

[Hoppy]

34. I'm open to listening to a counterpoint.

Still should we have supported Dixicrats?

[BootinUp]

35. And who would you equate to Dixiecrats

There must be someone in your mind for you to ask that question.

[Hoppy]

36. The point is that we are expected to support any candidate because they have a "D" on the ballot.

This is a question the Repubs are facing. Purists vs traditional establishment candidates.

I support progressive Democrats.

[BootinUp]

38. So there is no one today that you would equate to a Dixiecrat

its a ridiculous construction.

[Historic NY]

78. Dixiecrats are long gone.....

the went Republican after 1948 because of Segregation, if your saying they still exist then look to the few living examples in the Republican Party.

[leftofcool]

68. Wouldn't that be great?

[Island Deac]

31. Hateful is Hateful, no matter who

Hateful Zealots of any stripe are useless. I will leave here until the hate stops spewing forth. No, I am not the least interested in your choice. I will make my own choice with my own information. I do not need your help. After the results of the first primaries, I will then know the people's choices. I will not listen to your latest proclamations shouted as a warning or alert to everyone. Just go away. Go hate somewhere else.

[UglyGreed]

37. IMO not too democratic to hide

posts about the truth, Your post seems to remain in view. Mine is another story....


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251434755

[JoePhilly]

42. Can't argue with any of that.

I similarly had no idea that there were Democrat hating Democrats.

The other Democrats I know in real life see nuance, see complexity, see the need for long term strategy and reality based tactics. Optimistic people with principles, ideals, and an ability to make the steady progress our form of government requires.

It has been on DU where I've encountered this other type of Democrat. A Democrat who seems to always be unhappy with other Democrats, yet blissfully unaware of what the GOP is doing.

One who can find the grey cloud in even the bluest sky. The one who feels pure enough to sit in judgement chastising those who dare disagree with them.

[betsuni]

76. +1

[JTFrog]

43. Pretty easy to undermine by just claiming someone isn't a "real" Democrat.

At least that seems to be how it's going these days. Not too much talk about electing more Democrats around here.

[whatchamacallit]

55. We're trying to elect PEOPLE, not LABELS

At this point, with both parties controlled by powerful interests, just elect democrats is stupefyingly simplistic.

[okasha]

69. It would seem that

just don't elect Republicans is stupefyingly complicated for some folk. I don't care whether your sin is one of omission or comission. If you don't vote for the Democratic nominee you are voting for the Republican, for the repeal of Roe, Lawrence and every other pro-civil rights decision SCOTUS has handed down.

[whatchamacallit]

70. They've got us trapped in a game

that at best, maintains equilibrium, and at worst, moves the oligarchical agenda forward. How fast forward, depends on whether there's a republican or democrat in office. Hack and slash or death by a thousand cuts. I'm done being a prisoner to it. I'm done being held in suspended animation for fear of what we might lose. For the first time in years there's a candidate, Sanders, who has the will to break the cycle, and what happens? Democrats are scared he's too radical. Translation: he's not enough like a republican to win. I will follow my instincts.

[okasha]

71. Sanders may have the will to break the cycle,

but he doesn't have the ability.

As a racial and religious minority, and a lesbian, I do not care to gamble the futures of my fellow persons of color, women or my LGBT sisters and brothers. Obviously, our issues do not concern you.

[whatchamacallit]

72. Some folks

can't pay their bills, stay in their homes, feed their children, get an education, get proper healthcare for themselves and/or ailing loved ones. Your issues are of concern to me, but there are others. Before you call someone callous or selfish make sure to check yourself in the mirror. Yes, even a status quo, establishment democrat is better than any republican, but this country needs radical change. The kind that's not being provided by either party. It will happen one way or another, but not likely in a way you prefer. When it's time to cast my vote, I will weigh all the issues and make the decision I feel is best.

[okasha]

80. All those concerns

apply doubly to women, people of color, seniors. and LGBT's.

A Republican President would be utterly destructive to all non-white, non-straight, non-affluent Americans and foreign residents. Let's be honest. Sanders is a politician much like other politicians, engaged in a vanity campaign. That's all.

If you genuinely care about the groups you named, you won't risk their future by supporting a Republican, even indirectly.

[whatchamacallit]

81. IMO if those things were important to you

you'd be voting for Bernie Sanders.

[guillaumeb]

51. I agree with Skinner's self-assessment of naivete.

Democrats, in the sense of people who generally or always vote for Democratic Party candidates, are not monolithic.

Some Democrats in the spectrum of Democratic thought are right wing Democrats. Max Baucus was a good example, but there are many others. There are also progressives like Keith Ellison. But they all identify as Democrats.

This wide spectrum of opinion is what differentiates the Democratic Party from the Republican Party of 2015. The GOP votes nearly in lockstep, much more in the fashion of parties in a Parliamentary type system.

Posts in the Gun control group, the Israel/Palestine group, the religion group, all reveal very different views. And yes, some of the posts do seem to be quite strong, even hateful, but what else is expected?

[whatchamacallit]

53. The most naive assumption is

that political party affiliation somehow assures quality of character. That kind of thinking belongs in church.

[Reter]

62. Question about the TOS

Does this mean we have to pledge our support to every Democrat who wins the Party nomination? If this were 2005, I would be banned for saying I would vote for Bloomberg in NYC, despite voting for Democrats in every other election?

[Bread and Circus]

63. The Democrats who hate Democrats are the ones in power who vote against Democratic constituent inter

Yeah so when you vote to put someone out of a job or send them into a useless war.. you are harming them.

When you criticize someone who does such things you are helping them.

Skinner, DU, and many here need to understand that there is a long game here tha supercedes each election cycle.

This whole idea that we sell ourselves and each other out just to win elections is the "serious" approach is wrong headed.

We have had a Democratic President for 16 of the past 24 years and yet can we say blacks, women, minorities, and the average American worker, or privavcy minded citizen are better off?

If you pay any attention to the news and the pining of those listed above you would have to say no.

You can try to blame it all on the Republicans but it is childish and a lie to do so.

Most Americans agree with most liberal policies but we have failed to deliver them. Why?

Because we have not tied policy beliefs to party affiliation.

Why? Because for short term gains the Democrats stopped standing for any overarching belief in our policies in a steadfast way.

We just have a grab bag of social litmus tests that candidates have to past, say the "correct" things at primary time, then forget them once elected just to repeat the cycle.

Nothing ever changes for the better because nothing ever changes.

Yet on DU we just keep chanting "four legs good, two legs bad".

Many of this view this as a terminal situation.

Obama is probably the greatest politician since FDR and one of our greatest politicians of all time.

He couldn't even close Gitmo.

He couldn't even get a foot in the door version of Gitmo.

And according to Black Lives Matter not a whole lot got better for Blacks.

Well we hear Bernie Sanders is " no Obama".

Guess what Clinton is "no Obama" either. He is almost a once in a lifetime politician and was pretty disappointing from a liberal point of view.

He did save capitalism from itself.

But regarding his core campaign promise "change" he failed.

He didn't fundamentally change anything.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

73. K & R

[betsuni]

77. K&R!

[ibegurpard]

79. You've been here working to undermine traditional Democratic values

For as long as I've been here. Your opinion of the mission of this place is to be taken with a grain of salt.

[wyldwolf]

83. You get my first LOL of the day

Your opinion of the mission of this place is to be taken with a grain of salt.

You do know who's quote that is in the OP, right?

You've been here working to undermine traditional Democratic values for as long as I've been here.

If that were true, I would have been banned years ago for violating the site's TOS (also authored by the person I quoted in the OP.)

But now that we're on the subject of traditional Democratic values, which are you referring to?

Would that be the party circa 1828-1860 that favored republicanism, slavery, a weak federal government, states' rights, agrarian interests (especially Southern planters) and strict adherence to the Constitution?

Or the Democratic party of the late 1800s like the pro-business Bourbon Democrats or the 'solid south' racist Democrats?

The Agrarian Democrats of the early 1900s that put Woodrow Wilson in power?

The FDR coalition of 1932 - 1968?

The 'New Left' influenced Democrats of the late 60s and 70s?

The 'New' Democrats that has it's roots in the 60s but were most influential in 1980s - present?

The 'progressive' movement that has utterly failed to win anything?

All these groups were/are distinct. Which are the 'traditional' ones you refer to?