Democratic Party - Political Factions Rundown

[rucky]

I'm posting this because it appears we're having continual communication problems by mislabling and mischaracterizing the factions within the Democratic Party. This is just my take on it - feel free to pipe in. I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible, and hope this thread will be used as a reference we can all pretty much agree upon for civilized discussion - in a non-inflammatory way.

DINOS & Corportists: Democrats who consistently vote with the Republicans on key votes. Consistently being the key word, here.

DLC: This is a group of key Democrats and consitiuents who believe that the way to regain a Democratic majority is to take votes directly from the Republicans. This is more of a strategic faction who gets plenty of media attention (and attention on DU) at key political times, but their strategy has been controversial to critics on both sides of the aisle. They are NOT DINOS, and don't necessarily vote in blocs. Membership in the group doesn't necessarily mean a Democrat buys the DLC philosophy whole hog.

The Senate: I consider them a political faction because they are a tight knit group that has tremendous political influence. And with just 44 members, they pretty much all talk to each other and know how votes will go down before they happen. With this power (and knowing how Republican votes will go down), they are able to engineer outcomes.

Congressional Black Caucus/Progressives: I put them together because they pretty much vote the same way and are currently focused on the same issues. They also play like they have nothing to lose. These members are outspoken, but often brushed aside and distanced from Democrats who strongly disagree, or fear a political backlash - either nationwide or in their own precinct. I'd add the union activists to this group, but they're really a breed all their own.

Populists: In this group, I'd put Dean, Clark, Hackett. Charasmatic, plain-spoken moderates who believe the way to regain a Democratic majority is by speaking their mind. Also having nothing to lose, the difference between them and progressives is that they try to appeal to a wider audience (or just do), and tend to be more "moderate," politically.

Chameleons: Seem to go where the wind blows, although you could say their main interest is in representing their consitiuents over national party politics.

Fair enough?

[RandomKoolzip]

1. Where's the "Batshit Nutball Conspiracy Theorists?"

The BNCTs are woefully underrepresented on your list.

[rucky]

2. But Neocons aren't Democrats.

they're the only BNCT's I know about.

[RandomKoolzip]

3. The Neocons promoted the idea that Bush caused the 2004 Tsunami?

I had no idea.

[Armstead]

4. DINOS and DLC are often the same

And frankly, I think the DLC is less benign than you do. I'll agree that the actual mambership is varied, but the basic organization and their goals are very closely aligned with Corporate America instead of Main St.

Even the DLCers who are well meaning have bought into a shit sandwich of the Corporate CONservative lies about how everything should be geared to benefit the oligarchs, and that will benefit the rest of us.

The DLC brings a lot of Big Money into the Party. But they also have brought in Bad Ideas too.

[rucky]

5. There's some crossover, for sure, but the real difference is:

DLC-ers still want the Democratic Party to win - no matter how misguided and self-serving their strategies may be, the intention is still there.

the DINOS don't give a shit.

[Armstead]

8. I think they want a NON Democratoc Democratic party to win

I've read that a large source of DLC money is from corporations who are hedging their bets, and want to make sure the political system works to their advantage no matter which party wins.

Unbfortunately, what that does is weaken the very basis of the Democratic Party in theory, as the liberal alternative to the pro-corporate GOP.

As for the rest of the dinos, I think that's more a mater of individual differenes. Robert Byrd, for example, is a DINO in some respoects but a traditional Democrat in otehrs.

[rucky]

9. There's 100 threads for this debate.

I'd rather not go there, but i do make my opinions very much known in those 100 threads.

[welshTerrier2]

6. i'll add a few more groups ...

in all fairness, you said "Democratic" groups but i think these should be added to your list under the heading of "Potential Democrats" ...

among this group are "Alienated Republicans" who are sick of the irresponsible fiscal policies, the trashing of the bill of rights and an out of control war policy ... no, they're not Democrats; but perhaps they could be ...

my second and third groups are "Alienated Democrats who lean Third Party" and "Alienated Democrats who don't vote at all" ... again, these groups are not currently Democrats but if we reach out to them, perhaps some of them could be ...

if we're in the politics business, we shouldn't omit them from lists like these ... otherwise, you've done a good job "labeling" us and fitting us into tidy little boxes ...

finally, you might have a catch-all group for single issue voters ... this might include anti-war people, abortion rights people, etc ... you could lump them in with progressive voters but i think in some cases they might have their own distinct characteristics ...

[rucky]

7. Maybe we can put them all into an "unrepresented" group?

Even though their beliefs are all over the place, common thread is they really have no representation. Batshit Nutjob Conspiracy Theorists included. That keeps the focus on the power struggle we've been seeing within the party leadership.

[rucky]

10. *kick*