New Democrats, also known as centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats or moderate Democrats, are a centristideological faction within the Democratic Party in the United States. As the Third Way faction of the party, they are seen as culturally liberal on social issues while being moderate or fiscally conservative on economic issues.[1] New Democrats dominated the party from the late 1980s through the early-2010s,[2] and continue to be a large coalition in the modern Democratic Party.[3][4]
However, with the rise of progressivism in 2016 and 2020, [5] and the right-wing populism of Donald Trump,[6] New Democrats began to change and update their ideological positions.[7][8][9] For example, New Democrat candidates have shifted from focusing on "defense of marriage" platforms to casting "the issue of transgender rights" as contentious.[10][11] Similarly, debates over tax cuts on capital gains have been reconfigured to removing caps on state and local tax deduction.[12]
Despite expansion of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, even with stricter criteria for "Progressive" representation in Congress, the New Democrats' Progressive Policy Institute (established in 1989) persists into the present day, recently sponsoring "young pragmatists" at the rechristened Center for New Liberalism[13] (formerly known as the Neoliberal Project) to "modernize progressive politics."[14]
In 2024, the Congressional Progressive Caucus lost approximately eight members, but gained seven. At least two of the Progressive Caucus freshmen plan to hold seats in the New Democrat Coalition as well, joining Sara Jacobs. The NDC lost approximately five members, but gained twenty-three, reestablishing the coalition as the leading Democratic partisan caucus in Congress.[15][16] One week after the election, multiple news outlets reported that leaders from both caucuses blamed each other for Democratic Party losses in 2024.[17][18][19]
During the 1970s energy crisis, the United States faced stagflation, that is both increasing inflation and decreasing economic growth.[20] The 1974 midterm elections, according to historian Brent Cebul, "are remembered for the arrival of the 'Watergate babies' in the House of Representatives, but the New Democrats’ first electoral wave was broader and deeper still...some western and northeastern officials like [Michael] Dukakis were dubbed Atari Democrats thanks to their veneration of new, entrepreneurial, high-technology sectors of the economy. This group, which included [Gary] Hart and California Governor Jerry Brown, also sometimes called themselves 'New Liberals' in an effort to signal their support for traditional liberal social values even as they pursued market-oriented and perhaps less bureaucratic ways of governing." Another "primary strand" could be found in "the South, often as self-consciously 'centrist' Democrats. Led by politicians like Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, the southern centrists echoed southern Democrats of the past in their skepticism for targeted welfare or antipoverty programs, and they also looked forward to stimulating the region's post-industrial and 'post-racial' future."[21]
The Watergate Babies and Atari Democrats found a common thread in supply-side progressivism. Ideas stemming from consultation with "southern centrists" became "supply-side liberalism" that, according to Cebul, ultimately proved a fiscal illusion.[22]Michael Dukakis and Jerry Brown, for instance, both appropriated property taxes to subsidize a given startup company in depressed industrial sectors. This subsidization transformed state tax revenue for public finance into venture capital. Once the first wave of startups achieved normal profit, then the tax burden for additional start-ups would shift from real estate investors and homeowners to the initial companies. Brown and Dukakis also planned to use revenue from the new taxable capital for "infrastructure and education." During the Carter and Reagan Administrations, voter tax revolts and the Volcker recession, coupled with uneven profit thresholds for taxing scaled-up companies, hastened the shift in tax burden to the entire first wave.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
Even if absent from partisan politics for one or more election cycles, "supply-side liberals" could and did campaign to reconcile "job and tax generation with the market-oriented ethos of the 1980s" during reelection bids. Once back in office during the early 1980s recession in the United States, Dukakis and his cohort incrementally diverged from "supply-side liberalism" as it operated prior to the tax revolts. Beginning in 1982, for instance, Dukakis altered the role of his Massachusetts Technology Development Corporation (1978) from tax revenue distribution to "broker[ing] deals" between "high-tech companies and Boston-based venture capital firms." This gradual change diminished his own role in the ensuing Massachusetts Miracle, a cornerstone of his campaign during the 1988 United States presidential election. Conversely, 1980s changes later became key tenets of New Democrat platforms.[30][31][32]
The Democratic Leadership Council and Progressive Policy Institute
After the landslide defeats to the Republican Party led by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was out of touch and in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance.[33][34] The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists.[35] Prominent Democratic politicians such as Senators Al Gore and Joe Biden (both future vice presidents, and Biden, a future president) participated in DLC affairs prior to their candidacies for the 1988 Democratic Party nomination.[36] The DLC did not want the Democratic Party to be "simply posturing in the middle", and instead framed its ideas as "progressive" and as a "Third Way" to address the problems of its era. Examples of the DLC's policy initiatives can be found in The New American Choice Resolutions.[36][37]
In 1989, the "New Democrat" label was briefly used by a progressivereformist group including Gary Hart and Eugene McCarthy.[38] That same year, Will Marshall founded the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) as a think tank to formulate a new common platform for Yellow Dogs, Atari Democrats, and Watergate Babies. In 1990, the DLC renamed its bi-monthly magazine from The Mainstream Democrat to The New Democrat.[39] The PPI, in conjunction with Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and the DLC, subsequently introduced tentative precepts collected in a New Orleans Declaration. By 1992, "New Democrats" had become more widely associated with this Declaration as well as Democratic partisans who entwined presidential hopeful Jesse Jackson's variant of Rainbow/PUSH with the Sister Souljah moment.[40][41]
Aspirations for "supply-side liberalism" had been rebuffed by voters and state auditors alike. According to Cebul, the rechristened "New Democrats" espoused "a reflexive veneration of the market as the essential underwriter of social progress." They first sought to accelerate capital and money coursing through a post-industrial economy. The PPI and DLC forecasted financial deregulation and tax cuts as avenues to facilitate the expansion of scaleup companies invested in computational and internet technology. These companies would provide the venture capital necessary to pave over ailing industrial regions with post-industrial start-ups. The role of government was to remove any perceived obstacles. Heeding the lessons of tax resistance, the New Democrat think tank and leadership council also aimed to reduce the federal deficit and interest rates, while expanding the mortgage-backed security industry and credit market for a real estate sector that had roundly rejected property taxes. The voters who had stymied "supply side liberalism" would become a New Democrat vanguard.[42][43]
Bill Clinton, the DLC chairman who referred to the PPI as his "idea mill", faced a peculiar dilemma. He had to somehow circumvent voter preconceptions of financial deregulatory laws and capital gains tax reductions as antithetical to "social progress", while concurrently accepting the duty of the largest party plurality, namely to advance the mid- to late twentieth-century Democratic partisan goal of "social progress." Cebul and additional scholars conclude that the DLC as well as PPI, and Clinton more specifically, offered a possible solution: cast "the poor as unrealized entrepreneurs and impoverished communities as untapped 'new markets' ", ostensibly combining financial deregulation with claims for "social progress" in syncretic politics. After the 1988 elections that perpetuated the Reagan era, this did not seem such a controversial goal for a new national Democratic Party leader.[44]
Clinton needed new frameworks for political economy, society, and culture, both to implement and sustain his proposed solution. He sought de jure and de facto advisors that would, in turn, move beyond syncretic politics to accomplish aspects of this vision. First he had to run for President and New Democrats had to take seats in Congress. Clinton stepped down as DLC chairman and prepared for a campaign.[45] The 1992 presidential election occurred shortly after the end of the Cold War, at a time when faith in capitalism and internationalism were at their height, providing an opportunity for Bill Clinton to focus on domestic policy.[46]
New Democrats are often regarded to have inspired Tony Blair in the United Kingdom and his policies within the Labour Party as New Labour, as well as prompting the continental conflation of Third Way approaches to social democracy with previous notions of democratic socialism. The two were often used interchangeably by political scientists and fostered popular conceptions of democratic socialism as a social democratic variant of libertarian socialism.[48]
Clinton presented himself as a centrist candidate to draw White middle-class voters who had left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party. Until 2016 and even after, the Third Way defined and dominated notions of centrism in U.S. partisan politics. In 1990, Clinton became the DLC chair. Under his leadership, the DLC founded two-dozen chapters and created a base of support.[36] Running as a New Democrat, Clinton won the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections.[49] Some political analysts like Kenneth Baer contended the DLC embodied the spirit of Truman-Kennedy era Democrats and were vital to the Democratic party's resurgence after the presidential election losses of liberals George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis.[50][51]
Legislation signed into domestic law with bipartisan support under President Clinton includes:
The North American Free Trade Agreement, a core international agreement signed during Bush Administration without NAALC/NAAEC and required Congressional approval for implementation. It is still largely in effect via the succeeding USMCA and proposed IPEF.
The Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. (It was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 and repealed in 2022, the latter with support from 24% of the Congressional GOP).
The Clinton administration, supported by congressional New Democrats, was responsible for proposing and passing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which increased Medicare taxes for taxpayers with annual incomes over $135,000, yet also reduced Medicare spending and benefits across all tax brackets. Congressional Republicans demanded even deeper cuts to Medicare, but Clinton twice vetoed their bills. The Clinton administration in turn taxed individuals earning annual incomes over $115,000, but also defined taxable "small business" earnings as less than approximately $10 million in annual gross revenue, with tax brackets for high-gross incorporated businesses beginning at that number. According to the Clinton Foundation, the revised brackets and categories increased taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers within these new brackets,[53] while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses. "Small businesses" and taxpayer classifications were reconfigured by these new tax brackets.[54] Again, according to the Clinton Foundation, these brackets raised the top marginal tax rate from 31% to 40%. Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years through the implementation of spending restraints.
Bill Clinton's promise of welfare reform was passed in the form of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. Prior to 2018, critics such as Yascha Mounk contended that Clinton's arguments for the virtues of "negative" notions of "personal responsibility [New Orleans Declaration: 'individual responsibility']," propounded within DLC circles during the 1980s, stemmed more from Ronald Reagan's specific conception of "accountability" than any "positive notion of responsibility."[55][6]:116 Additional critics distinguish the New Democrat idea of "personal responsibility" from arguments over the extent of limitations on government, if any, in platforms that advance social responsibility. The 1996 United States presidential election, the temporary relegation of Hillary Clinton to the global promotion of microcredit (argued by Claremont McKenna College historian Lily Geismer),[56] partisan compromises over this act, conflicts within the Democratic Party, as well as the act's multivalent consequences, all contributed to deliberations over passage and execution of the PRWORA.[57]
Democratic partisan criticism of the first Clinton administration as well as the formation of the Blue Dog Coalition, particularly in response to proposals and actions by the First Lady, followed 1994 congressional New Democrat losses in the southeast and west coast.[58] Bill Clinton's reassertion as a New Democrat during the 1996 presidential elections, and passage of the PRWORA, contributed to the founding of the New Democrat Coalition, reaffirming Clintonian Democrats as New Democrats.[42] As of August 2023, 23% of the New Democrat Coalition have become simultaneous members of, or declared an intention to vote for more proposals by, the Congressional Progressive Caucus. A number of these delegates, most notably Shri Thanedar, faced backlash from pundits and constituents alike, as evidence surfaced of alleged involvement in post-2016 attempts to rally neoconservatism.[59]
Presidency of Barack Obama
Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, 2012
In March 2009, Barack Obama, said in a meeting with the New Democrat Coalition that he was a "New Democrat" and a "pro-growth Democrat", that he "supports free and fair trade" and that he was "very concerned about a return to protectionism."[60]
The Obama Administration espoused "free and fair trade" ideas. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) proponents postponed TPP drafting after Obama became President, only to commence "formal" Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2010, after Executive Office (EO) disclosure of an endorsement, albeit with Obama's proposed revisions on, for instance, intellectual property. Early drafts of Executive Order 13609, "Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation", buttressed the TPP deliberations with the premise that "inadequate cooperation and consultation" had been caused by "excessive red tape" for "businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises operating near the border."[61] In the final draft, Obama regulatory advisors applied the Executive Order to all such "enterprises", in the absence of regional and tax bracket classifications, operating within "North America and beyond."[62][63] Three years later, the Obama EO released 'The Economic Benefits of U.S. Trade' (2015), a signatory framework for prospective drafts of the TPP and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). According to the Obama EO, free trade "help[s] developing countries lift people out of poverty" and "expand[s] markets for U.S. exports."[64]
Throughout Obama's tenure, approximately 1,000 Democrats lost their seats across all levels of government.[65] Specifically, 958 state legislature seats, 62 house seats, 11 Senate seats, and 12 governorships,[66] with a majority of these elected officials identifying as New Democrats. Some analysts such as Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight, believe this was due to the changing demographic shift, as more Democrats identified as liberal in 2016 than moderate.[67] Consequently, many pundits believed that Obama's tenure marked an end of the New Democrats' dominance in the party, although the faction still remains an important part of the party's big tent.[3] Obama signed the draft Trans-Pacific Partnership, yet subsequently declared his "Economic Benefits of Free Trade" framework as "dead" prior to the lame-duck session of Congress, in anticipation of bipartisan opposition to TPP ratification.[68]
Decline in recent years
Historian Gary Gerstle argues that support for neoliberalism declined in the United States in both parties in 2016, with both Trumpism and progressivism opposing central tenets of neoliberalism. For example, Trump and Sanders both opposed the Transatlantic Pacific Partnership during the 2016 United States presidential election. President Trump then refused to sign any draft TPP, precluding further revisions to garner U.S. participation.[6] In contrast, Trump initially indicated willingness to continue TTIP negotiations with substantial changes.[69] On the eve of the COVID-19 pandemic, the TTIP dissolved into trade disputes between the European Union (EU) and the Trump Administration. Trump's approach to curbing the pandemic became the focus of EU delegate concerns, superseding the unresolved trade conflicts.[70]
Despite this, New Democrats have continued to be a large coalition within the big tent of the Democratic Party.[71] The New Democrat Coalition had 103 members after the 2018 House elections, and has maintained at least 90 members as of 2023.[72]
John Podesta served as an advisor to all three U.S. Presidents who led the New Democrats
Ahead of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, many New Democrats were backing the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, the wife of former New Democrat president, Bill Clinton who served as a senator from New York during the 2000s and as Barack Obama's Secretary of State during the early 2010s. Originally considered to be an expected nominee, Clinton faced an unexpected challenge from Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders, whose campaign garnered the support of progressive and younger Democrats. Ultimately, Clinton won 34 of the 57[a] contests, compared to Sanders' 23, and garnered about 55 percent of the vote. Nevertheless, commentators saw the primary as a decline in the strength of New Democrats in the party, and an increasing influence of progressive Democrats within the party.
Although the ensuing controversy initially focused on emails that dated from relatively late in the primary, when Clinton was nearing the party's nomination,[74] the emails cast doubt on the DNC's neutrality towards progressive and moderate candidates.[77][78][79][80][81] This was evidenced by alleged bias in the scheduling and conduct of the debates,[b] as well as controversial DNC–Clinton agreements regarding financial arrangements and control over policy and hiring decisions.[c] Other media commentators have disputed the significance of the emails, arguing that the DNC's internal preference for Clinton was not historically unusual and didn't affect the primary enough to sway the outcome.[89][90][91][92] The controversies ultimately led to the formation of a DNC "unity" commission to recommend reforms in the party's primary process.[93][94]
The winner of the 2020 United States presidential election was Joe Biden, who served as vice president under Barack Obama. Although Biden has not explicitly self-identified as a New Democrat, Biden identifies as a moderate Democrat and opposes some progressive positions.[95] During his presidency, Biden has broken with New Democrat policies on some issues, such as spending and free trade.[96]
In the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, 13 Democrats lost their seats. All thirteen Democrats that lost their seats had won in the 2018 mid-term elections. Of those 13 members, 10 of them were New Democrats. During the 117th United States Congress, the New Democrat Coalition lost its status as the largest ideological coalition in favor of the more left leaning Congressional Progressive Caucus. The CPC was founded in 1991, but only began catching up and eventually surpassed the New Democrat Coalition in the 2010s.[97][9]
As of December 2023, Biden has largely maintained Trump's protectionist trade policies, and has not negotiated any new free trade agreements. Labor unions, an important constituency for Biden’s re-election, opposed removing Trump's tariffs.[99] The PPI pressured the Biden Administration to revoke Obama's "dead" position and join the TPP.[100] Instead, the Biden Executive Office negotiated and initiated the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). The 2024 United States presidential election, as well as partisan dissent in participating member-states, forestalled further implementation and ratification of the IPEF.[101]
The defeat of Kamala Harris in the 2024 United States presidential election occasioned a variety of responses from think tanks and political journals. William Galston of the Brookings Institution, for example, argued that "by refusing to explain why she had abandoned the progressive positions on crime, immigration, health care, and climate change, she blurred the public’s perception of her", while, conversely, opening "the door to the Trump campaign’s charge that she was a closet radical."[104] According to D. D. Guttenplan, writers for The Nation had forecasted the results. For example, "cozily campaigning with the Cheneys, we warned, was likely to alienate as least as many potential voters as it attracted." Contributors noted that Gaza had additionally given the Trump campaign an antiwar veneer. Likewise, John Nichols, again writing in The Nation, observed both Bernie Sanders and Shawn Fain, despite outward appearances, desperately attempting to persuade the Harris campaign "to return to the economic populism—and clear appeal to working-class voters—they had embraced in Chicago (only to abandon it in favor of attacks on Trump’s character once the big donors weighed in)."[105]
Politico found a common thread for Democrats who won swing districts as well. These candidates, contributors maintained, all elucidated their respective platforms on economics, labor, abortion rights, and gun control, rather than solely engaging in Trump resistance politics during their campaigns. The same report also indicated that "centrists have urged the party to de-emphasize cultural issues after Trump successfully ran TV ads knocking Harris over transgender policies that after-action reports found helped persuade working-class voters." Pundits distinguished the " 'cultural estrangement between a lot of voters out there and the Democrats' " from the "economic concerns" that Democratic Party candidates should have explicated for voters without access to college education. In this assessment, then, the "centrist" critique rested on a deemphasis of "cultural issues" and a reemphasis on " 'working-class voters.' " However, with the change in electoral coalitions of both parties, new ideological positions may appear.[106]
Politico subsequently reported that the Progressive Caucus fully supported the fulfillment of Trump's campaign promises on Social Security, taxes on tips, and ten-percent limits to credit card interest rates. But if these promises weren't fulfilled, the Progressive Caucus planned to seize the opportunity.[107] The Indivisible movement concurrently introduced their new "Trump 2.0" guide, which called for civic activism to "blunt the damage" from the 2024 elections, rather than "Trump 1.0" resistance, tout court.[108]
Ideology
According to Dylan Loewe, New Democrats tend to identify as fiscally moderate-to-conservative and socially liberal.[1]
Columnist Michael Lind argued that neoliberalism for New Democrats was the "highest stage" of left liberalism. The countercultureyouth of the 1960s became more fiscally conservative in the 1970s and 1980s but retained their cultural liberalism. Many leading New Democrats, including Bill Clinton, and Gary Hart, started out in the George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party and gradually moved toward the right on economic and military policy.[109] According to historian Walter Scheidel, both major political parties shifted towards promoting free-market capitalism in the 1970s, with Republicans moving further to the political right than Democrats to the political left. He noted that Democrats played a significant role in the financial deregulation of the 1990s.[110] Gerstle and anthropologist Jason Hickel contended that the neoliberal policies of the Reagan era were carried forward by the Clinton administration, forming a new economic consensus which crossed party lines.[111][6]:137–138,155–157 According to Gerstle, "across his two terms, Clinton may have done more to free markets from regulation than even Reagan himself had done."[6]:137–138,155–157
Historian Michael Kazin argues that New Democrat fiscal and monetary ideas marked a divergence from U.S. fiscal variants of Keynesian public spending. Keynesian economics aimed to stimulate individual and group consumption of goods and services in a given economic sector, until monetary circulation crossed a predetermined sector threshold for contraction in economic liberalism. This U.S. iteration of Keynesianism, coupled with budget deficits, began during the latter half of the Second New Deal and became a hallmark of early Cold War liberalism.[112]
The Democratic Leadership Council, the organization that produced such figures as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman and Terry McAuliffe, has long been pushing the party to forget blue-collar voters and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues. The larger interests that the DLC wants desperately to court are corporations, capable of generating campaign contributions far outweighing anything raised by organized labor. The way to collect the votes and -- more important -- the money of these coveted constituencies, "New Democrats" think, is to stand rock-solid on, say, the pro-choice position while making endless concessions on economic issues, on welfare, NAFTA, Social Security, labor law, privatization, deregulation and the rest of it.
—Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas? (2004), p. 243
Journalist Michael Cuenco argues that New Democrats have caused the Democratic Party to lose voters without college degrees, who make up the majority of voters.[128]
Consider that when Obama last ran, the Midwest was still known as an impenetrable Blue Wall, while Florida and Ohio were still purple states. When Bill Clinton gave his acceptance speech in 1996, the Democrats were competitive throughout large swathes of the South. During that period, they had gone on to win not just Clinton’s Arkansas and Al Gore’s Tennessee, but states such as Kentucky and Louisiana too. The story of the last three decades has been one of political success for Democrats, who have won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight elections. Yet it is also one of narrowing political constituencies and pyrrhic victories, as the party attracted college-educated professionals at the expense of the non-college-educated majority. In particular, non-college-educated whites were lost, but in recent years they have increasingly been joined by significant numbers of non-college-educated minorities.
↑ Although there are 50 states, the Democratic primaries include contests in six U.S. territories, and one contest of Democrats Abroad, who are American expatriates.
↑ As far back as 2015, the sharp reduction of the debate schedule, as well as the days and times, had been criticized by multiple rivals as biased in Clinton's favor.[82] The DNC denied bias, claiming to be cracking down on the non-sanctioned debates that proliferated in recent cycles, while leaving the number of officially sanctioned debates the same as in 2004 and 2008.[83][84]Donna Brazile, who succeeded Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair after the first batch of leaks,[85] was shown in the emails leaking primary debate questions to the Clinton campaign before the debates were held, although a senior aide to Sanders came to Brazile's defense and tried to downplay the issue.[86]
↑ Brazile went on to write a book about the primary and what she called "unethical" behavior in which the DNC (after its debt from 2012 was resolved by the Clinton campaign) gave the Clinton campaign control over hirings and press releases, and allegedly helped it circumvent campaign finance regulation.[87] Several Democratic leaders responded that the joint-fundraising agreement was standard, was for the purpose of the general election, and was also offered to the Sanders campaign. Another agreement that came to light gave the Clinton campaign powers over the DNC well before the primary was decided. Some media commentators noted that the Clinton campaign's level of influence on staffing decisions was indeed unusual and could have ultimately influenced factors such as the debate schedule.[88][89]
Related Research Articles
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation that was active from 1985 to 2011. Founded and directed by Al From, it argued that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it had taken since the late 1960s. One of its main purposes was to win back white middle-class voters with ideas that addressed their concerns. The DLC hailed the election and reelection of Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story.
James Enos Clyburn is an American politician serving as the U.S. representative for South Carolina's 6th congressional district. First elected in 1992, Clyburn represents a congressional district that includes most of the majority-black precincts in and around Columbia and Charleston, as well as most of the majority-black areas outside Beaufort and nearly all of South Carolina's share of the Black Belt. Since Joe Cunningham's departure in 2021, Clyburn has been the only Democrat in South Carolina's congressional delegation and as well as the dean of this delegation since 2011 after fellow Democrat John Spratt lost re-election.
In politics, triangulation is a strategy associated with U.S. President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The politician presents a position as being above or between the left and right sides or wings of a democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
The Democratic Party is one of the two major political parties of the United States political system and the oldest active political party in the country, as well as in the world. The Democratic Party was founded in 1828. It is also the oldest active voter-based political party in the world. The party has changed significantly during its nearly two centuries of existence. Once known as the party of the "common man", the early Democratic Party stood for individual rights and state sovereignty, and opposed banks and high tariffs. In the first decades of its existence, from 1832 to the mid-1850s, under Presidents Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, and James K. Polk, the Democrats usually bested the opposition Whig Party by narrow margins.
From January 3 to June 3, 2008, voters of the Democratic Party chose their nominee for president in the 2008 United States presidential election. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was selected as the nominee, becoming the first African American to secure the presidential nomination of any major political party in the United States. However, due to a close race between Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, the contest remained competitive for longer than expected; neither candidate received enough pledged delegates from state primaries and caucuses to achieve a majority, without endorsements from unpledged delegates (superdelegates).
The Democratic Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States. Since the late 1850s, its main political rival has been the Republican Party; which have since dominated American politics.
The Democratic Party of the United States is a party composed of various factions. The liberal faction supports modern liberalism that began with the New Deal in the 1930s and continued with both the New Frontier and Great Society in the 1960s. The moderate faction supports Third Way politics that includes center-left social policies and centrist fiscal policies. The progressive faction supports progressivism.
The Reagan era or the Age of Reagan is a periodization of recent American history used by historians and political observers to emphasize that the conservative "Reagan Revolution" led by President Ronald Reagan in domestic and foreign policy had a lasting impact. It overlaps with what political scientists call the Sixth Party System. Definitions of the Reagan era universally include the 1980s, while more extensive definitions may also include the late 1970s, the 1990s, and even the 2000s. In his 2008 book, The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974–2008, historian and journalist Sean Wilentz argues that Reagan dominated this stretch of American history in the same way that Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal legacy dominated the four decades that preceded it.
The 2016 Democratic National Convention was a presidential nominating convention, held at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from July 25 to 28, 2016. The convention gathered delegates of the Democratic Party, the majority of them elected through a preceding series of primaries and caucuses, to nominate a candidate for president and vice president in the 2016 United States presidential election. Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was chosen as the party's nominee for president by a 54% majority of delegates present at the convention roll call securing it over primary rival Senator Bernie Sanders, who received 46% of votes from delegates, and becoming the first female candidate to be formally nominated for president by a major political party in the United States. Her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia, was confirmed by delegates as the party's nominee for vice president by acclamation.
NGP VAN, Inc. is an American privately owned voter database and web hosting service provider used by the Democratic Party, Democratic campaigns, and other non-profit organizations authorized by the Democratic Party. The platform or service is used by political and social campaigns for fundraising, campaign finance compliance, field organizing, and digital organizing. NGP VAN, Inc. was formerly known as Voter Activation Network, Inc. and changed its name to NGP VAN, Inc. in January 2011. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Washington, D.C., with an additional location in Somerville, Massachusetts.
Presidential primaries and caucuses were organized by the Democratic Party to select the 4,051 delegates to the 2016 Democratic National Convention held July 25–28 and determine the nominee for President in the 2016 United States presidential election. The elections took place within all fifty U.S. states, the District of Columbia, five U.S. territories, and Democrats Abroad and occurred between February 1 and June 14, 2016. Between 2008 and 2020, this was the only Democratic Party primary in which the nominee had never been nor had ever become President of the United States. This was the first time the Democratic primary had nominated a woman for president.
The 2016 United States elections were held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Republican nominee Donald Trump defeated Democratic former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, while Republicans retained control of Congress. This marked the first time Republicans won or held unified control of the presidency and Congress since 2004, and would not do so again until 2024.
The 2016 United States presidential election in Iowa was held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, as part of the 2016 United States presidential election in which all 50 states plus the District of Columbia participated. Iowa voters chose electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote, pitting the Republican Party's nominee, businessman Donald Trump, and his running mate Indiana Governor Mike Pence against the Democratic Party nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and her running mate Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. Iowa has six electoral votes in the Electoral College.
The 2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia was held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, as part of the 2016 United States presidential election in which all fifty states and the District of Columbia participated. District of Columbia voters chose electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote, pitting the Republican Party's nominee, businessman Donald Trump, and running mate Indiana Governor Mike Pence against Democratic Party nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and her running mate Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. The District of Columbia has three electoral votes in the Electoral College. Prior to the election, Clinton was considered to be virtually certain to win Washington DC.
The 2016 Maryland Democratic presidential primary was held on April 26 in the U.S. state of Maryland as one of the Democratic Party's primaries ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
The 2016 New Jersey Democratic presidential primary was held on June 7 in the U.S. state of New Jersey as one of the Democratic Party's primaries ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
In the United States, Sanders–Trump voters, also known as Bernie–Trump voters, are Americans who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 or 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, but who subsequently voted for Republican Party nominee Donald Trump in the general election. In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, these voters composed an estimated 6%-12% of Sanders supporters.
From January 23 to June 8, 2024, presidential primaries and caucuses were organized by the Democratic Party to select the delegates to the 2024 Democratic National Convention, to determine the party's nominee for president in the 2024 United States presidential election. The elections took place in all U.S. states except Florida and Delaware, in the District of Columbia, in five U.S. territories, and as organized by Democrats Abroad.
The 2024 United States presidential election in Iowa was held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, as part of the 2024 United States presidential election in which all 50 states plus the District of Columbia participated. Iowa voters chose electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote. The state of Iowa has six electoral votes in the Electoral College, following reapportionment due to the 2020 United States census in which the state neither gained nor lost a seat.
The Democratic Party of the United States is composed of various demographic groups.
↑ Kane, Paul (January 15, 2014). "Blue Dog Democrats, whittled down in number, are trying to regroup". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 16, 2014. Retrieved July 23, 2014. Four years ago, they were the most influential voting bloc on Capitol Hill, more than 50 House Democrats pulling their liberal colleagues to a more centrist, fiscally conservative vision on issues such as health care and Wall Street reforms.
↑ Cebul, Brent (March 14, 2023). Illusions of Progress: Business, Poverty, and Liberalism in the American Century. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp.1–24. ISBN978-1-5128-2382-0.
↑ Fleegler, Robert L. (2023). Brutal campaign: how the 1988 election set the stage for twenty-first-century American politics. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN978-1-4696-7337-0.
↑ Martin, Isaac William (March 5, 2008). The Permanent Tax Revolt: How the Property Tax Transformed American Politics. Stanford University Press. pp.50–97. ISBN978-0-8047-6317-2.
↑ Cebul, Brent; Geismer, Lily; Williams, Mason B.; Kahrl, Andrew (February 21, 2019). "The Short End of Both Sticks: Property Assessments and Black Taxpayer Disadvantage in Urban America". Shaped by the State: Toward a New Political History of the Twentieth Century. University of Chicago Press: 189–217.
↑ Cebul, Brent (March 14, 2023). Illusions of Progress: Business, Poverty, and Liberalism in the American Century. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp.240–266.
↑ Geismer, Lily (2017). Don't Blame Us: Suburban Liberals and the Transformation of the Democratic Party. Princeton University Press. pp.251–280. ISBN978-0-691-17623-9.
1 2 Cebul, Brent (March 14, 2023). Illusions of Progress: Business, Poverty, and Liberalism in the American Century. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp.90–95 and 265–290. ISBN978-1-5128-2382-0.
↑ Atkinson, Robert D. (October 24, 2006). Supply-Side Follies: Why Conservative Economics Fails, Liberal Economics Falters, and Innovation Economics is the Answer. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp.56–58 and 207–210. ISBN978-1-4616-4273-2.
↑ Alvarez, R. Michael, and Jonathan Nagler. "Economics, Entitlements, and Social Issues: Voter Choice in the 1996 Presidential Election." American Journal of Political Science 42, no. 4 (1998): 1361.
↑ Barker, Vanessa (August 26, 2009). The Politics of Imprisonment: How the Democratic Process Shapes the Way America Punishes Offenders. Oxford University Press. p.66. ISBN978-0-19-970846-8.
↑ Malone, Clare; Enten, Harry (January 19, 2017). "Barack Obama Won The White House, But Democrats Lost The Country". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved April 13, 2021. In 2001, most Democrats — 47 percent — identified themselves as "moderate," while only 30 percent said they were "liberal." By 2016, the proportions were reversed, with 44 percent of people within the party calling themselves "liberal" and 41 percent calling themselves "moderate."
↑ Gaughan, Anthony J. (August 27, 2019). "Was the Democratic Nomination Rigged? A Reexamination of the Clinton-Sanders Presidential Race". University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy (29). SSRN3443916. Retrieved October 29, 2020. This article ... contends that the overwhelming weight of evidence makes clear the 2016 Democratic nomination process was not rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. Second, this article argues that the Democratic Party rules and state election laws actually hurt Clinton and benefited Sanders.
↑ Zengerle, Jason; Metz, Justin (June 29, 2022). "The Vanishing Moderate Democrat". The New York Times. ISSN0362-4331. Retrieved July 20, 2022. Over the last decade, the Democratic Party has moved significantly to the left on almost every salient political issue ... on social, cultural and religious issues, particularly those related to criminal justice, race, abortion and gender identity, the Democrats have taken up ideological stances that many of the college-educated voters who now make up a sizable portion of the party's base cheer ... .
↑ Plokhy, Serhii (May 16, 2023). The Russo-Ukrainian War: From the bestselling author of Chernobyl. Penguin Books. ISBN978-1-80206-179-6. ... If the collapse of the USSR was sudden and largely bloodless, growing strains between its two largest successors would develop into limited fighting in the Donbas in 2014 and then into all-out warfare in 2022, causing death, destruction, and a refugee crisis on a scale not seen in Europe since the Second World War.
↑ "Coastal Elite". Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved July 20, 2024. the group of educated, professional people living mainly in cities on the western or northeastern coasts of the US who have liberal political views and are often considered to have advantages that most ordinary Americans do not have
↑ Christopher, Ben (October 22, 2019). "Gov. Newsom the moderate? On this spectrum, almost every Democratic legislator is further left". Calmatters. Archived from the original on December 3, 2021. Retrieved December 3, 2021. Based on an analysis of the 1,042 bills that the governor signed or vetoed this year, Gavin Newsom is more moderate than any other Democratic state senator and sits to the left of only two Democrats in the Assembly.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
