When did Democrats become the left-of-center American party?

[Citizen James]

The problem with the question is the problem with the whole left/right spectrum in general.  There are so many issues to be considered, and more than a few demographic groups as well - and they don't always band together.

On social/race issues the big flip came around 1964 with the civil rights act.  In terms of pragmatism vs. ideological purity they have all but completely flipped over the past two decades.  In terms of demographics, Democrats are attracting a larger number of the well educated while Republicans are attracting more people with less education.

In economics it's a bit lopsided, with Democrats largely for free markets and Republicans supporting corporate cronyism (socialists are almost non-existent in American politics).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The problem with the question is the problem with the whole left/right spectrum in general.  There are so many issues to be considered, and more than a few demographic groups as well - and they don't always band together.

On social/race issues the big flip came around 1964 with the civil rights act.  In terms of pragmatism vs. ideological purity they have all but completely flipped over the past two decades.  In terms of demographics, Democrats are attracting a larger number of the well educated while Republicans are attracting more people with less education.

In economics it's a bit lopsided, with Democrats largely for free markets and Republicans supporting corporate cronyism (socialists are almost non-existent in American politics).

LOL

[Associate Justice PiT]

The problem with the question is the problem with the whole left/right spectrum in general.  There are so many issues to be considered, and more than a few demographic groups as well - and they don't always band together.

On social/race issues the big flip came around 1964 with the civil rights act.  In terms of pragmatism vs. ideological purity they have all but completely flipped over the past two decades.  In terms of demographics, Democrats are attracting a larger number of the well educated while Republicans are attracting more people with less education.

In economics it's a bit lopsided, with Democrats largely for free markets and Republicans supporting corporate cronyism (socialists are almost non-existent in American politics).

LOL

     My reaction exactly.

[Citizen James]

The problem with the question is the problem with the whole left/right spectrum in general.  There are so many issues to be considered, and more than a few demographic groups as well - and they don't always band together.

On social/race issues the big flip came around 1964 with the civil rights act.  In terms of pragmatism vs. ideological purity they have all but completely flipped over the past two decades.  In terms of demographics, Democrats are attracting a larger number of the well educated while Republicans are attracting more people with less education.

In economics it's a bit lopsided, with Democrats largely for free markets and Republicans supporting corporate cronyism (socialists are almost non-existent in American politics).

LOL

     My reaction exactly.

Why?  Is it because you buy stereotypes that are at least three decades out of date (and were never perfect to begin with).   Is it because some libertarians choose to remain blind to the fact that concentrations of power (and limitations on freedom) are not solely done by governments. No bid contracts are not an element of a free market.   Companies who require their employees to opt out of a fair justice system in favor of arbitration (which generally knows where their paychecks come from), or the gutting of anti-trust laws so that they can maximize short term profit while stiffing start-ups and and smaller companies undermining (if not outright killing) the innovation which drives an actual free market economy.

Try actually reading Adam Smith sometime - rather than blindly assuming that he believed in blind faith in corporations, you might be a bit surprised:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Alexander Hamilton]

James, stop trolling

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

James, stop trolling

At least when you troll, you stick to one-liners. James is trying to make his trolling sound like legitimate debate by using lots of words.

[Alexander Hamilton]

James, stop trolling

At least when you troll, you stick to one-liners. James is trying to make his trolling sound like legitimate debate by using lots of words.

I only troll trolls. It's for the sake of my dignity.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

i'd say around the Roosevelt Presidency, maybe abit earlier. (or atleast, that's when it began)

[Alexander Hamilton]

I do have something to contribute, however.

The Democrats have always been the party of the poor. The Democrats have always been the party of ethnic minorities. The Democrats have always been the party of the disgruntled outcasts of American society. The Democrats have always been pro-union. The Democrats have always lacked the moral high ground. The Democrats have always supported expanded government. The Democrats have always been the party of war.

So what has changed?

[Psychic Octopus]

Hackery at its finest, LOL.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Hackery at its finest, LOL.

Nothing I said was false. Of course, given James' posting, I wouldn't be surprised if your remark was aimed at him instead.

[Citizen James]

James, stop trolling

At least when you troll, you stick to one-liners. James is trying to make his trolling sound like legitimate debate by using lots of words.

Lots of words?  There are barely over a hundred there.  It is unfortunate if you consider that to be a lot of words.  I suppose you're eyes must have glossed over at the detailed posts of Beet and pragmatic liberal.  But hey - I'm just following the good old appeal to ridicule which you so skillessly wield (helped only by the tendency for the human brain to shut down in response to mockery.

Hey, I recognize that this is just a playground.  No actual policy is decided here, so it isn't world changing if you cling to old stereotypes rather than take a look around and recognize how many assumptions there are out there in the real world that go unchallenged.

If you feel like it - perhaps on a break from your trollish duties - take a good look around you and try observing the world without prejudice - you might just be surprised at what you find (if you can find the courage to think - a false certainty in a specific worldview can a lot more comforting than embracing the doubt that comes with recognizing that we don't know it all and that our information is always imperfect.   But I doubt you even read this far - too many words, I suppose. 

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

James, stop trolling

At least when you troll, you stick to one-liners. James is trying to make his trolling sound like legitimate debate by using lots of words.

Lots of words?  There are barely over a hundred there.  It is unfortunate if you consider that to be a lot of words.  I suppose you're eyes must have glossed over at the detailed posts of Beet and pragmatic liberal.  But hey - I'm just following the good old appeal to ridicule which you so skillessly wield (helped only by the tendency for the human brain to shut down in response to mockery.

Hey, I recognize that this is just a playground.  No actual policy is decided here, so it isn't world changing if you cling to old stereotypes rather than take a look around and recognize how many assumptions there are out there in the real world that go unchallenged.

If you feel like it - perhaps on a break from your trollish duties - take a good look around you and try observing the world without prejudice - you might just be surprised at what you find (if you can find the courage to think - a false certainty in a specific worldview can a lot more comforting than embracing the doubt that comes with recognizing that we don't know it all and that our information is always imperfect.   But I doubt you even read this far - too many words, I suppose. 

James, the moment you claimed that Democrats are "largely for free markets", it became obvious that you were either a troll or seriously misinformed.

[Alexander Hamilton]

James, stop trolling

At least when you troll, you stick to one-liners. James is trying to make his trolling sound like legitimate debate by using lots of words.

Lots of words?  There are barely over a hundred there.  It is unfortunate if you consider that to be a lot of words.  I suppose you're eyes must have glossed over at the detailed posts of Beet and pragmatic liberal.  But hey - I'm just following the good old appeal to ridicule which you so skillessly wield (helped only by the tendency for the human brain to shut down in response to mockery.

Hey, I recognize that this is just a playground.  No actual policy is decided here, so it isn't world changing if you cling to old stereotypes rather than take a look around and recognize how many assumptions there are out there in the real world that go unchallenged.

If you feel like it - perhaps on a break from your trollish duties - take a good look around you and try observing the world without prejudice - you might just be surprised at what you find (if you can find the courage to think - a false certainty in a specific worldview can a lot more comforting than embracing the doubt that comes with recognizing that we don't know it all and that our information is always imperfect.   But I doubt you even read this far - too many words, I suppose. 

James, the moment you claimed that Democrats are "largely for free markets", it became obvious that you were either a troll or seriously misinformed.

I'd wager both.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

James, stop trolling

At least when you troll, you stick to one-liners. James is trying to make his trolling sound like legitimate debate by using lots of words.

Lots of words?  There are barely over a hundred there.  It is unfortunate if you consider that to be a lot of words.  I suppose you're eyes must have glossed over at the detailed posts of Beet and pragmatic liberal.  But hey - I'm just following the good old appeal to ridicule which you so skillessly wield (helped only by the tendency for the human brain to shut down in response to mockery.

Hey, I recognize that this is just a playground.  No actual policy is decided here, so it isn't world changing if you cling to old stereotypes rather than take a look around and recognize how many assumptions there are out there in the real world that go unchallenged.

If you feel like it - perhaps on a break from your trollish duties - take a good look around you and try observing the world without prejudice - you might just be surprised at what you find (if you can find the courage to think - a false certainty in a specific worldview can a lot more comforting than embracing the doubt that comes with recognizing that we don't know it all and that our information is always imperfect.   But I doubt you even read this far - too many words, I suppose. 

James, the moment you claimed that Democrats are "largely for free markets", it became obvious that you were either a troll or seriously misinformed.

I'd wager both.

Indubitably.

[Badger]

James, stop trolling making complete sense.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/06/adam_smith/index1.html

[Vepres]

Heck. It appears that when the Democrats become marginalized again, they may become the party for Middle-Class Westerners with little appeal anywhere else.

The numbers disagree. Among people making between $50,000-$100,000 nationally, Obama and McCain tied. In Colorado, the same group barely favored Obama giving him 51% of the vote as opposed to McCain's 47%. When you consider that Colorado gave Obama a victory margin 2 points above the national popular vote, the difference between Colorado middle-class voters and national middle-class voters is negligible. Personally, I think there will be a Democratic backlash in the Southwest.

[Badger]

Heck. It appears that when the Democrats become marginalized again, they may become the party for Middle-Class Westerners with little appeal anywhere else.

The numbers disagree. Among people making between $50,000-$100,000 nationally, Obama and McCain tied. In Colorado, the same group barely favored Obama giving him 51% of the vote as opposed to McCain's 47%. When you consider that Colorado gave Obama a victory margin 2 points above the national popular vote, the difference between Colorado middle-class voters and national middle-class voters is negligible. Personally, I think there will be a Democratic backlash in the Southwest.

Are we talking voters with that individual income or that household income? I tell you no that individuals earning $75+k a year have a tenuous link to being truly "middle class" outsidea handful of metropolitan areas.

[TeePee4Prez]

Another thing that has been stewing in my mind is this Sociological theory of Relative Deprivation. This could explain why so many rural poors are Republican and so many Upper-Middle and Middle-Class urbanites are democrats.

You see, in rural areas, where taxes, wages, land values- and above all- economic competiton are low, it is relatively easy to get a nice apartment on the main drag or a nice colonial a mile or two down the main drag, without much more than a High School education. Making just 35,000 a year as a carpenter, plumber or mechanic, you will be able to get a 3 bedroom home, a used truck and maybe a nice TV, health insurance and a savings account going. If not, your wife, who probably is just a High School graduate, will probably work part time as a receptionist for someone and bring in perhaps another 15,000 a year. In this situation, you have no need for government support, because you don't have to fight for work and everything is cheap. Even if you are poor, if the market ain't broke, don't fix it....and life is good and no one else is flaunting their stuff. You can be a happy yeoman.

On the other hand, if you are a doctor, lawyer or executive making 120,000 in a big city, you probably have massive competition. Your 2500 you can afford a rent only gets you a two bedroom loft, if you are very lucky. You will probably need to get married to someone at least of your station just to afford the 4000 a month you probably need to get a family-size apartment in the middle of town. On top of that, the competition for food and utilities is tense and though you have a new Large Benz in your parking space, you probably have trouble saving money or having health insurance (though your insurance is probably covered by your "lucrative" position). On top of that, you probably have at least 50000 in loans to just have been trained. You feel that you can never get ahead because your supervisor or competitor and his wife makes twice as much as you and your wife do and can afford to have a full-sized, 4-bedroom penthouse on the 8000 (a 2 or 3 million dollar house) they have available for rent and can afford to go out to eat every night and always go to the South Seas or Europe for vacation every other weekend. You are a very succesful man, but you are still struggling to get by and you are constantly reminded how long of a ways you have to go. At this point, you probably believe that you should get help in affording basic neccesities, even if it means that the tax burden will go on you- you need to get your daughter chemo, not a new pair of $500 jogging shoes.

In a nutshell- a working class lifestyle in the country is less difficult than an upper-middle class lifestyle in "town". People could just say that you should move, but then you would lose all of the services you get as well as all the business you produce. It's nuts. I mean, everyone wants freedom and I don't think that people are actively debating whether or not they want a market economy. OTOH, they do debate whether or not the market, as liberal/free as it is, actually causes them to be happy.

I've stewed with something like this as well.  Not to bring local politics into this and I'll try to be as general as possible.  I've noticed a trend, primarily in the NYC and Philly areas where people in occupations such as police, fire, trades, etc. are becoming more Republican due to racial issues, the Catholic church/social views, etc. and have more secure jobs.  While everyone on here knows Obama did incredible in the Philly suburbs, African American neighborhoods, and downtown, the Democratic leadership pre-economic collapse was hyperventilating over converting Hillary Clinton supporters in white blue collar neighborhoods and early poll numbers were looking Reagan-esque for McCain.  Yet in our suburbs, the Democrats have been doing massively better over the past 20 years.  I think some people in white collar jobs are less secure then they ever were, more indebted hence becoming more Democratic not to mention even the social views.  All Republicans had to do in the suburbs was say "taxes" and they'd be fine.  Since the early 1990s, they've lost ground not only on social issues, but me thinks suburban voters have moderated, or even become left-of-center on economic issues as well. 

[Хahar 🤔]

The delegate revolt in 1896 was when the Democrats became the party of the left. The process can be considered to have been completed in 1964.

[minionofmidas]

I would argue that Republicans actually remained the "left-of-center" party until the Wilson presidency and that the Democrats only definitively became the "left-of-cetner" party with FDR's presidency.

Certainly I agree with the latter part - the Democrats have been unequivocally the left-of-center party since the New Deal (despite the long slow death of Southern Conservative - or "Conservative" but actually something much worse - Democratism), but not before. On balance they've probably been the somewhat more left party since Populism, though. Anyways, with 20/20 hindsight, the seeds were of course always there (in the North, that is.) The northern Whigs and National-Republicans were to the right of the northern Democrats and Democrat-Republicans. So were the Federalists. The parties haven't ever flipped sides completely, it's just that Republicanism long represented an odd merger of a conservative and a liberal progressive (damn, all those kinda words sound too cliché) tradition, and the posthumous reputation of 1850s/60s Republicanism is largely based on that freesoil leftish current within it.