what election was the biggest watershed in

[freepcrusher]

establishing the democrats as the liberal party?

Here are some candidates
1932 - FDR era, democrats win massive congressional majorities
1958 - Democrats win a majority of non-southern seats for the first time in 20 years

1974 - Democrats get to 2/3 majorities in house and 3/5 in senate. Many of the freshman of this class help shape the democrats for years to come. After this election, Phillip Burton with the help of the freshman class help get rid of old committee chairman

2010 - blue dog caucus cut in half with remaining democrats more liberal.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Clearly 1932, because that was the election which established the Democrats as the center-left and the Republicans as the center-right. Before that, voting was largely based either on Civil War allegiances or ethnic and interest group coalitions which had little to do with ideology. Of course, this remained true somewhat, and the transition still isn't fully complete and may never be. Also, the 1932 election heralded the beginning of the New Deal, which is pretty much the core of "American Liberalism".

[MilesC56]

2010.

And when we lose even more blue dogs this year, the party will move further to the left

[Senator Napoleon]

2010.

And when we lose even more blue dogs this year, the party will move further to the left

Will you join the Republicans if that happens?

[MilesC56]

2010.

And when we lose even more blue dogs this year, the party will move further to the left

Will you join the Republicans if that happens?

Nah. The Republicans are way too far right for me

[Senator Snowstalker]

1932.

The South would be the most left-wing area in the country if we probed them on the right issues in the right ways.

[Jackson]

1932.

The South would be the most left-wing area in the country if we probed them on the right issues in the right ways.

Is this a joke? The South has never been left-wing in its entire history.

[Senator Barnes]

1932.

The South would be the most left-wing area in the country if we probed them on the right issues in the right ways.

Is this a joke? The South has never been left-wing in its entire history.

Um, although it certainly doesn't define an entire regions or its ideology, but the South strongly supported FDR's New Deal programs; he's still held in very high regard by Georgians (I speek from experience), and from what I've seen, all the regions effected by the TVA.

[freepcrusher]

not to get off topic but the south in the 1930s was dirt poor and economically populist in the sense of Huey Long or Wright Patman. Of course they strongly supported FDR. Because Roosevelt didn't bring up the integration issue and issues like feminism/abortion rights, GLBT rights etc weren't issues at the time, the south found no reason to vote otherwise.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Exactly. As seen with Bryan, Long, and Franklin Roosevelt, economic populism works well in the south.

[Senator Napoleon]

That was nearly a century ago.

[MilesC56]

1932.

The South would be the most left-wing area in the country if we probed them on the right issues in the right ways.

Agreed. Social conservatism sells very well down here. Poor/lower class whites don't vote in their economic interests.

[RodPresident]

I think that if Democrats were a bit more moderate on abortion (supporting only in life-threatening, malformations, maybe rape and incest), they'd be a lot more competitive in South. Mississippi showed that South isn't so fanatical pro-life as we believed that. Problem is that kinds of Boxer will veto this. Nature of Democratic coalition will bar another changes like in affirmative actions (although economical questions can hold a control of black vote by decades), immigration and same-sex marriage. If Democrat were more in line of Marcy Kaptur than Jackie Speier, they'd be a lot more popular in South.

[Senator Napoleon]

I think that if Democrats were a bit more moderate on abortion (supporting only in life-threatening, malformations, maybe rape and incest), they'd be a lot more competitive in South. Mississippi showed that South isn't so fanatical pro-life as we believed that. Problem is that kinds of Boxer will veto this. Nature of Democratic coalition will bar another changes like in affirmative actions (although economical questions can hold a control of black vote by decades), immigration and same-sex marriage. If Democrat were more in line of Marcy Kaptur than Jackie Speier, they'd be a lot more popular in South.

You can't just add the South to the Dem coalition. Whatever gains made will be offset by losing wealthier liberal voters. Democrats should be more like Boxer and Speier, less like Kaptur. I'm fine with ceding the fundie vote to Republicans, it is the only way socially liberal policies have a chance.

[RodPresident]

I think that Democrats should shift focus only in some issues, like abortion, from radical pro-choice to a more moderate choice. Gun rights is one of affairs that can be go to a more moderate position too. Gay rights are going to be a more acceptable thing, even in South. I believe that Southern democrats, like Bright or Taylor, would be more willing to vote for Obamacare if that contained Stupak-Pitts.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

1932, 1936, 1948, 1958 and 1964 all contributed. You could even go beyond and say the first stone was set in 1896.

[Gravis Marketing]

Democrats getting 218 seats means electing a lot more moderates and conservatives in certain districts. They can't do what Republicans did and get highly partisan members in enough districts to get a majority.

[wormyguy]

1828, obviously.  They became a reactionary party later on.