Is the Democratic Party as divided as the GOP?

[Col. Roosevelt]

You have:

1) The Far Left/SJW/Occupy Wallstreet people, who feel Obama didn't go far enough and thus are in support of Sanders. The Sanders people are much like the anti-war Dems of 1968, angry and hostile toward anyone who disagrees - essentially the Dem version of the Tea Party. This group has no party loyalty, only Saners loyalty and likely will sit home out of spite if Sanders isn't the nominee.

2) The Hillary fans. Feminists, center-left and Clintonistas who view a Hillary Presidency as a return to the 1990s. Hillary as the Eugene McCarthy of 2015 in essence. They will vote for Sanders or Biden if Hillary doesn't make it.

3) The Establishment, which looks toward people like Biden and dislike both Sanders and Clinton, essentially, who'd view a Biden candidacy as a third Obama term, essentially the center-left Humphrey Democrats in this election. They're not supportive of Sanders, but would vote for Hillary reluctantly if Biden doesn't make it.

Do you agree with my assessment?

[Blue3]

No, 2 and 3 are basically the same, and the difference between the Hillary and Sanders is more style than substance. And while Obama may be in power, he doesn't truly represent the establishment Democrats, who have been at odds with him for most of his presidency but those differences have been mostly civil and out of public attention.
The Democratic candidates are much more civil to each other and supportive of one another, not nearly as divided or bitter as the GOP field.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You have:

1) The Far Left/SJW/Occupy Wallstreet people, who feel Obama didn't go far enough and thus are in support of Sanders. The Sanders people are much like the anti-war Dems of 1968, angry and hostile toward anyone who disagrees - essentially the Dem version of the Tea Party. This group has no party loyalty, only Saners loyalty and likely will sit home out of spite if Sanders isn't the nominee.

2) The Hillary fans. Feminists, center-left and Clintonistas who view a Hillary Presidency as a return to the 1990s. Hillary as the Eugene McCarthy of 2015 in essence. They will vote for Sanders or Biden if Hillary doesn't make it.

3) The Establishment, which looks toward people like Biden and dislike both Sanders and Clinton, essentially, who'd view a Biden candidacy as a third Obama term, essentially the center-left Humphrey Democrats in this election. They're not supportive of Sanders, but would vote for Hillary reluctantly if Biden doesn't make it.

Do you agree with my assessment?

If the establishment doesn't like Hillary then they have a funny way showing it.

That was true back in 2006-08 and they recruited Obama to stop her. But now they have done nothing to goad Biden to enter the race.

[Maxwell]

The difference is the divisions aren't actively trying to rebel like they are within the GOP.

[Mehmentum]

Despite how people on the internet act, progressive and establishment politicians generally get along well together.

Look at how Clinton and Sanders acted in the debate.  Yeah, there was criticism on policy issues, but it wasn't even close to what we see on the Republican side.  Sanders even defended Clinton about her emails.  Could you imagine anything like that happening with the Republicans?

The Democratic congressional delegation is more unified than ever.  What's more, when the Democrats did have the majority, it was the moderate/blue dog wing of the party that was the most unruly, not the progressives.  Not only that, but when different segments of the Democratic coalition had disagreements, they generally tried to figure out a way to work out a compromise.  They never tried to rebel or take hostages, like what we're seeing on the Republican side.

[Orser67]

I disagree with your analysis on two points.

1)Sanders probably does attract a lot of non-Democrats, but given Sanders's currently fairly wide support, most strong Sanders supporters will probably vote for Clinton in 2016. Democrats have wings of the party, but (esp. with the defeat of conservative Democrats in 2010 and 2014) they lack the deep divisions of the Republican Party.

2)Humphrey actually is a good analogy for Biden, but in a different way. Clinton isn't McCarthy, she's Edmund Muskie. When Muskie, the early frontrunner, stumbled, Humphrey received the establishment's support. That makes Sanders the George McGovern of this analogy. Happily, the Democrats no longer have a George Wallace.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you mean the Democratic Party from 1968-1992 yes

[Slander and/or Libel]

This is so wrong I don't even know where to start. There's not really a significantly anti-Hillary Democratic establishment, and almost all Sanders voters will gladly, if not enthusiastically, vote for Hillary if Sanders loses the nomination.

[Mister Mets]

It's divided in a different way.

The parts of the coalition of the ascendant sometimes have contradictory policy preferences. For example, African-Americans benefit from Affirmative Action in schools, while Asian-Americans do not.

[Hnv1]

The difference between 1 and 2\3 is a narrow gap between centre and centre-left, the Sanders clan is that far to the left as you might think. In contrast, from the left to the right of the GOP there's a huge gap

[RINO Tom]

Not as divided, but just as extreme.  I know that's taboo to say, but it's true.  There literally is no relevant center in either party (among its politicians, of course; there are still millions of moderate Democratic and Republican VOTERS).

[Ebsy]

Not as divided, but just as extreme.  I know that's taboo to say, but it's true.  There literally is no relevant center in either party (among its politicians, of course; there are still millions of moderate Democratic and Republican VOTERS).

Science would like to have a word with you.

[RINO Tom]

Not as divided, but just as extreme.  I know that's taboo to say, but it's true.  There literally is no relevant center in either party (among its politicians, of course; there are still millions of moderate Democratic and Republican VOTERS).

Science would like to have a word with you.

Nice response?  LOL.  The GOP platform is extreme on climate change.  The Democrats are mainstream on that one.  However, that debate the other night illustrated that the party is marching steadily left, and the fact is that "free college for everyone" and massive tax hikes are not mainstream.  I DO NOT KNOW (so I could be wrong), but I'll wager that the average "PM score" (it's called something like DWS or whatever, but I can't remember) of this current Congress of each party caucus is more or less equally far from the center.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I would take that wager.

There has been drift on the part of each party, but every measurement I've seen has made it clear that the drift is far more pronounced on the GOP side. Moreover, the GOP has given their more extreme members a lot of power in setting their agenda, and the Democrats have done no such thing.

[Gass3268]

Not as divided, but just as extreme.  I know that's taboo to say, but it's true.  There literally is no relevant center in either party (among its politicians, of course; there are still millions of moderate Democratic and Republican VOTERS).

Science would like to have a word with you.

Nice response?  LOL.  The GOP platform is extreme on climate change.  The Democrats are mainstream on that one.  However, that debate the other night illustrated that the party is marching steadily left, and the fact is that "free college for everyone" and massive tax hikes are not mainstream.  I DO NOT KNOW (so I could be wrong), but I'll wager that the average "PM score" (it's called something like DWS or whatever, but I can't remember) of this current Congress of each party caucus is more or less equally far from the center.

Republicans are further from center.

[smoltchanov]

Not as divided, but just as extreme.  I know that's taboo to say, but it's true.  There literally is no relevant center in either party (among its politicians, of course; there are still millions of moderate Democratic and Republican VOTERS).

+100

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Not as divided, but just as extreme.  I know that's taboo to say, but it's true.  There literally is no relevant center in either party (among its politicians, of course; there are still millions of moderate Democratic and Republican VOTERS).

+100

I agree with the former, but not the latter.

Well, there are lots of "centrists" but pundits are too myopic to spot what they are. The actual centrists of America look more like Trump than they do Kasich. They are ideologically heterogenous taking political planks and rhetoric from the left and right rather than the comfortable blandness your journalist thinks of when he considers "centrism". They are angry at the system and the parties and government and business, not content to lull around agreeing with everybody in moderation.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The tea party cane back to haunt the GOP in prez yrs as opposed to congressional cycles. Giving way to Trump and Sarah Palin who has cost GOP dearly with women voters. On abortions and intolerance towards immigration has set the GOP back in terms of electoral strength to the 90's under another CLINTON.

[Ogre Mage]

As someone who was a teenager during the 1990s, I can say that I have never seen the Democratic Party as unified as it currently is.  Pre-1990s the divisions were even worse -- the party essentially ripped itself apart over Vietnam, the northern and conservative southern wings of the Party were often at each other's throats and in 1980 Sen. Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter, a sitting President of his own party.  Yeah, that was real division.

The comparison of Sanders supporters to 1968 is so off-base -- call me when the 2016 Dem convention is so chaotic that police are attacking not just large numbers of violent protesters, but reporters as well.  The entire 1968 convention was marred by mass violence, tear gas, 589 arrests and approximately 119 police and 100 protesters injured.  I will bet money that won't happen at the 2016 Dem convention lol.

The suggestion that the Democratic Establishment doesn't like Hillary Clinton frankly shows ignorance about Democratic Party politics. How can that be when she is currently endorsed by 10 governors, 31 U.S. Senators and 123 House Reps.? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016

[DS0816]

Re: Is the Democratic Party as divided as the GOP?

No.

[RINO Tom]

Re: Is the Democratic Party as divided as the GOP?

No.

Care to elaborate?  It seems your posts are either one-word answers, ridiculing someone you believe to be lesser than you or some ridiculously long post approaching Presidential elections as if they are part of a mathematical formula, LOL.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

DLC vs Liberals, but its not nearly as divided as GOP due to Presidency.  When Dems didnt hold the WH in 2004 the aplit was evident with Gephardt and Howard Dean.

[DS0816]

Re: Is the Democratic Party as divided as the GOP?

No.

Care to elaborate?  It seems your posts are either one-word answers, ridiculing someone you believe to be lesser than you or some ridiculously long post approaching Presidential elections as if they are part of a mathematical formula, LOL.

I will "elaborate."

I think people who believe the Democratic Party is "divided" are Republicans whose collective mindset dates back more than 30 years ago with remembering that incumbent 39th president of the United States Jimmy Carter was primaried by Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy for the 1980 Democratic presidential [re-] nomination. This can also be extended twelve years earlier when incumbent 36th president of the United States Lyndon Johnson was primaried and, in March 1968, announced his decision to not seek a full term with the presidency.

This means those Republicans—operating on wishful thinking combined with being stuck in the past—are full of s--t.

The Democratic Party is organized and focused. They're not having presidential primary battles. The Democratic Party is not in a position like they were in 1968 and 1980. They are not in a position like the Republicans were in 1964 and 1992 (incumbent George Bush primaried, for re-nomination, by Pat Buchanan) and, by less-dramatic extension, 2012 (with the inevitability of Mitt Romney).

I answered "no" because I didn't think explaining this was necessary. But, evidently, you feel it is necessary. So, you now have it.

[Thunderbird is the word]

You have:

1) The Far Left/SJW/Occupy Wallstreet people, who feel Obama didn't go far enough and thus are in support of Sanders. The Sanders people are much like the anti-war Dems of 1968, angry and hostile toward anyone who disagrees - essentially the Dem version of the Tea Party. This group has no party loyalty, only Saners loyalty and likely will sit home out of spite if Sanders isn't the nominee.

2) The Hillary fans. Feminists, center-left and Clintonistas who view a Hillary Presidency as a return to the 1990s. Hillary as the Eugene McCarthy of 2015 in essence. They will vote for Sanders or Biden if Hillary doesn't make it.

3) The Establishment, which looks toward people like Biden and dislike both Sanders and Clinton, essentially, who'd view a Biden candidacy as a third Obama term, essentially the center-left Humphrey Democrats in this election. They're not supportive of Sanders, but would vote for Hillary reluctantly if Biden doesn't make it.

Do you agree with my assessment?

2 and 3 are effectively the same. There is a very small minority of Obama loyalists that still hate Hillary and would have supported Biden but they're miniscule. They probably make up what little support O'Malley had. SJWs aren't necessarily left either, some of them could just as easily be in Hillary's camp, suckered in by her empty rhetoric. It is true that Sanders probably does draw some of his support from the non-anarchist faction of OWS though.

[RINO Tom]

Re: Is the Democratic Party as divided as the GOP?

No.

Care to elaborate?  It seems your posts are either one-word answers, ridiculing someone you believe to be lesser than you or some ridiculously long post approaching Presidential elections as if they are part of a mathematical formula, LOL.

I will "elaborate."

I think people who believe the Democratic Party is "divided" are Republicans whose collective mindset dates back more than 30 years ago with remembering that incumbent 39th president of the United States Jimmy Carter was primaried by Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy for the 1980 Democratic presidential [re-] nomination. This can also be extended twelve years earlier when incumbent 36th president of the United States Lyndon Johnson was primaried and, in March 1968, announced his decision to not seek a full term with the presidency.

This means those Republicans—operating on wishful thinking combined with being stuck in the past—are full of s--t.

The Democratic Party is organized and focused. They're not having presidential primary battles. The Democratic Party is not in a position like they were in 1968 and 1980. They are not in a position like the Republicans were in 1964 and 1992 (incumbent George Bush primaried, for re-nomination, by Pat Buchanan) and, by less-dramatic extension, 2012 (with the inevitability of Mitt Romney).

I answered "no" because I didn't think explaining this was necessary. But, evidently, you feel it is necessary. So, you now have it.

I, did, so, thank you,.