Which US party factions best describe you?

[Ohioguy29]

I don't even know anymore. I guess some kinda weird blend of progressive Democrat and blue dog.

[Blair]

Progressive Democrat. I consider myself a SocDem but that's not an option and I feel like progressive is closer than DemSoc.

[RINO Tom]

I don't even know anymore. I guess some kinda weird blend of progressive Democrat and blue dog.

I think this combination of two seemingly opposing factions is something Democratic strategists would be smart to harness.  Someone with Hillary Clinton's political views didn't have to get the results she did, but her attitude turned off a lot of potential Democratic voters.  The reason you see people like jfern - an unquestionably liberal and progressive person, by the issues - sympathizing with a progressive who sounds a little folksy or less "cosmopolitan" (notice I avoided the new P word, LOL) is because that person at least is conveying an ATTITUDE of caring about progressive economic initiatives, even if he or she doesn't check every issues box (which Hillary, frankly, did for the far left ... but they didn't care).  A Kamala Harris nominee who talks about all working class people as a natural Democratic constituency would do just fine and significantly better than Hillary, regardless of what Bernie Bros say about her.

[Lechasseur]

A mix of Blue Dog Democrat and Paleoconservative Republican.

[Ohioguy29]

I don't even know anymore. I guess some kinda weird blend of progressive Democrat and blue dog.

I think this combination of two seemingly opposing factions is something Democratic strategists would be smart to harness.  Someone with Hillary Clinton's political views didn't have to get the results she did, but her attitude turned off a lot of potential Democratic voters.  The reason you see people like jfern - an unquestionably liberal and progressive person, by the issues - sympathizing with a progressive who sounds a little folksy or less "cosmopolitan" (notice I avoided the new P word, LOL) is because that person at least is conveying an ATTITUDE of caring about progressive economic initiatives, even if he or she doesn't check every issues box (which Hillary, frankly, did for the far left ... but they didn't care).  A Kamala Harris nominee who talks about all working class people as a natural Democratic constituency would do just fine and significantly better than Hillary, regardless of what Bernie Bros say about her.

In what world is Kamala Harris "folksy" or "less cosmopolitan?" I think she'd lose lose because people in the Midwest hate California.

[dw93]

Democratic Socialist (although Social Democrat would be a better term), Progressive Democrat, with a surprising pinch of Blue Dog.

[I’m not Stu]

A combination of progressive, liberal, and libertarian Democrat.

[RINO Tom]

I don't even know anymore. I guess some kinda weird blend of progressive Democrat and blue dog.

I think this combination of two seemingly opposing factions is something Democratic strategists would be smart to harness.  Someone with Hillary Clinton's political views didn't have to get the results she did, but her attitude turned off a lot of potential Democratic voters.  The reason you see people like jfern - an unquestionably liberal and progressive person, by the issues - sympathizing with a progressive who sounds a little folksy or less "cosmopolitan" (notice I avoided the new P word, LOL) is because that person at least is conveying an ATTITUDE of caring about progressive economic initiatives, even if he or she doesn't check every issues box (which Hillary, frankly, did for the far left ... but they didn't care).  A Kamala Harris nominee who talks about all working class people as a natural Democratic constituency would do just fine and significantly better than Hillary, regardless of what Bernie Bros say about her.

In what world is Kamala Harris "folksy" or "less cosmopolitan?" I think she'd lose lose because people in the Midwest hate California.

A meant a folksy version of Harris as a candidate, sorry.

[VPH]

Blue Dog Democrat although on some issues I align more with Progressive Democrats

[Del Tachi]

New Dem or Neoconservative GOP

[Don Vito Corleone]

A mix of Progressive Democrat, Liberal Democrat, and Neoconservative Republican.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Progressive Democrat. I consider myself a SocDem but that's not an option and I feel like progressive is closer than DemSoc.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Democratic Socialist describes me best. I consider myself more DemSoc than SocDem. I don't think i would be offended if other people see me as a communist, but just like Bob Hugin sees himself as a "different kind of Republican", i would see myself as a "different kind of communist", one that is democratic, ecological and liberal in nature. I wouldn't see myself as anarchist because that's too extreme. I believe a society still needs some rules. But something between DemSoc and DemCom fits me best, i guess. It still means however that i oppose authoritarian communist governments.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I don't even know anymore. I guess some kinda weird blend of progressive Democrat and blue dog.

I think this combination of two seemingly opposing factions is something Democratic strategists would be smart to harness.  Someone with Hillary Clinton's political views didn't have to get the results she did, but her attitude turned off a lot of potential Democratic voters.  The reason you see people like jfern - an unquestionably liberal and progressive person, by the issues - sympathizing with a progressive who sounds a little folksy or less "cosmopolitan" (notice I avoided the new P word, LOL) is because that person at least is conveying an ATTITUDE of caring about progressive economic initiatives, even if he or she doesn't check every issues box (which Hillary, frankly, did for the far left ... but they didn't care).  A Kamala Harris nominee who talks about all working class people as a natural Democratic constituency would do just fine and significantly better than Hillary, regardless of what Bernie Bros say about her.

I honestly doubt it... The #NeverKamala went viral, and i don't think Kamala will have the same kind of credibility as Bernie did. But Bernie seemed to be unique on being authentic on issues, and being there for the working people. He has fought all his life over defending working class people, while Kamala gradually shifted over the course of years to the left (tactically, because she knows she needs to do this in order of the presidency). Kamala also made some questionable moves as attorney general of California. She granted Steve Mnuchin a pardon (decided not to prosecute her), while he went on to became Secretary of Finances in the Trump cabinet. I think Harris would be the most Clinton-like candidate, that would again play the woman's and diversity card, and fail to gather enthusiasm among the left-wing and fail to connect with rust belt voters. She will probably still win, because Trump will be less popular than 4 years ago (definitely in democratic areas, he might've been able to unite the party more, but will lose independents and trump democrats).

Kamala Harris is still cosmopolitian, folksy and would be seen as yet another corporate sell-out. She would win if nominated but it would probably be another close election. Harris wouldn't win Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, but would flip Pennsylvannia and Michigan, and than Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida and Arizona would decide the outcome, probably in favour of Harris.

[SATW]

Still a Neocon Republican.

[Republican Left]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would you state that if I may ask? Does politics really cause such strife?

[OneJ]

I checked both Liberal and Progressive Democrats.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Progressive Democrat.

[Da2017]

I don't even know anymore. I guess some kinda weird blend of progressive Democrat and blue dog.

I think this combination of two seemingly opposing factions is something Democratic strategists would be smart to harness.  Someone with Hillary Clinton's political views didn't have to get the results she did, but her attitude turned off a lot of potential Democratic voters.  The reason you see people like jfern - an unquestionably liberal and progressive person, by the issues - sympathizing with a progressive who sounds a little folksy or less "cosmopolitan" (notice I avoided the new P word, LOL) is because that person at least is conveying an ATTITUDE of caring about progressive economic initiatives, even if he or she doesn't check every issues box (which Hillary, frankly, did for the far left ... but they didn't care).  A Kamala Harris nominee who talks about all working class people as a natural Democratic constituency would do just fine and significantly better than Hillary, regardless of what Bernie Bros say about her.

I honestly doubt it... The #NeverKamala went viral, and i don't think Kamala will have the same kind of credibility as Bernie did. But Bernie seemed to be unique on being authentic on issues, and being there for the working people. He has fought all his life over defending working class people, while Kamala gradually shifted over the course of years to the left (tactically, because she knows she needs to do this in order of the presidency). Kamala also made some questionable moves as attorney general of California. She granted Steve Mnuchin a pardon (decided not to prosecute her), while he went on to became Secretary of Finances in the Trump cabinet. I think Harris would be the most Clinton-like candidate, that would again play the woman's and diversity card, and fail to gather enthusiasm among the left-wing and fail to connect with rust belt voters. She will probably still win, because Trump will be less popular than 4 years ago (definitely in democratic areas, he might've been able to unite the party more, but will lose independents and trump democrats).

Kamala Harris is still cosmopolitian, folksy and would be seen as yet another corporate sell-out. She would win if nominated but it would probably be another close election. Harris wouldn't win Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, but would flip Pennsylvannia and Michigan, and than Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida and Arizona would decide the outcome, probably in favour of Harris.

Gillibrand is more like Clinton than Harris. Gillibrand is almost certainly going to play woman card.

[SNJ1985]

The last two.