This Chart Should Worry Trump (And The Republicans)

This chart, found at Mother Jones, shows the public mood index charted by James Stimson. Stimson is a political science professor at the University of North Carolina. When the index is above the dotted line, the public is in a liberal mood and Democrats usually win. When the index is below the dotted line, the public is in a conservative mood and Republicans usually win.

Currently, the index shows the most liberal mood for the public since World War II. That could spell big trouble for Trump's re-election chances if it stays this way into next year, and maybe for the Republicans running on a ticket headed by Trump.

Gen Z/Millennials Are More Liberal Than Other Generations

The charts above are from the Pew Research Center. They questioned 11,602 people in the five different generations (Silent, Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z). Note that each generation is more liberal in general than the one that came before it -- and the most liberal generations of all are the Millennials and Gen Z.

Percentage Of Liberals Continues To Grow In The U.S.

These charts are from the latest Gallup Poll taken on the political ideology of Americans. It was done in 2017 of a random nation sample of 12,766 adults, and has a margin of error of 1 points.

The chart above shows that the percentage who identify as liberal has increased by 5 points since 2010 (from 21% to 26%). Those identifying as conservative has dropped by an equal percentage (from 40% to 35%).

The chart below shows how the members of demographic groups identify themselves. Liberals do best among women, younger people, and those with more education.

A Plurality Thinks Supreme Court Is Too Conservative

Trump choice for the Supreme Court has been seated, and the Court is beginning its new season. We have yet to see how Justice Gorsuch will vote, but most people believe he will be as right-wing extremist as the justice he replace (Scalia).

That seems to be the opinion of a plurality of Americans. About 35% say this new Supreme Court is too conservative -- while 25% say its too liberal, 25% say its about right, and the remaining people are unsure. I suspect those who feel it's too conservative are right, but we'll know for sure next summer (when we start getting the court's decisions for this term).

The chart above reflects the results of a new Rasmussen Poll -- done on October 2nd and 3rd of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

Pluralities View Both Parties As Too Extreme Politically

The two political parties seem to both want to become more extreme in their views. Many Democrats want their party to move further to the left, and many Republicans want their party to move further to the right. Both seem to think that is the way to appeal to the American voter. They both could easily be wrong.

If these polls are correct (and there's no reason to believe they're not), then a plurality of voters already see both political parties as too extreme. In the Morning Consult Poll, about 43% see the Democratic Party as being too liberal. And an equal 43% see the Republican Party as being too conservative.

The results of the new YouGov Poll is similar -- with 37% viewing the Democrats as too liberal and 36% viewing the Republicans as too conservative.

This leaves many voters in a quandary -- which party do they vote for, since they see them both as being too extreme? We know that most Democrats will vote for their own party, and most Republicans will vote for their own party. But neither has enough members to carry the 2018 election. That election, like most elections in this country, will be determined by Independents (most of whom are moderates).

I know my progressive brothers and sisters will not like this, but those Independents will mostly go for the party they see as the more moderate party. If the Democrats want to win in 2018, just being against Trump is not going to be enough. They must be viewed as the moderate alternative to extremist Republicans. And winning is the only thing that matters.

The Politico / Morning Consult Poll was done between September 14th and 17th of a random national sample of 1,994 registered voters, with a 2 point margin of error.

The Economist / YouGov Poll was done between September 17th and 19th of a random national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,292 registered voters), with a 3 point margin of error.

48% Of Democrats Now Self-Identify As Liberal

The top chart reflects polls done by the Pew Research Center of Democrats from 2000 through 2017. The bottom chart shows a demographic breakdown of Democrats in 2017.

They show the percentage of Democrats self-identifying as liberal has grown from 28% in 2000 to about 48% in 2017 (a jump of 20 points). That's gratifying for those of us who like the liberal (progressive) agenda. But we still need to be careful. It also means that 51% do not identify as liberal, and it would not be a winning strategy to initiate any kind of purity test that would drive those people out of the party (as some on the left seem to want to do).

We also need to realize that most Americans do not identify themselves as liberal. Most self-identify as moderates -- and they don't like the extremes on either the left or the right. The Republicans have move to the far right. This gives the Democrats a golden opportunity, but moving the party far to the left right now would waste that opportunity.

To take advantage of the opportunity presenting itself, Democrats need to position themselves as a MODERATELY liberal party. We can move the country toward our liberal agenda, but only if we do it in moderate steps (a little at a time).

Americans Are Becoming More Socially Liberal

This chart shows the results of the latest Gallup Poll on the percentage of Americans who now define themselves as being socially liberal (being liberal on social issues). Note that in the last decade and a half that percentage has increased in every demographic group but one -- Republicans (who still want to force everyone to adopt their own prejudices). The poll was done between May 3rd and 7th of a random national sample of 1,011 adults, and has a margin of error of 4 points. This trend is a good thing for this country, and I hope it continues.

Americans Are Becoming More Liberal On Moral Issues

The Gallup Poll has released their latest poll on moral issues facing Americans. They have been polling the public on these issues since 2001, and since then, that public has steadily grown more liberal on these issues.

As the chart shows, this year's survey shows record highs on eight of the 16 issues (showing a movement toward a more liberal stance on those issues) -- and a record low on the death penalty (also showing a liberal growth).

These charts are from a new Gallup Poll -- done between May 3rd and 7th of a random national sample of 1,011 adults, with a margin of error of 4 points.

Liberals And Young People Are Abandoning Religion

I thought these charts, from fivethirtyeight.com, were interesting. The first shows the growing abandonment of religion by American liberals in each age group. It aligns with the generational abandonment of religion I have previously reported (as each generation has more religiously non-affiliated people that the generation before it).

The second chart shows the abandonment of religion by each political group. The liberals are by far the largest group giving up their religion. This doesn't really surprise me, since liberals want fact rather than magical thinking. Moderates and Conservatives showed some increase in religious non-affiliation, but not nearly as much a among liberals.

A Population Trend That Bodes Well For Democrats

The charts above are from the Pew Research Center -- using a compilation of surveys they have done in each year since 2000.

They show a trend toward liberalism (progressivism) and toward the Democratic Party since that year. Those who identify as liberal has shown an increase of 9 points (to 21%), while those identifying as conservative has increased by only 3 points (to 25%). The trend toward those identifying as Democrats has also shown better growth (7 points) than those identifying as Republicans (2 points).

The second chart shows how this is happening. The younger Americans are trending more toward liberalism and the Democratic Party, while older Americans favor the Republican Party. Those identifying as liberals has grown by 9 points among Millennials (to 27%), and by 7 points among Generation X (to 21%). And those identifying as Democrats has grown by 7 points among Millennials (to 54%), and by 6 points among Generation X (to 48%).

Conservatism has grown among Baby Boomers by 8 points (to 31%), and among the Silent Generation by 11 points (to 36%). Those identifying as Republican has grown by 5 points among Baby Boomers (to 44%), and by 10 points among the Silent Generation (to 48%).

The problem for Republicans is that as the Silent Generation (and them Baby Boomers) die off, they will be replaced by the much more liberal and Democratic Generation X and Millennials.

When you add this trend to another population trend -- the percentage growth of non-whites (who tend to be much more liberal and Democratic) over whites among the voting population -- then you have a future that looks very bright for Democrats.

Political Ideology In The 50 States

The Gallup Poll has released its yearly analysis of political ideology in all 50 states. The charts above were made by questioning 177,788 adults between January 2nd and December 30th of 2016. The margin of error for each state is between 3 and 6 points (depending on the sample size in that state).

Conservatives still outnumber liberals in the United States, but don't have a majority. In 42 states, the conservative group slightly decreased in 2016, while it increased in 4 states and stayed the same in 4 others.

Liberals Are Still A Minority - But Growing In The U.S.

These charts are from a recently released Gallup Poll. The results are an aggregate from 17 surveys they did during the year of 2016. They questioned 17,055 adults, and the results have a margin of error of only 1 point.

It shows that neither conservatism nor liberalism has the majority of the American population. Conservatism does have a bigger minority (36%) than liberalism (25%) -- but while conservatism has been slightly declining, liberalism is growing. In 2009, conservatism had a 19 point advantage. That has now been reduced to 11 points.

The reason that liberalism is growing is illustrated in the two charts below. More Democrats are now self-identifying as liberals, while less are identifying as moderates or conservatives -- and that is true of every demographic group in the Democratic Party.

A Message For Democratic Party Liberals

The following message is from Josh Barro in Business Insider. It may seem strange to some that the Business Insider would be giving good advice to liberal Democrats, but it is reasonable advice. Mr. Barro writes:

Until a few days ago, liberals had shown a realization that Jill Stein was a spoiler and an impediment to liberal policymaking.

Now, a bunch of you have given her more money than she raised during her whole campaignbecause you have been eager to buy into a conspiracy theory about Donald Trump benefitting from the rigging of voting machines, and Stein indulged the theory and offered to seek a recount if youwould pay for it.

Well done, everybody — good job, good effort.

In other fantasy news, electors are never going to strip Trump of the presidency over concerns about the Emoluments Clause. If they did, they would be creating a grave democratic crisis by substituting their judgment for that of the voters.

This is not an idea worth discussing. But liberals are discussing it because it makes them feel good to think maybe Trump won't have to be president.

This is the beginning of a descent into an information bubble of the sort that drove conservatives insane over the past eight years and that led them to send money to candidates like Ben Carson.

I suspect some enterprising grifters are looking at Stein's fundraising success and wondering whether scam PACs shouldn't be just for conservatives anymore. The diversion of liberal money and energy down blind alleys would not be a positive development in the era of Trump, when an effective opposition will be more necessary than ever.

I get it. It is appropriate to feel grief over Donald Trump's election — and to wish this weren't happening.

But it is happening. He won — what you have to do now is to figure out what to do about it.

So here are three places Trump opponents can productively focus their energy:

1. The Louisiana Senate race. Congressional elections aren't quite over yet, because Louisiana will elect a senator in a runoff election on December 10. This race will determine whether Republicans have 51 or 52 seats in the next US Senate. Yes, Democrats are very unlikely to win this election, but they're more likely to win it than Trump is to lose through recounts or Electoral College shenanigans, so on a relative basis it's less of a waste of liberals' energy and money. More important, if Democrats are going to beat back Republican majorities in Congress in 2018 and 2020, they will have to start campaigning and winning in places where they haven't been winning lately. Louisiana's runoff offers the first opportunity to practice.
2. Cabinet confirmations. The Republican majority in the Senate will be narrow, and Trump will need to hold nearly all Republicans together to confirm controversial picks for jobs that require confirmation. Organized efforts to lobby senators could help stop Trump from creating the Cabinet of your nightmares. But it will be best to focus your opposition on his stranger, more Trumpian picks. Liberals have good reasons to be upset about the choice of Betsy DeVos to lead the Department of Education. But she's the sort of pick you might have also seen in a Jeb Bush administration, and it's unlikely any Republicans can be persuaded to oppose her. But if Trump follows through on nominating Ben Carson to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development or Rudy Giuliani to be secretary of state ...
3. Medicare. One of Paul Ryan's longstanding goals has been to transform federal entitlement programs in a way that reduces the generosity of their benefits, including by transforming Medicare so that it would (ironically) look a lot more like the Affordable Care Act, with seniors receiving a fixed subsidy toward the purchase of a private insurance plan. Some Republicans in Congress are signaling an intention to move forward early with a transformation of Medicare. This would be very unpopular, and Trump insisted through the campaign that he didn't want to cut Medicare, in part because it would be very unpopular. This is an issue in which Democrats can apply political pressure that will divide Republicans and push them into infighting — perhaps ending with a Trump veto of a Republican Medicare reform bill. There are lots of good reasons to dislike Steve Bannon, but on this issue Democrats may be able to capitalize on Bannon's desire to punish and humiliate Ryan.

Eyes on the ball, everyone. This is important.

I would add two more things --

4. Make sure the Republicans don't repeal Obamacare. While it's not perfect, and changes need to be made, repealing it would be a serious mistake (and would deny health insurance to millions who obtained it under Obamacare).

5. Protect Social Security. The Republican solution to the future financial problems of the program is to raise the retirement age and/or cut benefits. This would be disastrous to the millions who do physical labor to earn their living, and would throw many who already barely subsist on their Social Security benefit into poverty.

NO! Bernie Sanders Would Not Have Beaten Donald Trump

(This caricature of Bernie Sanders is by DonkeyHotey.)

A rather ridiculous meme I have been seeing lately on social media is hardcore Bernie Sanders supporters saying Democrats lost the election because they nominated Hillary Clinton instead of Sanders. They would have us believe that Bernie Sanders could have beaten Donald Trump. Personally, I don't believe Sanders could have won. I think he would have been beaten worse than Clinton (and probably would have lost even the popular vote).

Kurt Eichenwald has written an excellent article for Newsweek on myths that some liberal Democrats believe. I have reposted here the part of that article dealing with whether Sanders could have won.

It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach.

When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn’t mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don’t attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored.

Democrats Liberal On Social Issues -- Not Economic Issues

The charts above were made from a new Gallup Poll -- done between May 4th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,025 adults, with a 4 point margin of error. It shows the political divisions regarding social and economic issues.

The divisions for all adults, Independents, and Republicans were about what I thought they were. It was the Democratic numbers that surprised me a bit. While I was gratified to see a majority of Democrats (57%) consider themselves to be liberal on social issues, it was disappointing to see only 41% considered themselves to be liberal on economic issues. On economic issues, a majority of Democrats (58%) consider themselves to be moderates or conservatives.

Could this be why Bernie Sanders didn't do better in his presidential race? He based his entire campaign on economic issues -- very liberal economic issues. But that is just not where the Democratic Party is right now. He turned out to be too liberal for most party members.

I am a progressive myself, and I would love to believe the majority of Democrats (and Americans) agreed with my progressive views -- but it just isn't true. I think it could be true some day, if we work hard. But right now, both the party and the country is not ready to accept far-left economic solutions.

By the same token, the country doesn't want far-right economic solutions either (which is why Ted Cruz probably didn't win).

This is still a moderate country. I believe it wants change, but it wants that change (especially economically) to come slowly -- in small steps. Americans are afraid of radical change -- from either the left or the right.

Democrats Should Be Proud To Claim Liberalism

A second post from my friend Jim:

Thanks for the kind words, and I’ll try and deserve them, this time.  (My style will always wander down odd bypaths and hop around a bit.  I sounded like that in the 3^rd Grade, and as I approach 70, I don’t expect it to change much, but I usually can pull things together better.)

        I’m hoping to work on a couple of posts today. Maybe even getting another one up tonight, though that’s unlikely.  There are so many topics rattling around, and my wife (and proofreader, copy editor, and the one trying to keep me on course) has her own input.

  

        For example, I want to look at the fracture lines that are appearing in the Republican party, and how we can make them wider and benefit in some unexpected ways.  (Teaser: Despite a long history of considering the corporations as permanently welded inside their elephant costumes, in fact there have been issues where they have swung to our side.  Historians of the civil rights movement say that the reason why Atlanta was relatively free of disruption – despite its nearness to the birthplace of the Klan – was that the business community decided it wasn’t going to have the city suffer the revulsion other cities were earning.  During Vietnam, there was a strong Wall Street Against the War contingent, long before union members had switched from beating up protestors to supporting them.  And corporations were giving full marital benefits to same-sex couples while our Presidential Candidates were still arguing that ‘marriage was between one man and one woman’ and ‘civil unions were close enough that gays should accept them for now, and wait until society was ready for full marriage.’  We can get – some – business interests to switch to our side on – some – issues, if we don’t start by treating them as automatic enemies, or by weakening our own positions to get their support.)

  

On the other hand, while I’m staying back from the primaries until Tuesday, and I see how Bernie reacts, there are other ideas that may shove to the front – like (Em’s favorite) why I say “It’s not the economy this year, stupid” and why, even though we need to discuss it, I think the economy is usually less important as an issue than we usually think of it.  But on to this post.

   

        First, I need to remind Democrats of something we seem to have forgotten over the past 40+ years.  We are actually “allowed” to go on the offensive, to attack Republicans, to be the ones who force them to defend their own failures, absurdities, and irrationalities.  One of our candidates on the top of the ballot seems ready to do that, but we have to get commendations, medals, or whatever else is needed down to our Congressional and legislative candidates – anything to give them courage.

        I know, this is a shocking idea.  Ever since William Safire fed Spiro Agnew that line about the ‘silent majority’ we’ve acted like that lair of liars actually got one thing right.  We’ve really believed – and okay, the McGovern debacle didn’t do much to ‘deprogram’ us – that there WAS this mass of people who generally didn’t vote, but who would come after us, pitchforks at the ready – Pat Buchanan’s later addition – if we actually dared to support liberal programs or even call ourselves ‘liberals.’

        (We didn’t start calling ourselves Progressives to say we were ‘more liberal than Liberals’ -- the way some of our candidates use it today.  We didn’t even use the name because we were followers of Teddy Roosevelt’s ideas, though in many ways we are – from environmentalism to Pure Food and Drug Laws to trust busting and ‘saving capitalism from itself by reining in the abuses’ many of our ideas came from Teddy, or were first implemented by him.  No, we picked “Progressive” to say ‘we’re really Liberals, but the word is such a red flag we decided to change it, not our policies.”  (Which never works. Every time we did, we seemed to be telling the electorate that Republicans were right about Liberalism – and getting them more willing to think Republicans were right on other things.  Meanwhile, the timidity dampened the enthusiasm of the stronger liberals.)

        It is long past time to change that mindset, to use the Robert Wechsler self-description proudly and say “Yes, we are Liberal and Loud.”  It’s about time we stopped giving Republicans a pass on their bigotries of all types, their failures and bankruptcies in state after state, the racist jokes and tweets that fly between party officials, their attacks on voting that are attacks on Democracy itself, and all the rest.

        We have to lay at their feet the pictures of the deaths they have caused.  Just last night a four year old was shot by her five year old sister.  Sadly, it was barely a big story in the local paper, one of similar ones almost every day of the week.

Something like this affects not just the dead girl, not just her family, their employers, parents in the building and neighborhood but the entire neighborhood and city.  We have no choice but to begin holding Republicans accountable, showing how their ideas on guns have led to more deaths than in Iraq, and creating a consensus on at least some sensible restrictions.  (Another piece in the pipeline is my own solution – which basically treats guns like cars, requires licenses, and leaves accountability with the last registered owner – even if that is a manufacturer or seller.) 

 

And then there are the emergency room deaths in states where Republicans refused Medicaid expansion, the deaths from back alley abortions, even the – rare but not non-existent – deaths from Muslim or Gay Bashing.  (And we even have become so involved in absurd infighting this year that we haven’t taken that wrath we aim at each other and aimed it at Governor Snyder and the Flint Crew, and the lifetime of living death they spread throughout the whole city. And – okay, a digression from a digression, but that’s the way my mind works – remember that, for maybe the next forty years, Human Resource Departments may automatically downgrade anyone who lived in Flint at any time because ‘better be safe than sorry.’)

We have so many targets.  We even should explain why Republican economics are the classic example of ‘for every difficult problem there is a solution that is simple, easily understandable, and totally wrong.  (But, as you will hear me say many times, “It’s not the economy, stupid, not this time.”  We lose when we rely on economics alone – but that too is for a different post.)

And we have to start challenging Republican lies – and have the evidence, in our heads, our hands or our desks – to do so successfully to people who know far less than we do about politics, government, and economics than we do. 

I am not speaking just to or about our candidates, but about us.  We have to become spokesmen for our party and our beliefs, even in our everyday relations, even if it means challenging the loudmouth in the lunchroom, the dittohead in the carpool, or our crazy relatives at a summer barbecue.  And remember, we aren’t trying the hopeless task of converting them.  We’re really talking to the silent people at the next table, or in the carpool, or lurking on the blogs, people who are listening to both of us, hopefully inoculating them from Republican Brain Fever or other dangerous diseases spread through word of mouth.

And, to switch back to a message for all our candidates, from city councilman to President.  This time our enemy is not our opponent. We continue to campaign just against the other candidate for the office we seek.  They keep running against us, our party, and our President.  (And when we try to switch back to local issues they taunt us about being ashamed of our President – and unless we come out swinging in our praise for him, if we hedge it makes their complaints against him look almost reasonable.)

This time we have to run on his record, yes, and it’s a great one.  But more, we have to run on the Republican records – of failure, of obstruction, of racism, of attacks on the right to abortion, and on women’s health in so many ways, on immigrants and Muslims.  We have to show the voters – who aren’t political junkies like us – the party platforms and what they mean.  And more and more we will also win points on the Republicans’ simple refusal to govern, even badly, even in the face of disaster, Mike Lee blocking aid for Flint, Ted Cruz blocking a bill on slavery because he can find an abortion loophole – that no one else sees – in it.  We need to concentrate on our own locality and region, predominantly, but Flint, the bankruptcies and educational destruction caused by Jindal and Brownback, the toleration and even support of bigots on the radio, all can be made to put Republicans on the defensive everywhere.

If I need to mention a Presidential candidate supported by every White Nationalist in America, the other by authentic dominionists who see Christians as the people who should be on top the ‘7 mountains,’ if I need to mention a candidate who suggested the current President ‘might’ have been involved in a Supreme Court Justice’s death, or the conspiracies beloved by the other candidate’s father and chief surrogate, maybe you haven’t been paying attention to the real enemy as the squabbles on our side get louder.

 

Jim "Prup" Benton

Bernie-Bros Are Wrong - Clinton IS A Liberal (Progressive)

 It is a common meme on social media these days by Bernie Sanders supporters to say that Hillary Clinton is not a progressive (liberal), and some have even gone so far as to say her stand on the issues is closer to those of the Republicans than those of liberals.

That is absurd. These two charts are from ontheissues.org -- a web site that examines the stands of politicians on the issues. The chart on the left is that of Hillary Clinton, and the chart on the right is that of Bernie Sanders. They rate both Clinton and Sanders as "hard-core liberals". This makes sense since Clinton and Sanders agree on most issues, and while Clinton was in the Senate, they voted together 97% of the time.

Another study is reflected in the chart below. It shows that during her time in the Senate, Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal person in the U.S. Senate. That was at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate -- so that means she voted more liberal than at least 40 other Democratic senators. To say that Clinton is not liberal (progressive) is to say that other senators known for their liberalism (like Leahy, Mikulski, Durbin, Kerry, and Harkin) were not liberal (and voted like Republicans). Such a statement is ridiculous.

Is Clinton as far to the left as Bernie Sanders? No, and neither is any other Democrat. But that does not mean they are not progressive (liberal). They are, and they are to be commended upon their proud progressive voting record -- and so should Hillary Clinton.

Bernie's most vicious supporters would put a "purity test" on progressives (much like the teabaggers have done for conservatives in the GOP). They speak ill of any progressive who doesn't agree with Sanders 100%. That is a mistake because it drives a wedge between good progressives, and denigrates many good Democrats who have served their country well.

The "Bernie-Bros" are just wrong. Hillary Clinton is a progressive (liberal), and has been for more than four decades. To say otherwise is to deny the facts.

Liberals Are Rising, But No Ideology Is Dominant In U.S.

These charts are from the Gallup Poll. They questioned 12,137 adults throughout the year of 2015 to get the latest results (and a similar sample for earlier years), and the margin of error is only 1 point because of the large sample.

Those identifying as liberal have seen a rise in their percentage since 1992 -- going from 17% to 24 %. That's a significant 7 point rise. Meanwhile, the percentage of conservatives has remained constant -- at 36% in 1992 and 37% in 2015 (within the margin of error). Moderates have seen an 8 point drop since 1992 -- from 43% to 35%.

A plurality of Democrats (45%) now see themselves as liberals, while a majority of Republicans (68%) see themselves as conservatives. Among Independents, a plurality (41%) see themselves as moderates.

Those on the right, and on the left, would like to think that most Americans agree with them -- but that is simply not true. There are enough moderates to keep either extreme from being dominant. And as is usual, it will be the moderates who decide in 2016 who will be our next president. The Democrat or Republican viewed as the most moderate will be elected.

The Republican Base Wants A Conservative President While The Democratic Base Prefers A Moderate

The GOP right-wingers have put forth the idea that they are this country's conservative party, while the Democrats are the party of liberals. They are half right. As the chart above shows, about 60% of Republicans want a right-wing president (a clear majority). But the opposite is not true of Democrats. Nearly half of Democrats (48%) say they want a moderate to be president, while only 30% (less than a third) would prefer a president from the left.

This just verifies what I have been saying for quite a while now -- that there is no major party of the left in this country. We have a right-wing party (Republicans) and a centrist party (Democrats). The Democrats do have two good progressives running for their nomination this year -- but the perception of them is very different. Hillary Clinton is perceived as the more moderate candidate by most, while Bernie Sanders is perceived as being on the far left (a perception enhanced by his claim to be a socialist). This, more than anything else, is why Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee.

These charts were made from a new Gallup Poll -- done between December 2nd and 6th of a random national sample of 366 Republicans and 363 Democrats, with the margin of error for both parties being 7 points.