Opinion: What Democrats Think When They Think of the ‘Democratic Party'
As in, when I say 'Chick-Fil-A,' what one word comes to mind? For me it's 'delicious.' Or 'consistent.' Or 'polite.' All of those words are positive, which is why, I suspect, Chick-Fil-A is the most successful fast-food chain in the country.
This works in politics, too. After all, the two major political parties are, effectively, brands. How people feel about them is critically important to whether they are willing to vote for their candidates.
Which brings me to new polling by the Republican firm Echelon Insights for the newsletter site Puck. Echelon asked people to choose a single word that came to mind when they said 'the Democratic party.' The results are fascinating—and depressing if you are a Democrat.
In the word cloud of one-word answers from the overall electorate, the three most commonly mentioned words were 'Liberal,' 'weak,' and 'corrupt.'
Not good!
But even more troubling for Democrats is the word cloud addressing what self-identified Democrats said about their own side of the aisle. The most common word? 'Weak.'
That is brutal.
And there's more. On Thursday, the Associated Press released a new national poll. In it, just one in three Democrats said they felt 'very' or even 'somewhat' optimistic about the party's future.
Compare that to a July 2024 AP poll when six in ten Democrats were 'very' or 'somewhat' optimistic. And to the 55 percent of Republicans who currently feel 'very' or 'somewhat' optimistic about the future of the GOP.
On a daily basis, I read stuff from all over the internet that ponders this basic question: Do Democrats needs a more liberal or a more conservative nominee to win the White House back in 2028?
But when sifting through these numbers, I kept thinking of my recent conversation with Democratic pollster Margie Omero, in which she said Democrats want—and need—a fighter. That it doesn't matter if that person was a liberal or a moderate, but that they were willing to fight for the values and the people they represented.
I think these numbers—and these word clouds—prove Margie right.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
The House is awash in subpoenas as Epstein inquiry expands
Congress has been rightly criticized for not pushing back sooner against executive branch encroachments on first branch constitutional prerogatives. Congress's relative somnolence is understandable though not wholly excusable. The silence on the Hill has been due in large part to the unilateral party control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. There is a certain grace period observed at the outset of a new administration while it gets its ducks in a row on policy and legislative priorities. Missteps and overreach inevitably occur and usually are met by majority party tolerance and inaction on the Hill. This Congress has followed the norm and oversight was overlooked except by the lone voices of protest on the minority party side of the aisle. Last month we witnessed the first cracks in the stone dam. It occurred on July 22 in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. There, in the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement chaired by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), ranking member Summer Lee (D-Pa.) offered a motion to subpoena the Justice Department for the complete files of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died by suicide in prison in 2019. The motion surprisingly carried on an 8-to-2 vote with three Republican members joining all Democrats to adopt the motion. Two of the subcommittee's Republicans, including Chairman Higgins, voted against the motion. The subcommittee subsequently adopted by voice vote a motion offered by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to subpoena the deposition testimony of a host of former government officials from both parties, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, six former attorneys general and two former FBI directors. One of the subpoenaed former officials, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, was asked on ' Meet the Press ' last Sunday whether he would comply with the subpoena. He wouldn't commit, explaining that conversations were ongoing to determine exactly what information the committee wanted. Program moderator Kristen Welker pressed him, noting that he was the first attorney general in history ever to be held in contempt of Congress in 2012 for his refusal to testify on 'Operation Fast and Furious,' tracking illegal gun sales. 'Do you have any regrets about that now,' and, 'will that be informing your decision now?' Holder explained that the information sought in that instance was 'confidential' internal executive branch communications and, presumably privileged (though only the president can invoke executive privilege). The White House and Justice Department did not attempt to prosecute Holder for criminal contempt of Congress in 2012. Whether the other subpoenaed former attorneys general and FBI directors will take their lead from Holder's decision this time will be interesting to watch. What makes the Epstein files disclosure demand especially unique today is President Trump's apparent flip-flop on the issue of disclosure from his previous use of it as one of the major issues on which he campaigned. It was a symbol of bringing down the ruling elites and draining the Washington swamp. That commitment has waned. As pressure grew, the president belatedly directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek release of sealed grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case. That request was denied by a Florida judge. Meanwhile, the president has put out the word that it's 'time to move on.' The Supreme Court's decision in McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927 held that Congress has an inherent right to compel testimony and conduct oversight as part of its constitutional lawmaking functions. The case was an offshoot of the Teapot Dome oil leasing scandal of the early 1920s. In that instance, a Senate select committee was inquiring into why former Attorney General Harry Daughety did not investigate the matter when it first broke. It had subpoenaed Mally Daugherty, the attorney general's brother and president of a bank at the heart of the scandal. When Mally refused to comply with the subpoena he was cited for contempt of Congress and found guilty. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld Mally's conviction. That 1927 decision did not turn off the spigot and witnesses today are still challenging subpoenas and inviting contempt citations. Whether a contempt citation is prosecuted is solely at the discretion of the Justice Department. The failure by the Justice Department to prosecute Holder's contempt of Congress citation in 2012 could well be a precursor to another prolonged battle of the branches. This time Congress could potentially wind-up with a sawed-off limb. Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018).
Gizmodo
6 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Ohio Wants to Create a Database of People Who Skip Job Interviews
The job market is tough at the moment for prospective employees, and Ohio has plans to make it even tougher. A bill recently introduced by Republicans in the Ohio House of Representatives would create an online registry of people who fail to show up for a job interview. The proposal, introduced as H.B. 395, specifically targets job applicants who are recipients of unemployment benefits and are required to seek employment in order to continue receiving the limited compensation provided to them. It would give employers the ability to report a person for failing to show up to a scheduled job interview, potentially costing the person access to their unemployment benefits and, if that information is shared among employers, making it more difficult for them to find work. Republican Brian Lorenz, a co-sponsor on the bill, claims that the bill is needed because his constituents are reporting that ghosting job interviews is becoming more frequent. 'The bill rewards professionalism. If you value employers' time, this process is going to value you,' he told NBC4i in Ohio. 'And it just modernizes the employment process and it holds applicants accountable and it helps employers thrive.' The bill makes no effort to delineate between what is an appropriate and inappropriate reason to miss a job interview, which surely would not be weaponized by petty employers seeking to punish people for 'wasting their time.' Under the text of the proposal, it would fall on the Director of Job and Family Services to determine which complaints are legitimate and which ones are frivolous, which definitely seems like a good use of that person's time. Ohio isn't exactly getting hammered at the moment with unemployment claims—at least no moreso than anywhere else in the country. Ohio saw its first month of job loss all year in June, and its most recent unemployment data showed a decline in continued claims compared to the previous weeks. The state's unemployment rate of 4.9% sits higher than the national average of 4.1%, but it also has better overall labor force participation rates, with 62.7% of adults actively working or looking for work compared to the national average of 62.3%. Regardless, the idea that the employer is getting screwed by a person's no-show doesn't exactly pass the sniff test. Sure, there are resources expended by a business in the job interview process. But at the end of the day, they still have the rest of the potential employee pool to draw from to fill that role. Meanwhile, getting ghosted by a prospective employer has simply become part of the process for most job seekers. A recent report found that 61% of US job seekers reported being ghosted by an employer after a job interview, never receiving follow-up, and a survey of hiring managers conducted by ResumeGenius found that 80% admitted to ghosting potential employees. Wonder if Lorenz has any concerns about that. Surely he represents a lot more job seekers than employers.
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
Dems resistant to DC crime crackdown as questions linger about left-wing protest funding
Fox News' Alexandria Hoff reports the latest on the Trump administration's crackdown on crime across the nation's capital and Democrats' resistance. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., also weighs in on paid protesters and more on 'The Faulkner Focus.'
