Future Realignment Possibilities?

[GlobeSoc]

My interpretation of TD's realignment theory

[GlobeSoc]

Full disclosure: I would never vote for libertarian dems ever, barring a literal apocalypse if they don't win. I might vote for libertarian GOPhers if I believe they will further the cause of making the republican party realign in that direction

That being said:

YOUNG PEOPLE ARE NOT FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE

NOT EVERY DEMOCRAT IS FROM NOVA

NEITHER CLINTONISM NOR BERNIEISM IS LIBERTARIAN

[GlobeSoc]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

Yeah andRepublicans are not the only who lies to their base. There are many Democrats who want to move the party to the left just like the Bannon wing in the GOP want to move to the right but it won't happen. Plus the Democrats base is really pro establishment. When was the last time a Democrat incumbent lost the primary not barring a corruption scandal or redistricting?

False equivalence. Bannon is a moderate Republican economically, his extreme conservatism came with his social views. The majority of Berniecrats are economically left-wing and socially moderate to liberal. Also, the Overton window has shifted way too far to the right on economics in this point in time. Pretending that the Democratic base is "pro-establishment" is a load of horse-s**t. Clinton had every single institutional advantage over Sanders, we all knew that she was going to win the primary from the start. The fact that Sanders was even competitive should be a sign about the changing winds. Oh, and at the moment, Sanders is more popular than Clinton amongst Democrats. No, this idea that the Democrats will become even more fiscally conservative is very baseless, especially considering how younger voters broke for Sanders. The main reason Gary Johnson had millennial support was because of the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd.

Yeah, that's a blatant double standard. Writing away Johnson's support as irrelevant and Sanders as a perfect predictor of the future is nothing more than pretending your fantasies are the truth.
In the real world, Sanders had more conservative supporters than Clinton (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.5ad91356e91a)

His "success" (at not leaving even after he lost) was due far more to personality and identity politics than support for his socialism.

The social programs = evil communism meme needs to die, and it is thanks to millennials that it is

[GlobeSoc]

Anyone who thinks either the GOP or the democrats are going to become libertarian is utterly delusional.

[GlobeSoc]

Economic data and polling both suggest a social democratic future, not a libertarian one.

[GlobeSoc]

Obviously, muh trend R whites means that white voters of all ages in every part of the country will vote like they do in Mississippi (which will be Likely D because muh demographics.) The trends that happened in the 2016 election will obviously continue foreverz, and Kansas is a Toss-Up because muh educateds (doesn't apply in the PNW or NE) and the Sunbelt will be a permanent Democratic stronghold, except NV and NM, since they trended R in 2016, so obviously Republicans will always be competitive in those states, not to mention that NV polls say that it will be close, and we should always trust NV polls.

thank you for your wisdom