Future Realignment Possibilities?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Democrats re-align in a more libertarian direction:

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Democrats re-align in a more libertarian direction:

What in tarnation? Tennessee is not libertarian whatsoever, there's no reason for it to be more Democratic than its neighbors. Oklahoma is basically the least libertarian state in the Union, Little Dixie is the epitome of economically egalitarian and socially conservative, so why is it only Lean R? Why would NE-03 be Republican yet Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota be strongly Democratic? Why would Illinois be Republican yet Indiana be Democratic? Why would Vermont lean Republican? Why would Maryland be strongly Republican?

Also, such a realignment would never happen. There are people in this party like myself that would prevent the Democrats from ever becoming so fiscally conservative.

TN: High population growth in a wealthy, mostly white, metro.
OK: Should probably be more R, but I think I messed up with the demographics there.
NE-03: Plains voters are still somewhat republican, especially among the Far West.
IL: Has a lot more southern areas, urban areas, and fewer suburbs. Cook swinging R tips it. Indiana can get more democratic with suburbs going D.
VT: Very economically liberal, which makes a state that's not very satisfied with either party.
MD: Is Likely R, as a combination of rural southerners and urban blacks tips it.

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.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

CORRECTIONS:
I Made some state predictions that turned out to be wrong. I made a model, and I can say some things with more confidence.
TN is SOLID R (not Tossup)
OK is SOLID R (not Lean R)
IL is LIKELY D (not Likely R)
IN is LEAN R (not Lean D)
MD is LEAN R (not Likely R)
VT is SOLID D (Not Lean R)

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

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.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

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.

So they're gonna cave on economic issues and become a bunch of Ron Paul types on business, regulation, taxes, and spending and that's how they're gonna win?

Ok well somebody needs to explain this strategy to Schumer with his Better Deal agenda because somehow he's chosen not to take your advice at all. Probably because he talks to actual Democrats.

Copying Trump's dipsh**t positions on Trade isn't the path to a majority.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

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.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

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.

Mind actually coming up with some reason to back up your claims? Gary Johnson only garnered a very small part of the vote, so comparing his share of the vote is rather irrelevant in terms of determining generational trends. The millennial swing towards him can be very easily explained by what I said above; the fact that he was the only pro-weed candidate, and there are many millennials who vote solely based on weed. Sanders, on the other hand, garnered a much more energized bloc of support from millennials, and a much larger chunk of millennials supported Sanders as well. Ask any Sanders supporter why they voted for him, and you'll usually get similar answers.
- Student loan debt
- Unable to find a decent job
- Authenticity; doesn't take big-money donations

Also, you don't seem to understand what "identity politics" really is. I think Sanders represents the epitome of refusing to do identity politics. Here, he explains to a room full of high school students how Republicans use identity politics to divide the white and black working class into blocs, so that they can win. Sanders wants to unite all of the working class under one banner. If anything, the establishment was peddling identity politics by pushing the message of "racist, sexist Bernie Bros". The article that you posted doesn't confirm your claim in any way, shape, or form. Instead of just pasting an article, why don't you think of an argument?

>b-b-but Clinton swept minority voters, they obviously don't like Burning Sandals

Yes, Clinton swept minority voters. However, the minority voters weren't necessarily picking between a good and an evil, but rather a good and a greater good. They liked Sanders's economic message, but they saw how the Clintons have helped their respective communities, and they thought that Clinton would have a better chance at defeating the eventual Republican nominee. The evidence is in the polling; Sanders is actually more popular among women and minorities than with men and whites. This destroys the entire narrative, which, in a sense, is centered around identity politics.

Final point, if you say that Sanders's success was due to his personality, aren't you implying that he's a likable candidate, or at least a good enough politician to frame himself as likable?

Sanders supporters tended to be more liberal on social issues, not economic ones. So were Johnson supporters, who often polled in double digits among millenials.
Sanders managed to acquire a reputation as honest and full of integrity. Being as it is not true, I can't imagine it lasting long.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

-snippity snip-

Sanders supporters tended to be more liberal on social issues, not economic ones. So were Johnson supporters, who often polled in double digits among millenials.
Sanders managed to acquire a reputation as honest and full of integrity. Being as it is not true, I can't imagine it lasting long.

For your first point, can you provide a source? The article you posted doesn't have this point as a central point, do you mind copying the text for me? It doesn't necessarily make sense, considering how Sanders won by large margins in the more fiscally egalitarian, socially conservative states like West Virginia and Oklahoma. He also came really close, outperforming his national margin significantly, in Kentucky and Missouri. It was Clinton who swept fiscally conservative, socially liberal states such as New Jersey. Of course, both Sanders and Clinton swept states that are fiscally and socially left-wing; Sanders winning the Oregon and Washington, Clinton winning Maryland.

Also, about the Johnson voters, there is another point to be brought up too (that I forgot about at first), and that is the fact that even millennial conservatives tend to be less socially conservative than the Republicans. It is more likely than not that Johnson pulled more voters from these two main groups; millennial conservatives, who wanted the fiscal conservatism yet not the social conservatism, and the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd, which was the overlap between Johnson and Sanders.

As for your second point, again, can you provide any evidence? Sanders built his reputation of honesty and integrity because he refuses to take big-money donations, unlike Clinton who does speeches for Goldman Sachs. He made campaign finance reform a central point of his campaign. If he continues to do this, how exactly will this reputation decline? Please, lay it out for me. Sanders didn't get his honest reputation from a shooting star, he built it from scratch. He has held elected office for much longer than Clinton, so it's not because of political career length.

>b-b-but Clinton was ferociously attacked by the GOP

Yeah, so? This is politics, put up or shut up. You have to be able to defend yourself and your reputation from such attacks. If you can't, you're an incompetent politician. This didn't happen to Barack Obama, look at the approval ratings at the end of his presidency. He also had the added disadvantage of being a black guy with the middle name Hussein.

1. You managed to misunderstand the identity politics point.
2. If the generation of the future is libertarian, maybe consider moving towards them.
3. Usually I consider helping your wife commit loan fraud and abandoaning your principles for easy money to be more corrupt than taking money from a (((corporation))), but different strokes for different folks.
4. If someone recieves the most negative news coverage of any candidate, and has both sides attacking them, they might drop in popularity. Who knew?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

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

What does? Your dreams?