Why is The USA shifting leftward

[RFayette]

As I've said before, I would characterize it more as the left pulling even after a long period of losing and accomplishing little on their issues from 1969-2008.  Obama hasn't accomplished Reagan or FDR level change, but he is more of a Nixon or Wilson figure who could be setting the stage for something revolutionary in the 2020's when Millennials come to dominate the voting rolls.  I think the next president will be a Republican more likely than not. But sometime in the 2020's, Elizabeth Warren or a likeminded candidate will be swept in with a strong congressional majority and finish what Obama has started.

Your reading of the current situation rests heavily on whether Obama's support from minorities can be sustained into the long run.  I'm not talking about turnout, like many on here have.  2010 and 2014 showed that increased minority turnout is likely permanent.  I'm talking about margins.  Kennedy and LBJ got 70-80% of the Catholic vote, but that was a one time thing.  Assuming Trump falls by the wayside and the end up only getting 60-65% of the Hispanic vote and 55-60% of the Asian vote going in the long run, then they really shot themselves in the foot by giving a megaphone to white privilege talk.  If you want to enact left wing economic policy, you can't have unemployed miners and factory workers giving you 30% of the vote because they happen to be white men.  There is an apparent double bind here because the voters who are most comfortable with diversity are not going to be all that enthusiastic about social democracy when the bill comes due. There is some of this in the GOP base as well, but Evangelical activists have gotten surprisingly comfortable supporting candidates who do not share all of their values, while working class Democrats have not yet come to terms with how America is changing.  

The Dems do not have the voters spread out for your 2020 scenario like the Republicans do in terms of Congressional Re-appointment to do with they did in 2006 and 2008 because Bush W. was not very popular even in some marginal Republican Districts which allowed Democrats to win a lot of those districts in 2006 and 2008.

How have working class Dems not come to terms with how America is changing? Can you go more into that?  

I don't know if most Evangelical Voters support Trump since you referenced evangelicals not supporting candidates that shared of all their values. I thought not sharing all of their values that you referencing Trump.

I'm actually assuming Trump rides off into the sunset in a few months in favor of someone like Rubio or Cruz.  The Evangelical GOP base is often talked up as intransigent on just about everything that is new since 1960 (with the exception of moderate support for racial equality).  When they actually go into the voting booth, though, they are just as happy to give massive margins to the Gardner's/Rauner's/Hogan's/Paul's of the country who campaigned almost entirely on business issues and compromised to varying degrees on everything else.  There was speculation that elements of the religious right would have trouble with Romney's Mormon faith, but where are the 10's of McCain-Obama counties in Evangelical areas?  There were 10's of Kerry-McCain counties in white working class Dem areas.  And good luck passing a populist economic agenda through congress without them. 

I agree that they couldn't currently get a robust congressional majority, but my theory is that they will get there over 5-10 years because:

1. Continuing diversification of suburbs will drive some lean R districts permanently their way.
2. SCOTUS will likely get a bit more active about constraining gerrymandering (Kennedy has been hinting at this for a while)
3. Millennials will become a larger and larger fraction of the voting public, and even allowing for some moderation, all indications are that they will stay at least 55-60% Dem.
4.  The longer the economy keeps slogging along at 1-2% growth for IMO global structural reasons, promises that reforms X, Y and Z (or any political action, for that matter) can bring back mid 20th century growth rates will lose their credibility.  The middle class will focus more and more on distribution as slow growth becomes a fact of life, adding momentum to the inequality narrative.

The rest of the list assumes a Republican president in 2016.  Otherwise, acknowledge Dems could have an even bigger hole to climb out of on redistricting next time, particularly if Clinton narrowly wins in 2016 and then loses reelection in 2020.

5. With full GOP control federally, he 2018 midterm would be at worst a draw for Democrats, leading to much better maps next time in many light blue states
6.  The Tea Party and House Freedom Caucus will demand that the next Republican president actually goes there and takes a swing at the New Deal.  If the president goes along with it, he will alienate a broad swath of middle-aged Middle America that is still counting on the 1970-2010 grand bargain that Republicans shrink government only by cutting other people's benefits and that their "hard earned" entitlements were safe.  If the president refuses, they will raise holy heck probably to the point of 3rd party activity in 2018/20 that would doom him and his congressional majorities.

A lot is hinging on my point 4.  If 3-5% GDP growth does come back soon or Trump/Cruz turns into the Republican McGovern, we could lock in a semi-permanent D President/R House state of affairs with an effective coalition government between the president and a caucus of moderate House Republicans.  Senate control would generally be a toss up.  It would essentially be 1954-94 in reverse.  Democrats would probably keep their margins with minorities and become less economically populist and more exclusively focused on tolerance issues and isolationist foreign policy, which lend themselves more to executive action.  The what's the matter with Kansas/Connecticut narrative would get even stronger.

I tend to think points 1, 3, and 4 will only lead to a Democratic congressional majority with a Republican President.  Weak, sluggish growth will hurt Democrats all-around if the President is a Democrat, including minority and millenial demographics.

I have consistently predicted a Clinton victory in 2016, so I tend to disagree with a lot of your analysis for that reason.  Nonetheless, I do concur that once a Republican does become President, he or she will have to "go there" and the effects could be rather drastic.  Of course, if GDP growth is high enough under said Republican, then they could probably get away with minimal cuts so long as a balanced budget is achieved.

[RFayette]

As I've said before, I would characterize it more as the left pulling even after a long period of losing and accomplishing little on their issues from 1969-2008.  Obama hasn't accomplished Reagan or FDR level change, but he is more of a Nixon or Wilson figure who could be setting the stage for something revolutionary in the 2020's when Millennials come to dominate the voting rolls.  I think the next president will be a Republican more likely than not. But sometime in the 2020's, Elizabeth Warren or a likeminded candidate will be swept in with a strong congressional majority and finish what Obama has started.

Your reading of the current situation rests heavily on whether Obama's support from minorities can be sustained into the long run.  I'm not talking about turnout, like many on here have.  2010 and 2014 showed that increased minority turnout is likely permanent.  I'm talking about margins.  Kennedy and LBJ got 70-80% of the Catholic vote, but that was a one time thing.  Assuming Trump falls by the wayside and the end up only getting 60-65% of the Hispanic vote and 55-60% of the Asian vote going in the long run, then they really shot themselves in the foot by giving a megaphone to white privilege talk.  If you want to enact left wing economic policy, you can't have unemployed miners and factory workers giving you 30% of the vote because they happen to be white men.  There is an apparent double bind here because the voters who are most comfortable with diversity are not going to be all that enthusiastic about social democracy when the bill comes due. There is some of this in the GOP base as well, but Evangelical activists have gotten surprisingly comfortable supporting candidates who do not share all of their values, while working class Democrats have not yet come to terms with how America is changing.  

The Dems do not have the voters spread out for your 2020 scenario like the Republicans do in terms of Congressional Re-appointment to do with they did in 2006 and 2008 because Bush W. was not very popular even in some marginal Republican Districts which allowed Democrats to win a lot of those districts in 2006 and 2008.

How have working class Dems not come to terms with how America is changing? Can you go more into that?  

I don't know if most Evangelical Voters support Trump since you referenced evangelicals not supporting candidates that shared of all their values. I thought not sharing all of their values that you referencing Trump.

I'm actually assuming Trump rides off into the sunset in a few months in favor of someone like Rubio or Cruz.  The Evangelical GOP base is often talked up as intransigent on just about everything that is new since 1960 (with the exception of moderate support for racial equality).  When they actually go into the voting booth, though, they are just as happy to give massive margins to the Gardner's/Rauner's/Hogan's/Paul's of the country who campaigned almost entirely on business issues and compromised to varying degrees on everything else.  There was speculation that elements of the religious right would have trouble with Romney's Mormon faith, but where are the 10's of McCain-Obama counties in Evangelical areas?  There were 10's of Kerry-McCain counties in white working class Dem areas.  And good luck passing a populist economic agenda through congress without them.  

I agree that they couldn't currently get a robust congressional majority, but my theory is that they will get there over 5-10 years because:

1. Continuing diversification of suburbs will drive some lean R districts permanently their way.
2. SCOTUS will likely get a bit more active about constraining gerrymandering (Kennedy has been hinting at this for a while)
3. Millennials will become a larger and larger fraction of the voting public, and even allowing for some moderation, all indications are that they will stay at least 55-60% Dem.
4.  The longer the economy keeps slogging along at 1-2% growth for IMO global structural reasons, promises that reforms X, Y and Z (or any political action, for that matter) can bring back mid 20th century growth rates will lose their credibility.  The middle class will focus more and more on distribution as slow growth becomes a fact of life, adding momentum to the inequality narrative.

The rest of the list assumes a Republican president in 2016.  Otherwise, acknowledge Dems could have an even bigger hole to climb out of on redistricting next time, particularly if Clinton narrowly wins in 2016 and then loses reelection in 2020.

5. With full GOP control federally, he 2018 midterm would be at worst a draw for Democrats, leading to much better maps next time in many light blue states
6.  The Tea Party and House Freedom Caucus will demand that the next Republican president actually goes there and takes a swing at the New Deal.  If the president goes along with it, he will alienate a broad swath of middle-aged Middle America that is still counting on the 1970-2010 grand bargain that Republicans shrink government only by cutting other people's benefits and that their "hard earned" entitlements were safe.  If the president refuses, they will raise holy heck probably to the point of 3rd party activity in 2018/20 that would doom him and his congressional majorities.

A lot is hinging on my point 4.  If 3-5% GDP growth does come back soon or Trump/Cruz turns into the Republican McGovern, we could lock in a semi-permanent D President/R House state of affairs with an effective coalition government between the president and a caucus of moderate House Republicans.  Senate control would generally be a toss up.  It would essentially be 1954-94 in reverse.  Democrats would probably keep their margins with minorities and become less economically populist and more exclusively focused on tolerance issues and isolationist foreign policy, which lend themselves more to executive action.  The what's the matter with Kansas/Connecticut narrative would get even stronger.

I tend to think points 1, 3, and 4 will only lead to a Democratic congressional majority with a Republican President.  Weak, sluggish growth will hurt Democrats all-around if the President is a Democrat, including minority and millenial demographics.

I have consistently predicted a Clinton victory in 2016, so I tend to disagree with a lot of your analysis for that reason.  Nonetheless, I do concur that once a Republican does become President, he or she will have to "go there" and the effects could be rather drastic.  Of course, if GDP growth is high enough under said Republican, then they could probably get away with minimal cuts so long as a balanced budget is achieved.

Hmmm, so assuming Clinton wins, do you think D President/R House will get locked in for the better part of 2010-50 or do you have Clinton walking into a 1932/1984 situation in 2020?

It all hinges on GDP growth.  3-5% GDP growth will lead to a Clinton 2020 landslide and probably wouldn't deliver a D landslide w/ Congress, but the Senate would probably end up GOP in that instance.  Weak, sluggish growth would be easier to pin on Clinton/the Democrats, and a Republican would then win in 2020, after which your scenario could make more sense (GOP becoming much more toxic in Middle America due to "going there").  All demographics will shift in a relative manner, so weak GDP growth + terror threats prior to 2020 will hurt the Democrats with millenials/minorities proportionally to the rest of the country.

[RFayette]

As I've said before, I would characterize it more as the left pulling even after a long period of losing and accomplishing little on their issues from 1969-2008.  Obama hasn't accomplished Reagan or FDR level change, but he is more of a Nixon or Wilson figure who could be setting the stage for something revolutionary in the 2020's when Millennials come to dominate the voting rolls.  I think the next president will be a Republican more likely than not. But sometime in the 2020's, Elizabeth Warren or a likeminded candidate will be swept in with a strong congressional majority and finish what Obama has started.

Your reading of the current situation rests heavily on whether Obama's support from minorities can be sustained into the long run.  I'm not talking about turnout, like many on here have.  2010 and 2014 showed that increased minority turnout is likely permanent.  I'm talking about margins.  Kennedy and LBJ got 70-80% of the Catholic vote, but that was a one time thing.  Assuming Trump falls by the wayside and the end up only getting 60-65% of the Hispanic vote and 55-60% of the Asian vote going in the long run, then they really shot themselves in the foot by giving a megaphone to white privilege talk.  If you want to enact left wing economic policy, you can't have unemployed miners and factory workers giving you 30% of the vote because they happen to be white men.  There is an apparent double bind here because the voters who are most comfortable with diversity are not going to be all that enthusiastic about social democracy when the bill comes due. There is some of this in the GOP base as well, but Evangelical activists have gotten surprisingly comfortable supporting candidates who do not share all of their values, while working class Democrats have not yet come to terms with how America is changing.  

The Dems do not have the voters spread out for your 2020 scenario like the Republicans do in terms of Congressional Re-appointment to do with they did in 2006 and 2008 because Bush W. was not very popular even in some marginal Republican Districts which allowed Democrats to win a lot of those districts in 2006 and 2008.

How have working class Dems not come to terms with how America is changing? Can you go more into that?  

I don't know if most Evangelical Voters support Trump since you referenced evangelicals not supporting candidates that shared of all their values. I thought not sharing all of their values that you referencing Trump.

I'm actually assuming Trump rides off into the sunset in a few months in favor of someone like Rubio or Cruz.  The Evangelical GOP base is often talked up as intransigent on just about everything that is new since 1960 (with the exception of moderate support for racial equality).  When they actually go into the voting booth, though, they are just as happy to give massive margins to the Gardner's/Rauner's/Hogan's/Paul's of the country who campaigned almost entirely on business issues and compromised to varying degrees on everything else.  There was speculation that elements of the religious right would have trouble with Romney's Mormon faith, but where are the 10's of McCain-Obama counties in Evangelical areas?  There were 10's of Kerry-McCain counties in white working class Dem areas.  And good luck passing a populist economic agenda through congress without them.  

I agree that they couldn't currently get a robust congressional majority, but my theory is that they will get there over 5-10 years because:

1. Continuing diversification of suburbs will drive some lean R districts permanently their way.
2. SCOTUS will likely get a bit more active about constraining gerrymandering (Kennedy has been hinting at this for a while)
3. Millennials will become a larger and larger fraction of the voting public, and even allowing for some moderation, all indications are that they will stay at least 55-60% Dem.
4.  The longer the economy keeps slogging along at 1-2% growth for IMO global structural reasons, promises that reforms X, Y and Z (or any political action, for that matter) can bring back mid 20th century growth rates will lose their credibility.  The middle class will focus more and more on distribution as slow growth becomes a fact of life, adding momentum to the inequality narrative.

The rest of the list assumes a Republican president in 2016.  Otherwise, acknowledge Dems could have an even bigger hole to climb out of on redistricting next time, particularly if Clinton narrowly wins in 2016 and then loses reelection in 2020.

5. With full GOP control federally, he 2018 midterm would be at worst a draw for Democrats, leading to much better maps next time in many light blue states
6.  The Tea Party and House Freedom Caucus will demand that the next Republican president actually goes there and takes a swing at the New Deal.  If the president goes along with it, he will alienate a broad swath of middle-aged Middle America that is still counting on the 1970-2010 grand bargain that Republicans shrink government only by cutting other people's benefits and that their "hard earned" entitlements were safe.  If the president refuses, they will raise holy heck probably to the point of 3rd party activity in 2018/20 that would doom him and his congressional majorities.

A lot is hinging on my point 4.  If 3-5% GDP growth does come back soon or Trump/Cruz turns into the Republican McGovern, we could lock in a semi-permanent D President/R House state of affairs with an effective coalition government between the president and a caucus of moderate House Republicans.  Senate control would generally be a toss up.  It would essentially be 1954-94 in reverse.  Democrats would probably keep their margins with minorities and become less economically populist and more exclusively focused on tolerance issues and isolationist foreign policy, which lend themselves more to executive action.  The what's the matter with Kansas/Connecticut narrative would get even stronger.

I tend to think points 1, 3, and 4 will only lead to a Democratic congressional majority with a Republican President.  Weak, sluggish growth will hurt Democrats all-around if the President is a Democrat, including minority and millenial demographics.

I have consistently predicted a Clinton victory in 2016, so I tend to disagree with a lot of your analysis for that reason.  Nonetheless, I do concur that once a Republican does become President, he or she will have to "go there" and the effects could be rather drastic.  Of course, if GDP growth is high enough under said Republican, then they could probably get away with minimal cuts so long as a balanced budget is achieved.

Hmmm, so assuming Clinton wins, do you think D President/R House will get locked in for the better part of 2010-50 or do you have Clinton walking into a 1932/1984 situation in 2020?

It all hinges on GDP growth.  3-5% GDP growth will lead to a Clinton 2020 landslide and probably wouldn't deliver a D landslide w/ Congress, but the Senate would probably end up GOP in that instance.  Weak, sluggish growth would be easier to pin on Clinton/the Democrats, and a Republican would then win in 2020, after which your scenario could make more sense (GOP becoming much more toxic in Middle America due to "going there").  All demographics will shift in a relative manner, so weak GDP growth + terror threats prior to 2020 will hurt the Democrats with millenials/minorities proportionally to the rest of the country.

I am starting to conclude that while good economy = good for incumbent party and the reverse are generally true, the effect is not symmetric.  In particular, it seems like a bad economy hurts Republicans more than Democrats while a good economy also helps Republicans more than it helps Democrats.  There does seem to be a point when economic growth is so strong that the working/middle class decides they don't need the safety net anymore.  Think 2000 and 1968, along with 1996 not being all that impressive of a win.  The optimum for Democrats is probably slow but consistent growth- better off than last year, but still cautious enough not to say "just leave me alone."

Perhaps, but Vietnam and cultural upheaval/Lewinsky seem to explain those situations.  We don't really have a good analog with a GOP President under a great economy but similar turbulent circumstances for sake of comparison.