Could the parties switch again?

[Scam of God]

I have in the past hypothesized that the Republican Party will soon (within the next decade and a half) become a populist party, combining a staunch social conservatism with economic liberalism to appeal heavily to urban whites.

But that's essentially how the Democrats became the 'left' party, after all: William Jennings Bryan co-opted the Populist movement in the West (though, to be fair, their chief issues - bimetallism and farm nationalization - were a little different than those of small 'p' populists) and led them into the Democratic fold, neutering a threat to the two-party system and fundamentally changing what it meant to be a Democrat.

If it happens, it will happen just like it did with the Democrats: you'll get a fundie as the head of your party (Mike Huckabee, for instance) who takes Jesus' remarks about the poor a little too seriously (William Jennings Bryan) and combines social conservatism with economic liberalism to form a style of populism that appeals mightily to the lower-middle classes - this will also attract many African-Americans back into the Republican fold, as I think the Democrats have basically reached their zenith with that subgroup under Obama. Gradually his younger disciples will discard his social conservatism when they realize they can gain more in the cities than they will lose in the country.

And as a corollary to this, the Democrats will begin to return home to their traditional roots in the South. We saw the very beginnings of this in the 1990s, with Bill Clinton and the 'New Democrats', but it should begin in earnest in the next twenty years.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think the contrary : republican's populism will raise his influence in the south but decrease his influence in west. Democratic party will become more and more liberal, definitely losing states like West Virginia or Missouri. The future of democratic party is everywhere but in the South.

[Scam of God]

I think the contrary : republican's populism will raise his influence in the south but decrease his influence in west. Democratic party will become more and more liberal, definitely losing states like West Virginia or Missouri. The future of democratic party is everywhere but in the South.

I think this has already happened, as of the 2000 election. I do expect the Democrats to gain big in the West and among libertarian voters in the coming years.

[Rob]

It "could" happen, I guess, but I don't think it will. I think you're exaggerating the "populist" tendencies of right-wingers like Huckabee; I also think you're exaggerating the social conservatism of blacks.

Also, there really aren't many genuinely "libertarian" voters out there.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

It "could" happen, I guess, but I don't think it will. I think you're exaggerating the "populist" tendencies of right-wingers like Huckabee; I also think you're exaggerating the social conservatism of blacks.

Also, there really aren't many genuinely "libertarian" voters out there.

There are many black social conservatives, but you are right that there are not that many. Otherwise, you are right.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Actually according to a recent poll, African Americans are almost as conservative on social issues as Republicans.

[Zarn]

The Dems are seeming to become more authoritarian, and younger Republicans aren't so authoritarian. Also, Republicans are not showing any sign of moving leftward. The Dems are showing no sign of moving to the right.

I don't agree with this trend at all.

[pbrower2a]

If the Democratic Party becomes more conservative, then that will reflect the tendency of conservatives to leave the GOP as the Hard Right takes over the GOP.

To survive as a viable Party the GOP will need to find new constituencies -- those who think that Obama's change doesn't go far enough? 

[Zarn]

You aren't making any sense. The younger Republicans are as if not more fiscally conservative but not as socially conservative as older ones. It's not even close. The difference is just to huge to ignore, save for perhaps being pro-life.

The Dems, on the other hand, are creating government power over left-wing politics. They are also lashing out at critics, looking to restrict gun rights to the point of investigating homes, trying to implement mandatory service (thankfully that was removed... for now), and even tried to curb 1st Amendment rights (that was postponed too). Now, there are also trying to gain control over banks and corporations. The federal Dems even want to find a win to further restrict states rights, so they can cram more 'stimulus' plans and obtain more power.

They are becoming quite authoritarian, because they are becoming more socialistic and weary of anyone who might oppose it.

[Scam of God]

You aren't making any sense. The younger Republicans are as if not more fiscally conservative but not as socially conservative as older ones. It's not even close. The difference is just to huge to ignore, save for perhaps being pro-life.

That's the party line right now, but I don't believe anything of the sort: the several young Republicans I know all voted for Huckabee in the Republican primaries last year, and these are the few people I know who actually know who Rick Warren is.

What's happening right now is just a reaction to Obama's nationalization of industry. In the long-term (~20-30 years), however, I expect it to be the reverse.

[Zarn]

You aren't making any sense. The younger Republicans are as if not more fiscally conservative but not as socially conservative as older ones. It's not even close. The difference is just to huge to ignore, save for perhaps being pro-life.

That's the party line right now, but I don't believe anything of the sort: the several young Republicans I know all voted for Huckabee in the Republican primaries last year, and these are the few people I know who actually know who Rick Warren is.

What's happening right now is just a reaction to Obama's nationalization of industry. In the long-term (~20-30 years), however, I expect it to be the reverse.

That's funny, because none of the young Republicans I know even remotely like Huckabee. Huckabee couldn't even carry Mississippi in the primaries. He's is not going to be popular among young Republicans, if he could not even carry a socially conservative state.

[RI]

You aren't making any sense. The younger Republicans are as if not more fiscally conservative but not as socially conservative as older ones. It's not even close. The difference is just to huge to ignore, save for perhaps being pro-life.

That's the party line right now, but I don't believe anything of the sort: the several young Republicans I know all voted for Huckabee in the Republican primaries last year, and these are the few people I know who actually know who Rick Warren is.

What's happening right now is just a reaction to Obama's nationalization of industry. In the long-term (~20-30 years), however, I expect it to be the reverse.

That's funny, because none of the young Republicans I know even remotely like Huckabee. Huckabee couldn't even carry Mississippi in the primaries. He's is not going to be popular among young Republicans, if he could not even carry a socially conservative state.

In fairness, McCain had clinched and Huckabee had dropped out by that point.

[Lief 🗽]

Huckabee did the best in the primaries/caucuses with younger voters. His numbers usually steadily got worse the older the voter.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I do remember Huckabee being one of the most popular candidates among young voters in the Republican primaries. As to his not winning MS, by that time he dropped out because McCain already broke the 1,191 delegate threshold.

[Nym90]

If the GOP were going to become economically liberal they wouldn't be voting unanimously in the House against a liberal economic agenda. So, no.

[muon2]

One driving force for party movement are third parties. The example of Bryan co-opting populism was already used. Many ideas of Debs and LaFollette found their way into FDRs New Deal. The Dixiecrat movement in 1948 and its echo in 1968 were absorbed by the GOP and switched the South from the Dems. Many of Perot's planks in 1992 found a reprise in the 1994 GOP sweep.

I would watch for a third party that offers ideas that find appeal to a swath of America missed by the traditional parties. If one party moves to pick up those ideas (probably the one in the minority) a shift may be in the making.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[pbrower2a]

How about comparing 1908 to 2008? An odd parallel is that Taft won about the same percentage of electoral votes in 1908 as Obama did in 2008. Of course, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, and New Mexico were not states and did not vote in 1908; D. C. just did not vote; women did not vote; blacks were effectively excluded from voting in the South but would surely have voted heavily Republican if given the chance; persons under 21 did not vote; mass media in 1908 were almost exclusively newspapers in 1908 and printed newspapers may have been dying in 2008.

Taft followed an immensely-popular Republican President; Obama followed an immensely un-popular Republican President.

Taft 1908, McCain 2008...43
did not vote 1908, McCain 2008...10
Taft 1908, Obama 2008...273
Bryan 1908, Obama 2008...69
did not vote 1908, Obama 2008...12
Bryan 1908, McCain 2008...107


(with 1908 electoral-vote allocation):

Maryland split its electoral votes in 1908, 2 for Taft and 6 for Bryan, even though Taft won the state's popular vote.

Errata: NE-02 and both Maine Congressional districts should be orange, and the electoral vote counts are for 2008.

Look how the parties have practically flip-flopped over 100 years in regional support!

... Note that the flip-flop would have been even more obvious had two of the closest states in the 2008 exchanged wins. Obama won North Carolina in part because Bob Barr siphoned off votes that would never have gone for Obama, and McCain won Missouri because Ralph Nader siphoned off enough votes that would never have gone for McCain.

(so adjusted):

I might suggest the book Albion's Seed (David Hackett Fisher). It holds that (with more relevancy to this Forum) that cultural patterns shape the voting habits of Americans -- along with much that is not so germane to this discussion. Many of the constituencies that used to vote Republican 100 years ago now vote Democratic, and vice-versa.

[hcallega]

Harking back to the comments regarding third parties, I think that this brings up a legitimate point. Perot voters broke for the GOP in '94 because the party emphasized an anti-establishment mindset. Of course once they took the majority, they became all-together pro-establishment. That sort of "Small-Government" populism (comparable in some ways to libertarianism) got abandoned by the GOP

I see the Republicans becoming the socially conservative party for the immediate future, while I feel like the Democrats are returning to their "Paleo-Liberal" roots (personal responsibility compounded with economic liberalsim);