Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Presidential Election Trends => Topic started by: The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow on August 22, 2017, 11:00:58 AM



Title: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow on August 22, 2017, 11:00:58 AM
I see a lot of posters theorizing some radical shifts to the electoral map occurring over the next 20-30 years. Some think that the Northeast will significantly trend to the right (making states like CT competitive and causing NY/NJ to no longer be safely Democratic strongholds), that Appalachian and Southern whites will move to the left and Democrats will begin to win in the South and KY/WV, that OR/WA will become competitive or Lean R states, and/or that the Mountain West and Plains move to the left. There are some very different ideas out there as to how the electorate will trend by region.

What sort of realignment would you imagine happening by 2040? What would the PVI by state map look like after your imagined realignment, when would it happen, and why did such a shift occur?


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: GlobeSoc on August 22, 2017, 01:00:46 PM
(
)

My interpretation of TD's realignment theory


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: PoliticalShelter on August 22, 2017, 01:13:18 PM
How is Kentucky more democratic than West Virginia. Especially when you consider that Kentucky has always been one of the more friendly states in the south to the GOP having been clintons closet state in the south and having voted for Nixon in 1960 and Eisenhower in 1956, and even being one of fords better states in the south.
And that isn't even considering the massive population losses that are occurring in the eastern part of the state, which would be the region most likely to return to these populist democrats.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on August 22, 2017, 01:28:40 PM
Democrats re-align in a more libertarian direction:
(
)


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: PoliticalShelter on August 22, 2017, 01:34:44 PM
My rough map.

(
)

I don't really like trying to predict where individual states will be, it's easier to try to predict the political trend in a region and say that it is broadly going to move to one party or another. For example I will predict that the southwest is going to move to the democrats, but i couldn't really predict whether Arizona will be core democratic state or if it is still a battleground state.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: PragmaticPopulist on August 22, 2017, 01:42:01 PM
I'll admit that the dramatic realignment theories on atlas are a bit overblown, but I'll just play along. If Democrats turn back to how they were before Clintonism and third-wayism, here's what I think the map may look like:

(
)


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: RINO Tom on August 22, 2017, 03:22:44 PM
^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗 on August 22, 2017, 03:46:20 PM
^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?

Huh?


Iowa was much more Democratic than the national average in 1984, and was also more Democratic than the national average in 1972.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: BlueDogDemocrat on August 22, 2017, 04:20:59 PM
^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?

Huh?


Iowa was much more Democratic than the national average in 1984, and was also more Democratic than the national average in 1972.
It also went for Dukakis in 1988.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: RINO Tom on August 22, 2017, 04:39:17 PM
^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?

Huh?


Iowa was much more Democratic than the national average in 1984, and was also more Democratic than the national average in 1972.
It also went for Dukakis in 1988.

I addressed Dukakis in my post.  And Iowa still hadn't voted for a Democrat in over 20 years until Dukakis and had only supported one in the last 40...


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Sumner 1868 on August 22, 2017, 05:14:43 PM
^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?

Huh?


Iowa was much more Democratic than the national average in 1984, and was also more Democratic than the national average in 1972.
It also went for Dukakis in 1988.

I addressed Dukakis in my post.  And Iowa still hadn't voted for a Democrat in over 20 years until Dukakis and had only supported one in the last 40...

1976 was a difference of only one percentage point between Carter and Ford.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 22, 2017, 06:44:58 PM
I'll admit that the dramatic realignment theories on atlas are a bit overblown, but I'll just play along. If Democrats turn back to how they were before Clintonism and third-wayism, here's what I think the map may look like:

(
)

This map looks about right, though I'd put Iowa as a toss-up and Tennessee as Lean R.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 22, 2017, 06:50:45 PM
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.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on August 22, 2017, 07:23:22 PM
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.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: RINO Tom on August 22, 2017, 07:25:49 PM
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.


As is pretending that a majority of Democratic voters don't agree with his ideas, let alone hate libertarian ones.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on August 22, 2017, 08:06:21 PM
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)


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on August 22, 2017, 08:21:00 PM
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.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Roronoa D. Law on August 22, 2017, 08:26:00 PM
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?


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Sumner 1868 on August 22, 2017, 09:17:36 PM
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?

Cave? This is something they've planned for eons now. Democrats real base is donors. In terms of affiliation they are only about a little more than a quarter (!) of the populace. They've been losing members non-stop since the 1970s, except for brief upward blips during 1992 and 2008-2009 when it looked like they might do something productive. The fact 46% of the remaining members of the party didn't want to build the latte-conservative Sunbelt-suburb coalition is what they're worried about more than Trump.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 22, 2017, 09:21:17 PM
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 (http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/192362/clinton-negatives-among-dems-sanders.aspx). 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.

There's also something in here (targeted to Jalawest2) about describing Sanders's policies as "economic liberalism". Economic liberalism is more akin to free-market capitalism than social democracy; it is not a left-wing ideology by any means, and certainly doesn't describe Sanders's policies. If you want to try to make a political argument, at least use the proper terminology. I like the terms "economic egalitarianism" (thanks RINO Tom), "New Deal liberalism", or, in the case of Sanders, simply "social democracy".

Also, the current time period is very similar to that of the late 1970s. Here:

The New Deal Era and The Neoliberal Era

Stage 1: The Root (Maximum number of terms)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democratic)
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
The root politician is immensely popular, winning all of his elections in a landslide. He is considered to have very bold economic ideas that set the standard for the next several decades, along with having a strong base of support among their respective parties.

Stage 2: The Continuation (1 elected term)
Harry S. Truman (Democratic)
George H. W. Bush (Republican)
The continuation is, to its namesake, a continuation of the root's policies. He tends to be more moderate and more friendly with the party establishment than the root. He is mildly popular and tends to win elections in an upset (1948, 1988).

Stage 3: Opposition Realignment (2 terms)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
The opposition realignment is a member from the opposite party who is now confined to the modern political consensus, and so he shifts his party to the center. He is very popular, winning both elections by wide margins, and largely governing in a period of tranquility. However, the majority party makes large gains during his presidency.

Stage 4: The Expansion (2 terms)
John F. Kennedy & Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)
George W. Bush (Republican)
The expansion not only adopts the root's policies, but goes even further, reforming government to fit the root's ideal agenda. Their first election is decided by a very close margin. However, an unpopular war tanks the approval ratings of the expansion, and political unrest begins to rise. People are ready for change, and four years later, the majority party tries to forget that the expansion ever existed.
Oh, and something about LBJ and Dubya both being from Texas.

Stage 5: Faux-Change (2 terms)
Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford (Republican)
Barack Obama (Democratic)
The candidate's first election is largely built on a message of change, a sign of discontent at the political order under the expansion, and they win by a comfortable margin. However, when in office, they try to break out of the current political confines, but are not able to; whether this means Nixon being unable to enact fiscally conservative policies, or Obama unable to enact proper healthcare reform. The majority party makes large gains during this presidency.

Stage 6: Unpopular Outsider (1 term)
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Donald Trump (Republican)
While the unpopular outsider is from the majority party, they (to their namesake) are not part of the political establishment. They win their election by a very narrow margin in a time of turmoil, and their presidency is plagued by a myriad of issues. They are deeply unpopular in both parties, yet more so from the political opposition. Their presidency ends up, in a way, being opposed to the root; look at Carter's deregulation and Trump's protectionism. The current political era is crumbling, and soon it is time to start anew...

I want to refine this political theory and post it on its own someday, but I think it's quite useful to explain to establishment Democrats why their """theories""" are wrong.

I predict that the next "root" will be Sanders, because he seem to fit the bill. He, like Reagan, was/is hated by their respective party establishment. He, like Reagan, mounted a primary challenge against the moderate establishment candidate that was lost, but energized a large part of the base nonetheless.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on August 22, 2017, 09:28:19 PM
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.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on August 22, 2017, 09:35:38 PM
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 (http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/192362/clinton-negatives-among-dems-sanders.aspx). 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.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 22, 2017, 09:52:20 PM
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 (http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/192362/clinton-negatives-among-dems-sanders.aspx). 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr4lLexP004), 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 (http://resistancereport.com/politics/harvard-poll-bernie-supporters/). This destroys the entire narrative, which was very popular among establishment Democrats. This narrative is the epitome of identity politics, solidifying my point above.

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?


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on August 22, 2017, 09:56:31 PM
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 (http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/192362/clinton-negatives-among-dems-sanders.aspx). 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr4lLexP004), 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 (http://resistancereport.com/politics/harvard-poll-bernie-supporters/). 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.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: GlobeSoc on August 22, 2017, 10:04:02 PM
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


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: GlobeSoc on August 22, 2017, 10:06:11 PM
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 (http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/192362/clinton-negatives-among-dems-sanders.aspx). 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


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 22, 2017, 10:10:30 PM
-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.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 22, 2017, 10:15:15 PM
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

I agree. I never wanted to imply that Clintonism is libertarian. I consider libertarianism to be a subset of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal"-ism, i.e. you can be "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" but not libertarian at the same time.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: PoliticalShelter on August 22, 2017, 10:16:05 PM
Anyone who thinks either the GOP or the democrats are going to become libertarian is utterly delusional.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: GlobeSoc on August 22, 2017, 10:20:41 PM
Anyone who thinks either the GOP or the democrats are going to become libertarian is utterly delusional.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Cashew on August 22, 2017, 10:58:44 PM
If Republicans can get their act together

(
)

Economic collapse, and if Republicans remain reactionary post realignment

(
)


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Cashew on August 23, 2017, 12:01:10 AM
If Republicans can get their act together

(
)

Economic collapse, and if Republicans remain reactionary post realignment

Good map! But why does Illinois vote to the right of PA and MI? :P

I am anticipating a Republican rebound in California, Illinois, and New York very quickly once it becomes "safe" to do so, e.g. Republicans secularize. While California and new York may come out of that slightly more swingy than current Texas, Cook county's depopulation is more likely to push it over the edge.

Of course the trends can reverse themselves, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Speaking candidly about California however, Republicans may have burned too many bridges, so that may cancel out some of the depolarization post realignment.



Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: RINO Tom on August 23, 2017, 08:24:22 AM
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.

How can you copy someone's views if you had it before him?? LOL.  Look up the TPA vote by party, dude.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kingpoleon on August 23, 2017, 08:32:11 AM
(
)

This is my rough expectations. I think I have too many swing states, it seems a tad too Democratic-leaning, and I'm not sure about CO, MT, AK, HI, and UT.

I'm imagining this as:
2021-2029: Gwen Graham/Ben Jealous


2028: Gov. Robert Kennedy Jr./Sen. Caroline Fayard vs. Gov. Elise Stefanik/Sen. Mia Love


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Del Tachi on August 23, 2017, 08:54:17 AM
(
)

The apogee of the current party system, somewhere between 2040-2060 more than likely. 


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: RINO Tom on August 23, 2017, 08:59:02 AM
I don't have specifics, as I am not a nerd. :)  However, I expect this to happen generally:

The current rural/"WWC" trends in favor of the GOP will continue until about 2024 or 2028 and hit a wall.  Similarly, I think the Democratic trends in "wealthy/educated suburbs" will continue until about that time, too, but it will be because those places are actually becoming less wealthy, less educated and more diverse and lazy analysts will still just picture them as the places they used to be.  "Democrats make huge gains in Lake County, IL!" will be viewed as Democrats converting wealthy, White Republicans rather than the actual cause of *most* of the shift, which is Lake County becoming much, much more diverse than it used to be; the latter fact won't stop anyone from thinking of it simply as *Lake County* with all of the classic connotations.  Through all of this, the parties' actual policies won't really change from 2016; it will be a battle of perceptions.

After 2028, as more Boomers die off, the GOP will adopt a less culturally conservative (but not less socially conservative, necessarily) tone to court new and necessary voters, becoming pretty much what they were in the 1950s: a sensible alternative to overly idealistic Democratic rule (a party that now is much closer to Bernie Sanders than to Hillary Clinton).  I think many states will be noticeably different, so it's pretty impossible to predict a map.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Roronoa D. Law on August 23, 2017, 12:46:46 PM
I don't have specifics, as I am not a nerd. :)  However, I expect this to happen generally:

The current rural/"WWC" trends in favor of the GOP will continue until about 2024 or 2028 and hit a wall.  Similarly, I think the Democratic trends in "wealthy/educated suburbs" will continue until about that time, too, but it will be because those places are actually becoming less wealthy, less educated and more diverse and lazy analysts will still just picture them as the places they used to be.  "Democrats make huge gains in Lake County, IL!" will be viewed as Democrats converting wealthy, White Republicans rather than the actual cause of *most* of the shift, which is Lake County becoming much, much more diverse than it used to be; the latter fact won't stop anyone from thinking of it simply as *Lake County* with all of the classic connotations.  Through all of this, the parties' actual policies won't really change from 2016; it will be a battle of perceptions.

After 2028, as more Boomers die off, the GOP will adopt a less culturally conservative (but not less socially conservative, necessarily) tone to court new and necessary voters, becoming pretty much what they were in the 1950s: a sensible alternative to overly idealistic Democratic rule (a party that now is much closer to Bernie Sanders than to Hillary Clinton).  I think many states will be noticeably different, so it's pretty impossible to predict a map.
The whole comment about "Lake county isn't what it use to be any more" is the problem with the Republican now. It is also the reason why the Democrats will not become an idealistic party because America has long history of welfare chauvinism it will just end up like McGovern which in the end gave us Clinton. I think your giving the Democrats Party to much credit. By 2028 they would have shut down the Bernie wing if they have lost either 2020 or 2024.

I think many of Sanders ideas will live on to 2028 but free college will just be price controls on public universities tuition. Single payer will become a public option and $15 minimum wage will be comprised with Republicans to $8 maybe $10 in large cities. The farthest left wing legislation they'll have is voting rights.   


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗 on August 23, 2017, 01:01:13 PM
(
)

This is my rough expectations. I think I have too many swing states, it seems a tad too Democratic-leaning, and I'm not sure about CO, MT, AK, HI, and UT.

I'm imagining this as:
2021-2029: Gwen Graham/Ben Jealous


2028: Gov. Robert Kennedy Jr./Sen. Caroline Fayard vs. Gov. Elise Stefanik/Sen. Mia Love

I like how Alabama and Mississippi are blue states but Virginia is a toss-up... that seems a bit odd, unless we expect a re-alignment that looks like 1976.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on August 23, 2017, 03:39:18 PM
-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?


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: GlobeSoc on August 23, 2017, 03:48:30 PM
Economic data and polling both suggest a social democratic future, not a libertarian one.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on August 23, 2017, 04:52:54 PM
Economic data and polling both suggest a social democratic future, not a libertarian one.
What does? Your dreams?


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: RINO Tom on August 23, 2017, 05:19:12 PM
Economic data and polling both suggest a social democratic future, not a libertarian one.
What does? Your dreams?

No, economic data and polling.  Read better.  If you hitched your wagon to the Democratic Party because you wanted to be part of a party that was an "enlightened" party with a technocratic flavor, you're frankly a chump.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on August 23, 2017, 05:42:28 PM
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 (http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/192362/clinton-negatives-among-dems-sanders.aspx). 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.

There's also something in here (targeted to Jalawest2) about describing Sanders's policies as "economic liberalism". Economic liberalism is more akin to free-market capitalism than social democracy; it is not a left-wing ideology by any means, and certainly doesn't describe Sanders's policies. If you want to try to make a political argument, at least use the proper terminology. I like the terms "economic egalitarianism" (thanks RINO Tom), "New Deal liberalism", or, in the case of Sanders, simply "social democracy".

Also, the current time period is very similar to that of the late 1970s. Here:

The New Deal Era and The Neoliberal Era

Stage 1: The Root (Maximum number of terms)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democratic)
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
The root politician is immensely popular, winning all of his elections in a landslide. He is considered to have very bold economic ideas that set the standard for the next several decades, along with having a strong base of support among their respective parties.

Stage 2: The Continuation (1 elected term)
Harry S. Truman (Democratic)
George H. W. Bush (Republican)
The continuation is, to its namesake, a continuation of the root's policies. He tends to be more moderate and more friendly with the party establishment than the root. He is mildly popular and tends to win elections in an upset (1948, 1988).

Stage 3: Opposition Realignment (2 terms)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
The opposition realignment is a member from the opposite party who is now confined to the modern political consensus, and so he shifts his party to the center. He is very popular, winning both elections by wide margins, and largely governing in a period of tranquility. However, the majority party makes large gains during his presidency.

Stage 4: The Expansion (2 terms)
John F. Kennedy & Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)
George W. Bush (Republican)
The expansion not only adopts the root's policies, but goes even further, reforming government to fit the root's ideal agenda. Their first election is decided by a very close margin. However, an unpopular war tanks the approval ratings of the expansion, and political unrest begins to rise. People are ready for change, and four years later, the majority party tries to forget that the expansion ever existed.
Oh, and something about LBJ and Dubya both being from Texas.

Stage 5: Faux-Change (2 terms)
Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford (Republican)
Barack Obama (Democratic)
The candidate's first election is largely built on a message of change, a sign of discontent at the political order under the expansion, and they win by a comfortable margin. However, when in office, they try to break out of the current political confines, but are not able to; whether this means Nixon being unable to enact fiscally conservative policies, or Obama unable to enact proper healthcare reform. The majority party makes large gains during this presidency.

Stage 6: Unpopular Outsider (1 term)
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Donald Trump (Republican)
While the unpopular outsider is from the majority party, they (to their namesake) are not part of the political establishment. They win their election by a very narrow margin in a time of turmoil, and their presidency is plagued by a myriad of issues. They are deeply unpopular in both parties, yet more so from the political opposition. Their presidency ends up, in a way, being opposed to the root; look at Carter's deregulation and Trump's protectionism. The current political era is crumbling, and soon it is time to start anew...

I want to refine this political theory and post it on its own someday, but I think it's quite useful to explain to establishment Democrats why their """theories""" are wrong.

I predict that the next "root" will be Sanders, because he seem to fit the bill. He, like Reagan, was/is hated by their respective party establishment. He, like Reagan, mounted a primary challenge against the moderate establishment candidate that was lost, but energized a large part of the base nonetheless.

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.


Also Sanders is much more left wing than Reagan was Right Wing or FDR was left wing so Sanders polices unlike Reagan/FDR will skip the "Root" phase of a political era and go straight to the "Expansion " phase of a political era which will mean he likely wont usher in a new era.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Virginiá on August 23, 2017, 07:27:41 PM
Stage 1: The Root (Maximum number of terms)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democratic)
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
The root politician is immensely popular, winning all of his elections in a landslide. He is considered to have very bold economic ideas that set the standard for the next several decades, along with having a strong base of support among their respective parties.

Stage 2: The Continuation (1 elected term)
Harry S. Truman (Democratic)
George H. W. Bush (Republican)
The continuation is, to its namesake, a continuation of the root's policies. He tends to be more moderate and more friendly with the party establishment than the root. He is mildly popular and tends to win elections in an upset (1948, 1988).

In general I like the stage ideas you have but the limits seem arbitrary. For instance, FDR won EV landslides but his PV margin was getting notably smaller after 1936. After 12 years, particularly during the New Deal era, POTUS would have to take responsibility for a whole lot of issues the country faced, and that wears on his popularity and his party.

The main issue I had was Stage 2. One-term only doesn't seem correct. I get that you have Truman and GHWB, but 2 data points isn't enough (also Truman chose not to run, although you could easily argue he'd have lost just the same). I'd say there is a decent chance they are a one term president, but not guaranteed. They simply have a higher probability of being booted out. You might equate that to the same issue as the root president, except that because the continuation president doesn't have the same flair/deep popularity as the root, they are far more easily ruined by something like a recession, scandal or other issue. However, I don't think there is any rule that would prevent them from winning 2 terms.

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

This seems extraordinarily arbitrary. I seriously doubt it matters that much.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 23, 2017, 08:14:17 PM
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?

1. You managed to misunderstand the identity politics point.
No, you just don't understand what identity politics is, see my point above.

2. If the generation of the future is libertarian, maybe consider moving towards them.
Wrong. I never said that the generation of the future is libertarian. I said that millennial conservatives draw their conservatism from fiscal issues, while they tend to be socially moderate or liberal. This is just among millennial conservatives, not necessarily the rest of the generation. I used this point to explain the other part of Johnson's popularity among millennials.
If you want your party to be libertarian so badly, why not join the Libertarians? If it's because they're relegated to a permanent minority, then why not join the Republicans? Their ideology is much closer to libertarianism, especially from the "old guard".

3. Usually I consider helping your wife commit loan fraud and abandoning your principles for easy money to be more corrupt than taking money from a (((corporation))), but different strokes for different folks.
Ah yes, the old "Sanders scandal" card. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't prove any misconduct on the behalf of Sanders (https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/06/youll-never-believe-this-but-republicans-are-start.html). The FBI won't find anything, lol. There was a larger probability of misconduct in Benghazi and Emailgate. Oh, and if I recall correctly, Bernie already got cleared, so the current investigation only involves Jane Sanders. Also, where's the evidence of collusion? Please don't cite Breitbart. This is more or less a right-wing hit job (http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/07/17/operation-bury-bernie-the-political-motive-of-the-jane-sanders-investigation/) on Bernie Sanders, and I predict that the American people will see it as such, especially with the declining popularity of the right.

4. If someone receives the most negative news coverage of any candidate, and has both sides attacking them, they might drop in popularity. Who knew?
You mean like every single presidential nominee in modern times? Again, refer to my point above.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Virginiá on August 23, 2017, 08:23:14 PM
Historically the realigning Party in the White House rules for some time before the opposition Party's minority coalition President takes back power.

•The Jeffersonian/Jackson Democrats had the White House for 40 years before Whig Party nominee •Harrison took the office.
•The Lincoln GOP had the White House for 24 years before Democrat Garfield took office.
FDR's Democrats for 20 years before Einsehower.

Yet the Democrats took back the WH only 12 years into Reagan's era. Why? I think it's pretty obvious why. Reagan never had a GOP majority congress and relied heavily on southern moderate Democrats to get his agenda through the legislative branch. Then in 1992 came a southern moderate Democrat (in contrast to the northern liberals of Mondale and Dukakis) who embodied much of the Reagan Revolution in his campaign rhetoric.

Clinton's TV ads purposely stressed this moderate streak (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoBFL6iwid4&t=1m1s). Bill Clinton's Presidency was in many ways an extension of the GOP-Southern Democrat alliance that had been forged during the Reagan Revolution.

Those are some excellent points, as usual. I was only trying to stress that I think the length of time the new majority coalition holds the White House is probably better expressed in terms of probability, and definitely not in a strict number of terms. What I liked about Socdem's post was that he emphasized that the "root" president can serve for a great many terms if possible, but it's different for the continuing president. In this case, I think a person like GHWB or Truman have much better chances at winning than the usual candidate following 3+ terms of their party in power, but not guaranteed. They lack the magic that the original realigning president had.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on August 23, 2017, 08:23:49 PM

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
Also Sanders is much more left wing than Reagan was Right Wing or FDR was left wing so Sanders polices unlike Reagan/FDR will skip the "Root" phase of a political era and go straight to the "Expansion " phase of a political era which will mean he likely wont usher in a new era.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .




Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 23, 2017, 08:36:22 PM
In general I like the stage ideas you have but the limits seem arbitrary. For instance, FDR won EV landslides but his PV margin was getting notably smaller after 1936. After 12 years, particularly during the New Deal era, POTUS would have to take responsibility for a whole lot of issues the country faced, and that wears on his popularity and his party.

The main issue I had was Stage 2. One-term only doesn't seem correct. I get that you have Truman and GHWB, but 2 data points isn't enough (also Truman chose not to run, although you could easily argue he'd have lost just the same). I'd say there is a decent chance they are a one term president, but not guaranteed. They simply have a higher probability of being booted out. You might equate that to the same issue as the root president, except that because the continuation president doesn't have the same flair/deep popularity as the root, they are far more easily ruined by something like a recession, scandal or other issue. However, I don't think there is any rule that would prevent them from winning 2 terms.

I don't see the "one elected term" property of the continuation to be necessarily a limit, but more or less a parallel to draw between Truman and Bush to prove how history has effectively reflected itself. I agree with your analysis on why the continuation is the way that he is, though.

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.


Also Sanders is much more left wing than Reagan was Right Wing or FDR was left wing so Sanders polices unlike Reagan/FDR will skip the "Root" phase of a political era and go straight to the "Expansion " phase of a political era which will mean he likely wont usher in a new era.

Like Virginia, I find the governor attribute arbitrary. FDR more or less used his governor position as a stepping stone to his presidency, not accomplishing anything very significant (to my recollection). It is a good side point though, like saying how both expansions are from Texas. If Sanders ends up being the root, I don't think it's even possible for his expansion to be a Texan, considering how far to the right Texas has shifted.

As Mondale Won 1 State said, Reagan was essentially considered to be Goldwater 2.0 when he first ran, and you underestimate how far right he seemed to be in the 70s. I think you underestimate how far left FDR was as well. While he did attack Hoover on spending in 1932, he also proposed policies such as the maximum wage and an economic bill of rights later in his presidency, which is completely outside of the Overton window today.

But I see no way how Sanders will be an expansion president. The expansion is able to exist and do what he does because of the current political status quo. In the 60s, that status quo was the post-war consensus, which advocated for government intervention in the economy, along with social democratic policy. This was a necessary condition for LBJ to get his domestic policy through. Likewise, the neoliberal consensus is more or less what made the Bush-era tax cuts possible. The expansion has to draw from the root. Seeing as we're now in the neoliberal era, with the current root of Reagan, he can't be the expansion.

It is not only possible, but likely, that history doesn't reflect itself for a third time. Sanders could very well not run, or lose to Trump, or not govern as a root. If he does ended up getting elected, and his position was not a root, I think the only other possible stage here would be faux-change. Opposition realignment has to be a centrist, and the other stages tend to be from the majority party.

This parallel was brought up to explain why I think the current Democratic establishment will not remain the same in the 2020s. Here, centrism tends to be less of a legitimate ideology and more of a punishment for the minority party, something done out of necessity.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: 15 Down, 35 To Go on August 23, 2017, 10:00:15 PM
Realigning eras are mostly a myth that depends on your starting point:

-From 1968 to the present, Republicans have won eight of the last 13 elections
-Since Reagan took office, Republicans have won six of ten elections
-Since Clinton took office, however, Democrats have won four of seven- and the popular vote in six of seven.

Wait, was it actually a Republican alignment from 1968-1992 and a Democratic one from 1992-2016 (or the present)?  Or a Democratic alignment until 1980 followed by a Republican one?  Over 13 elections, 8 have gone one way and 5 the other.  Honestly, that seems more like statistical noise than a realignment.  Since both parties have access to countless polls and data and tend to slowly adapt, we haven't had a real realignment since 1932 (or arguably even 1860) and probably never will again.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: libertpaulian on August 23, 2017, 10:05:18 PM
Realigning eras are mostly a myth that depends on your starting point:

-From 1968 to the present, Republicans have won eight of the last 13 elections
-Since Reagan took office, Republicans have won six of ten elections
-Since Clinton took office, however, Democrats have won four of seven- and the popular vote in six of seven.

Wait, was it actually a Republican alignment from 1968-1992 and a Democratic one from 1992-2016 (or the present)?  Or a Democratic alignment until 1980 followed by a Republican one?  Over 13 elections, 8 have gone one way and 5 the other.  Honestly, that seems more like statistical noise than a realignment.  Since both parties have access to countless polls and data and tend to slowly adapt, we haven't had a real realignment since 1932 (or arguably even 1860) and probably never will again.
I'd say it's more of an ideological alignment.

Clinton campaigned like a populist liberal yet governed like a blue dog Democrat.  Obama campaigned like a populist liberal also but could get very few of his desired agendas through.  The country may have elected two "liberals," but they also elected a Congress that would restrain said liberalism.  They wanted to have their Reaganesque cake and eat it too.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on August 23, 2017, 10:09:19 PM

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
Also Sanders is much more left wing than Reagan was Right Wing or FDR was left wing so Sanders polices unlike Reagan/FDR will skip the "Root" phase of a political era and go straight to the "Expansion " phase of a political era which will mean he likely wont usher in a new era.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .




Americans have had it with Republicans and centrist Democrats. Macron in France has an approval rating on par with Trump. He was elected with the lowest turnout in modern French history. Same thing that's happening in America (the 2014 midterms had the lowest measured turnout in US history!). People dont want any more right wing policies but at the same time, they dont want anymore phoney ass Centrist DLC types who drop to their knees for corporate cash while forcing a wedding cake baker in Ohio to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Every realignment in US History, the person who seems most ''extremist'' there ends up winning.

Except those presidents also have to be be pretty good ones ,and Bernie sanders would be a disaster for the country .


Again Lincoln was a moderate , FDR ran as a moderate. If you ask me the real realignment was not in 1980 but by the fact that Reagan presidency was successful.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Cashew on August 24, 2017, 12:15:58 AM

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
Also Sanders is much more left wing than Reagan was Right Wing or FDR was left wing so Sanders polices unlike Reagan/FDR will skip the "Root" phase of a political era and go straight to the "Expansion " phase of a political era which will mean he likely wont usher in a new era.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .




Okay, but let's not pretend that that alignment just fizzled out naturally. It was only through terrorism that Democrats managed to claw their way back to competitiveness, otherwise allowing free elections would have caused states like Louisiana  and South Carolina to have remained republican leaning.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on August 24, 2017, 12:22:24 AM

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
Also Sanders is much more left wing than Reagan was Right Wing or FDR was left wing so Sanders polices unlike Reagan/FDR will skip the "Root" phase of a political era and go straight to the "Expansion " phase of a political era which will mean he likely wont usher in a new era.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .




Okay, but let's not pretend that that alignment just fizzled out naturally. It was only through terrorism that Democrats managed to claw their way back to competitiveness, otherwise allowing free elections would have caused states like Louisiana and South Carolina would have remain republican leaning.


Grant also screwed it up with his corrupt 2nd term , and without that Hayes easily wins 1876 thus compromise of 1877 never happens.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kingpoleon on August 24, 2017, 04:31:05 PM
-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.

Oregon is, from my understand, an oddball state. It likes Democrats who are libertarianish who appeal to farmers and the working class.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 25, 2017, 01:34:57 PM
Anyway, here's my realignment map if a left-populist Democratic party becomes the majority party, by the early 2030s:
(
)
The Democratic coalition is powerful but a skilled Republican can win in the Lean D states.

If a popular Orange County Republican runs in 2032 versus an uninspiring Democrat:
(
)


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗 on August 25, 2017, 02:37:46 PM
Anyway, here's my realignment map if a left-populist Democratic party becomes the majority party, by the early 2030s:
(
)
The Democratic coalition is powerful but a skilled Republican can win in the Lean D states.

If a popular Orange County Republican runs in 2032 versus an uninspiring Democrat:
(
)



I'd personally love to see West Virginia go D even as the Democratic nominee loses handily.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 25, 2017, 03:40:13 PM
I'd personally love to see West Virginia go D even as the Democratic nominee loses handily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988 (edit - removed mobile link)

I thought that West Virginia would hate this type of fiscally conservative, socially moderate-to-liberal, wealthy, coastal Republican. By the late 2020s, I think the wishes of coal coming back will begin to fade, yet the old fiscally left-wing spirit will remain. The current coal-baiting strategy is, like the conservative economy itself, unsustainable.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: PoliticalShelter on August 25, 2017, 03:53:42 PM
Anyway, here's my realignment map if a left-populist Democratic party becomes the majority party, by the early 2030s:
(
)
The Democratic coalition is powerful but a skilled Republican can win in the Lean D states.

If a popular Orange County Republican runs in 2032 versus an uninspiring Democrat:
(
)


Your maps look good, but they do strike me as bit too much rooted in the 20th century. For example I don't think Washington would be more democratic than California at this point with the dramatic changes that have occurred in the state.
Also I doubt that a state like Mississippi would be more republican than states like Arkansa and Tennessee. The days of the whiter southern states being relatively unaffected by racial polarisation are over.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 25, 2017, 04:37:19 PM
Your maps look good, but they do strike me as bit too much rooted in the 20th century. For example I don't think Washington would be more democratic than California at this point with the dramatic changes that have occurred in the state.
Also I doubt that a state like Mississippi would be more republican than states like Arkansa and Tennessee. The days of the whiter southern states being relatively unaffected by racial polarisation are over.

I based a large part of my predictions off of where each state lies on the political spectrum. Washington is definitely still to the left of California on economic issues, and in such a situation I would expect the GOP to make inroads into California. The same situation applies for Louisiana and Arkansas - I think they would respond well to left-wing populism, but Mississippi and Alabama would not.

You are right in saying that this map is like that of the 20th century, however. I think that may be what happens; a sort of political redux into the New Deal era.

Also, Louisiana has the 2nd highest black population, after Mississippi.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: PoliticalShelter on August 25, 2017, 05:48:50 PM
Your maps look good, but they do strike me as bit too much rooted in the 20th century. For example I don't think Washington would be more democratic than California at this point with the dramatic changes that have occurred in the state.
Also I doubt that a state like Mississippi would be more republican than states like Arkansa and Tennessee. The days of the whiter southern states being relatively unaffected by racial polarisation are over.

I based a large part of my predictions off of where each state lies on the political spectrum. Washington is definitely still to the left of California on economic issues, and in such a situation I would expect the GOP to make inroads into California. The same situation applies for Louisiana and Arkansas - I think they would respond well to left-wing populism, but Mississippi and Alabama would not.

You are right in saying that this map is like that of the 20th century, however. I think that may be what happens; a sort of political redux into the New Deal era.

Also, Louisiana has the 2nd highest black population, after Mississippi.

Is it though? Sure the California of 1988 may be more economically right wing than the Washington of today, but the California of 2017 is a very different place. Large numbers of the white suburbanites that voted for Nixon/Reagan have left the state after the Cold War which led to the shrinkage of the defence industry causing them to move over to places like Arizona and Idaho. Meanwhile there has been a huge influx of Hispanics into the state and which has definitely pushed the state to left economically.

Washington meanwhile, is a state that doesn't even have a state income tax and is not exactly a social democratic paradise.
Overall I would personally switch California and Washington on that map.

As for Mississippi and Alabama, I assumed that the whites in those states would somewhat less hostile to the democrats in this alignment, just enough to make them competitive, after all you don't need to flip that many whites in the Deep South for the democrats to win those states.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: McGovernForPrez on August 25, 2017, 10:25:21 PM

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
Also Sanders is much more left wing than Reagan was Right Wing or FDR was left wing so Sanders polices unlike Reagan/FDR will skip the "Root" phase of a political era and go straight to the "Expansion " phase of a political era which will mean he likely wont usher in a new era.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .




Americans have had it with Republicans and centrist Democrats. Macron in France has an approval rating on par with Trump. He was elected with the lowest turnout in modern French history. Same thing that's happening in America (the 2014 midterms had the lowest measured turnout in US history!). People dont want any more right wing policies but at the same time, they dont want anymore phoney ass Centrist DLC types who drop to their knees for corporate cash while forcing a wedding cake baker in Ohio to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Every realignment in US History, the person who seems most ''extremist'' there ends up winning.

Except those presidents also have to be be pretty good ones ,and Bernie sanders would be a disaster for the country .


Again Lincoln was a moderate , FDR ran as a moderate. If you ask me the real realignment was not in 1980 but by the fact that Reagan presidency was successful.
You really have no basis to say whether or not Bernie would be a successful president. You may seem to think he'd be a failure but only time can tell on that front.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kingpoleon on August 26, 2017, 03:02:32 AM
Anyway, here's my realignment map if a left-populist Democratic party becomes the majority party, by the early 2030s:
(
)
The Democratic coalition is powerful but a skilled Republican can win in the Lean D states.

If a popular Orange County Republican runs in 2032 versus an uninspiring Democrat:
(
)


Your maps look good, but they do strike me as bit too much rooted in the 20th century. For example I don't think Washington would be more democratic than California at this point with the dramatic changes that have occurred in the state.
Also I doubt that a state like Mississippi would be more republican than states like Arkansa and Tennessee. The days of the whiter southern states being relatively unaffected by racial polarisation are over.

In what world are we vulnerable to populism? We are a clash of Mississippian minorities, upper middle class people, and Deep South/Western/Midwestern/Northern culture.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheLeftwardTide on August 26, 2017, 06:28:35 PM
We are a clash of Mississippian minorities
Arkansas is 72.9% white (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AR), well above the national average, and is therefore considered to be one of the whitest Southern states.

You mean how Arkansas has consistently ranked in the bottom 10 states in terms of GDP per capita for the past decade?

Deep South/Western/Midwestern/Northern culture.
I don't understand your implication here.

I'm not going to try to pretend to know more about your state than you do, but based off of statistical evidence, it seems that you have to try again at your argument.

Also, it's quite hilarious to see you refer to the affection for populism as a vulnerability.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: RINO Tom on August 26, 2017, 09:03:45 PM
We are a clash of Mississippian minorities
Arkansas is 72.9% white (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AR), well above the national average, and is therefore considered to be one of the whitest Southern states.

You mean how Arkansas has consistently ranked in the bottom 10 states in terms of GDP per capita for the past decade?

Deep South/Western/Midwestern/Northern culture.
I don't understand your implication here.

I'm not going to try to pretend to know more about your state than you do, but based off of statistical evidence, it seems that you have to try again at your argument.

Also, it's quite hilarious to see you refer to the affection for populism as a vulnerability.

A vulnerability to populism is a vulnerability, whether you think there's a great reasoning for that willingness or not.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: AN63093 on August 26, 2017, 11:05:20 PM
Side-stepping the ongoing conversation in this thread regarding jalawest's map (suffice to say, that map is one of the more.. shall we say... goofier things I've seen on this forum), here is what I've posted before on my two most likely realignment scenarios:

1.  TT's generational theory is correct and a realignment occurs with a catalyst being a major economic crisis that unravels the Reagan neo-liberal economic order and results in a system with low polarization and differences between the parties being mostly economic in nature.  Whites are mostly GOP, minorities D, but both parties make significant in-roads with all racial/ethnic demographics.  In this system, I think there would be a significant number of swing states, landslides would be relatively common and both parties would be competitive in nearly every state.  NY, TX, and FL are the hardest fought states.  PA and IL are close too, but are losing EVs with each passing census.  Toss-ups are indicated; and about 6-10 more states would be swing states.

(
)

2.  TT's generational theory may be correct, and an economic crisis may occur, but even so, all of this is overshadowed by increased and extremely intense polarization rooted in racial stratification of the parties, leading to a South Africa type system.  The GOP is essentially the White party, the Dems are the "others."  Neither party platform is significantly different on economic issues, and all debates eventually lead back to identity politics.  After a few decades the country is at serious risk of Balkanizing and racial/ethnic strife and violence are relatively common.  Elections are almost entirely just a turnout battle in the 4 toss-ups between whites and minorities.  There are no swing states except the lighter shaded ones in 50-50 years.

(
)

PV percentages are not literal... lighter shading just indicates closer states.


Though most people would consider the second scenario "bleaker," I think this is actually the more likely scenario.

As I wrote about above, if some of Timmy's predictions about generational theory occur, my first scenario might be one of the likely outcomes.

I also think what RINO Tom wrote a couple pages back is plausible.  However, like in Timmy's theories, I think some event would have to occur first that de-polarizes the current climate.  In the case that happens, then I also think we would settle into my "scenario 1," and that map above would be a likely outcome.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: AN63093 on August 27, 2017, 03:35:41 AM
First off, I'm not advocating for either of these scenarios.  They are offered as possible scenarios based on observation of current trends.  So keep that in mind in your replies PNM.

Second, in the case of NJ, WA, and CA, I'm not sure why you're mentioning these, because you'll notice that in my map that they are still all D.  I agree with you that the white population there is a) too liberal, and b) those states are also too diverse.  Even in a world of extreme racial stratification, those states still probably stay D and they are colored in that way on my map.  

Third, these maps are post-realignment maps.  So we're talking about 20-30 year trends here.  These are not the maps for 2020.  So this is assuming polarization not only continues, but that racial stratification among parties exponentially increases as well, over decades of time.  More important than how Gen X is voting (btw, I'm not sure that I buy that Gen X whites are substantially more Dem than Boomer whites, I'd like to see a cite for that), is how the post-Millennials (Gen Z?) vote, and the generation after Z.  This scenario is also assuming that a major portion of that generation's counter-culture (at least among whites), will be the Alt Right (or some future version of it) and that the general climate will be one of ethnic strife, a very Balkanized typed society where people identify most primarily with race and ethnic group.  That may be difficult for you to envision now, but this scenario is assuming another 20-30 years of the same type of polarization we have today; and actually, increased levels of hyper polarization.

Fourth, I grew up in NY and spent many of my summers in New England (our family actually used to have a house in Newport RI).  I am very familiar with this area, and also the Bay Area and So Cal, as I go out there all the time (have family in SF and LA).  States like CT, VT, and RI are not culturally similar to the Bay Area.  Conflating these two regions reflects a lack of perspective of the different demographics.  The unionized longshoreman working in Providence and drinking Narragansett at a dive after work while swapping racist jokes with his buddies and discussing the Sox, is voting Dem for a very different reason than the Google software engineer living in Mountain View who has a STEM PhD and is trying to buy one of those crappy 70s ranch homes in Redwood City that are now going for $1-2mil+.  

Take a look at the trend and swing maps.  The Bay Area trended and swung hard D, every county in the Bay Area MSA, and also the LA MSA.  Now look at New England.  Every county but one swung AND trended R in VT, and in ME, and in CT (only place that swung D was Fairfield Cty near NYC), and in RI.  The only place in New England that swung D was Boston, and you'll notice that accordingly, MA is not R on my map (this is the closest place in the region that 'votes like' the Bay Area).  Are these states voting R in 2020?  Nope.  In 2024?  Nope.  In 30 years based on decades of racial identity politics played both parties?  Well, now that might be different.

Finally, you're not grasping the sophistication of which I'm analyzing this.  For example, you discuss how there is a limit to how much you get from the "dog whistle."  But notice I didn't say anything about dog whistles.  This scenario is envisioning a world in which whites have started block voting in certain areas such that things like dog whistles aren't even necessary anymore.  In other words, you are assuming current tactics and political culture are static and unchanging.  My scenarios are extrapolating how culture would change after decades of trends and how the entire climate would be completely different.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: MT Treasurer on August 27, 2017, 09:35:17 AM
I mean, it will obviously be this because 2016 was a one-time thing, a "populist" like Sanders (who wins the Democratic nomination without any trouble whatsoever) could clearly do well in WV/KY/MO/AR/etc. (all of which are populist Democratic states at heart), VA and CO will "come home" for the GOP once Trump is gone, Schumer's Better Deal slogan, etc.

(
)

In all seriousness, though: I expect to see something like this by 2030...

(
)


This map isn't necessarily the result of a "complex realignment" but rather remarkably little change.

And in 2040:

(
)


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: RINO Tom on August 27, 2017, 10:01:48 AM
"Remarkably little change" doesn't last 50 years.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: RINO Tom on August 27, 2017, 10:06:07 AM
I mean, it will obviously be this because 2016 was a one-time thing, a "populist" like Sanders (who wins the Democratic nomination without any trouble whatsoever) could clearly do well in WV/KY/MO/AR/etc. (all of which are populist Democratic states at heart), VA and CO will "come home" for the GOP once Trump is gone, Schumer's Better Deal slogan, etc.

(
)

In all seriousness, though: I expect to see something like this by 2030...

(
)


This map isn't necessarily the result of a "complex realignment" but rather remarkably little change.

And in 2040:

(
)

Noting that the bolded is sarcastic, I'm seriously amused at the type of people you think make up the Democratic primary electorate.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: MT Treasurer on August 27, 2017, 10:26:45 AM
Of course a plausible scenario is that there won't really be ONE direction the Republican Party will choose to go. You might see a Kid Rock or Paul LePage winning a Republican primary in 2024 and then 4 years later someone like Tim Scott or Ted Cruz. And then a Rick Scott. A lot really depends on the national environment, economic conditions, race relations, etc. In any case, uniting the different factions that make up the party could prove to be very difficult. The Democrats are much more flexible in this regard, and I could easily see a celebrity (just as an example) uniting the establishment and more progressive factions.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Xing on August 27, 2017, 10:29:45 AM
(
)

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.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: GlobeSoc on August 27, 2017, 10:35:39 AM
(
)

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


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Beet on August 27, 2017, 10:54:04 AM
(
)


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: MT Treasurer on August 27, 2017, 01:48:08 PM
(
)

Iowa is one of the most Republican states in the country while New Mexico is one of the most Democratic states.

Assuming this isn't a joke, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind this map/scenario as I find it quite interesting, especially NM being one of the most Democratic states in the country, NH being solidly R (while ME is a Tossup) and AR being a Tossup.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: PoliticalShelter on August 27, 2017, 02:35:08 PM
(
)

Iowa is one of the most Republican states in the country while New Mexico is one of the most Democratic states.

I'm slightly curious as to why Kentucky and Tennessee vote so differently in this map. Both states have voted with each other since 1956 (having similar margins in almost every election) and I'm interested as to what makes those two states diverge from each other.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: _ on August 27, 2017, 02:43:43 PM
(
)

Iowa is one of the most Republican states in the country while New Mexico is one of the most Democratic states.

I'd like to hear how IL is tossup and how TX would still be tossup in this realignment.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: AN63093 on August 27, 2017, 04:26:33 PM
MT Treasurer, good maps.

Lots of similarity between your maps and both of my scenarios, though particularly my second scenario.  However, I was wondering why you think OR and NM will start trending back R.  I could see OR in a world where we de-polarize, but I'm having trouble envisioning your theory with NM.  I think Timmy has a good point with this state.. NM is a good candidate for one of the most D states in the US in 20 years.

Other than that, the only quibble I had is I think we'd have to have a de-polarization for LA/MS to flip D (black growth may be slowly outpacing white growth, but it's so gradual... 2040 is being quite optimistic I think).  Also I didn't have GA going quite so hard D and I think NC probably remains a toss up in most scenarios.

Besides that, good maps!


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Unapologetic Chinaperson on August 27, 2017, 07:32:05 PM
Apologies for the blatant self-promotion, but here's a copy-paste of the 2036 map from my timeline. (Ignore the expanded EV counts.)

(
)

This is what I envision a socially liberal Republican victory would look like, with California barely but decisively going Republican. In my timeline, I have the Republican nominee be the perfect fit for Calfornia (feminist Asian woman who served as Cali governor), which actually goes to show that it would actually be quite difficult to get California to flip (you'd have to max out Asians and upscale whites while also getting a decent portion of Hispanics).

Meanwhile, I have most of the Midwest going GOP, while the South is divided based on their income and race (the former is why Georgia goes GOP; the latter is why Mississippi goes Dem). Kentucky and WV go Dem (and Tennessee nearly so) as a reaction against a "coastal elite" GOP. In the Northeast, you have "ancestral" Democrats allowing Massachusetts, Vermont, etc. go Dem, when income would predict that the GOP should sweep the region.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: libertpaulian on August 27, 2017, 10:20:39 PM
Why did IL go Dem?  Were there enough "ancestral" Chicago Democrats turning out?


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Unapologetic Chinaperson on August 27, 2017, 10:38:10 PM
Why did IL go Dem?  Were there enough "ancestral" Chicago Democrats turning out?


Yeah basically, plus the Democrats will still be the "urban" party. Chicago's not going to shrink that much in population, would it?

Honestly, a more interesting question would be why Michigan goes Dem (since Detroit is smaller and declining faster than Chicago). It's Dem on this map due to circumstances specific to my timeline; in general, it's likely that it would behave more like its GOP-leaning neighbors.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Beet on August 27, 2017, 11:52:14 PM
I was the first one on the forum to bring up the country balkanizing along racial/ethnic lines (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=243987.0). At the time, I was viciously mocked and attacked for it. Sanchez even said I was more racist than Bannon [!] Now it seems like the conventional wisdom, everyone says it.

I will maintain until the end, that the Democratic party choosing to nominate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 was a grave mistake. Having the face of the Democrats be a minority, especially from a group that already voted 85%+ Democratic, for eight years deepened and entrenched the ethnic polarization of the country along partisan lines.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on August 28, 2017, 01:41:41 AM
I was the first one on the forum to bring up the country balkanizing along racial/ethnic lines (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=243987.0). At the time, I was viciously mocked and attacked for it. Sanchez even said I was more racist than Bannon [!] Now it seems like the conventional wisdom, everyone says it.

I will maintain until the end, that the Democratic party choosing to nominate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 was a grave mistake. Having the face of the Democrats be a minority, especially from a group that already voted 85%+ Democratic, for eight years deepened and entrenched the ethnic polarization of the country along partisan lines.


I believe the GOP base hates Hillary more than Obama


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: libertpaulian on August 28, 2017, 06:17:01 AM
Why did IL go Dem?  Were there enough "ancestral" Chicago Democrats turning out?


Yeah basically, plus the Democrats will still be the "urban" party. Chicago's not going to shrink that much in population, would it?

Honestly, a more interesting question would be why Michigan goes Dem (since Detroit is smaller and declining faster than Chicago). It's Dem on this map due to circumstances specific to my timeline; in general, it's likely that it would behave more like its GOP-leaning neighbors.
I don't think Chicago will shrink *that* much either.  However, if the GOP is becoming a more secular, global-minded, and fiscally conservative party, the people living in the Cook, DuPage, Lake, etc. suburbs, should be returning home to the GOP in enough numbers to give Illinois to the GOP.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheSaint250 on August 28, 2017, 08:11:19 AM
Why did IL go Dem?  Were there enough "ancestral" Chicago Democrats turning out?


Yeah basically, plus the Democrats will still be the "urban" party. Chicago's not going to shrink that much in population, would it?

Honestly, a more interesting question would be why Michigan goes Dem (since Detroit is smaller and declining faster than Chicago). It's Dem on this map due to circumstances specific to my timeline; in general, it's likely that it would behave more like its GOP-leaning neighbors.
I don't think Chicago will shrink *that* much either.  However, if the GOP is becoming a more secular, global-minded, and fiscally conservative party, the people living in the Cook, DuPage, Lake, etc. suburbs, should be returning home to the GOP in enough numbers to give Illinois to the GOP.


The past 8 months of Trump's presidency have shattered any façade that Trumpism  actually is a socially moderate, global-minded fiscal conservative.
"Trumpism" will be gone once Trump is.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheSaint250 on August 28, 2017, 08:30:30 AM
Why did IL go Dem?  Were there enough "ancestral" Chicago Democrats turning out?


Yeah basically, plus the Democrats will still be the "urban" party. Chicago's not going to shrink that much in population, would it?

Honestly, a more interesting question would be why Michigan goes Dem (since Detroit is smaller and declining faster than Chicago). It's Dem on this map due to circumstances specific to my timeline; in general, it's likely that it would behave more like its GOP-leaning neighbors.
I don't think Chicago will shrink *that* much either.  However, if the GOP is becoming a more secular, global-minded, and fiscally conservative party, the people living in the Cook, DuPage, Lake, etc. suburbs, should be returning home to the GOP in enough numbers to give Illinois to the GOP.


The past 8 months of Trump's presidency have shattered any façade that Trumpism  actually is a socially moderate, global-minded fiscal conservative.
"Trumpism" will be gone once Trump is.

that the GOP will become this global-minded fiscally conservative party strikes me as bizarre. Nothing about them really even suggests they're that fiscally conservative aside from railing against spending when a Democrat is in office and then proceeding to do sh!t about it once they can. And I don't see why they'd become increasingly secular when the religious nuts still have huge sway in the party's nominations. They're only going to get more reactionary and desperate to maintain their grip on the party as the country shifts away from them
k


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheSaint250 on August 28, 2017, 08:38:54 AM
Why did IL go Dem?  Were there enough "ancestral" Chicago Democrats turning out?


Yeah basically, plus the Democrats will still be the "urban" party. Chicago's not going to shrink that much in population, would it?

Honestly, a more interesting question would be why Michigan goes Dem (since Detroit is smaller and declining faster than Chicago). It's Dem on this map due to circumstances specific to my timeline; in general, it's likely that it would behave more like its GOP-leaning neighbors.
I don't think Chicago will shrink *that* much either.  However, if the GOP is becoming a more secular, global-minded, and fiscally conservative party, the people living in the Cook, DuPage, Lake, etc. suburbs, should be returning home to the GOP in enough numbers to give Illinois to the GOP.


The past 8 months of Trump's presidency have shattered any façade that Trumpism  actually is a socially moderate, global-minded fiscal conservative.
"Trumpism" will be gone once Trump is.

that the GOP will become this global-minded fiscally conservative party strikes me as bizarre. Nothing about them really even suggests they're that fiscally conservative aside from railing against spending when a Democrat is in office and then proceeding to do sh!t about it once they can. And I don't see why they'd become increasingly secular when the religious nuts still have huge sway in the party's nominations. They're only going to get more reactionary and desperate to maintain their grip on the party as the country shifts away from them
k

I know you like to ignore it, but that's literally all the GOP does when it comes to "fiscal conservatism." Typically it's 1.) cut taxes like we're still in the good ole 1980's, 2.) see a budget shortfall, 3.) blame said shortfall on inner city welfare queens, blacks and Mexicans not paying their taxes, and Democrats' spending problems (which, sure, can get excessive)
No you're right on the fiscal conservatism thing; the party has failed (but to say the party scapegoats minorities is just ridiculous). Everything else is pretty much wrong.  The party will reform or it will die.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: libertpaulian on August 28, 2017, 07:03:58 PM
Florida should be gray as it will replace Ohio as the "Missouri bellwether" state by then.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheSaint250 on August 28, 2017, 07:18:24 PM
Florida should be gray as it will replace Ohio as the "Missouri bellwether" state by then.

I suspect climate change will ultimately cause it to turn lean Dem. I think Texas and Illinois will be the bellwether states by this time.


The GOP will more likely than not have turned around on climate change by then.  It's not going to matter that many didn't believe it in the past.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheSaint250 on August 28, 2017, 07:34:09 PM
Florida should be gray as it will replace Ohio as the "Missouri bellwether" state by then.

I suspect climate change will ultimately cause it to turn lean Dem. I think Texas and Illinois will be the bellwether states by this time.


The GOP will more likely than not have turned around on climate change by then.  It's not going to matter that many didn't believe it in the past.

By then yeah. I think there'll then enough of the youth today in Florida voting in the 2030's-2040 to keep it slightly Democratic. It's a state that has a fairly low income (even when adjusted for COLA) and is minority heavy. I do think counter trends of retiring Xers will keep it competitive for the GOP (which is also why I have Arizona being only lean Dem as well).

Plus I suspect the Electoral Map will be lean D anyways.
It really all comes down to how the GOP shifts. Much better minority outreach will help nationwide, and if Gen Zers end up being libertarian-leaning and Republican-leading, then the party will still remain competitive.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: libertpaulian on August 28, 2017, 10:31:31 PM
Why did IL go Dem?  Were there enough "ancestral" Chicago Democrats turning out?


Yeah basically, plus the Democrats will still be the "urban" party. Chicago's not going to shrink that much in population, would it?

Honestly, a more interesting question would be why Michigan goes Dem (since Detroit is smaller and declining faster than Chicago). It's Dem on this map due to circumstances specific to my timeline; in general, it's likely that it would behave more like its GOP-leaning neighbors.
I don't think Chicago will shrink *that* much either.  However, if the GOP is becoming a more secular, global-minded, and fiscally conservative party, the people living in the Cook, DuPage, Lake, etc. suburbs, should be returning home to the GOP in enough numbers to give Illinois to the GOP.


The past 8 months of Trump's presidency have shattered any façade that Trumpism  actually is a socially moderate, global-minded fiscal conservative.
My post was in response to NJ's characterization of IL in the 2030s on his/her "Sun and Moon" political fanfic.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Ye We Can on August 28, 2017, 11:08:04 PM
I think Clark County will eventually run out of water, and the resulting death of Las Vegas will move Nevada back to Solid R and minimum electoral votes.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Unapologetic Chinaperson on August 29, 2017, 08:39:47 AM
Why did IL go Dem?  Were there enough "ancestral" Chicago Democrats turning out?


Yeah basically, plus the Democrats will still be the "urban" party. Chicago's not going to shrink that much in population, would it?

Honestly, a more interesting question would be why Michigan goes Dem (since Detroit is smaller and declining faster than Chicago). It's Dem on this map due to circumstances specific to my timeline; in general, it's likely that it would behave more like its GOP-leaning neighbors.
I don't think Chicago will shrink *that* much either.  However, if the GOP is becoming a more secular, global-minded, and fiscally conservative party, the people living in the Cook, DuPage, Lake, etc. suburbs, should be returning home to the GOP in enough numbers to give Illinois to the GOP.


The past 8 months of Trump's presidency have shattered any façade that Trumpism  actually is a socially moderate, global-minded fiscal conservative.
My post was in response to NJ's characterization of IL in the 2030s on his/her "Sun and Moon" political fanfic.


Yeah, since the GOP becoming more socially liberal and way less Trumpist is a big part of that timeline. If the GOP doesn't do that (which has a nonzero chance of happening), and instead remains a reactionary socon party, then expect Illinois to be Safe D (rather than Lean D or Tossup).


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Technocracy Timmy on August 29, 2017, 04:34:13 PM
Florida should be gray as it will replace Ohio as the "Missouri bellwether" state by then.

I suspect climate change will ultimately cause it to turn lean Dem. I think Texas and Illinois will be the bellwether states by this time.


The GOP will more likely than not have turned around on climate change by then.  It's not going to matter that many didn't believe it in the past.

By then yeah. I think there'll then enough of the youth today in Florida voting in the 2030's-2040 to keep it slightly Democratic. It's a state that has a fairly low income (even when adjusted for COLA) and is minority heavy. I do think counter trends of retiring Xers will keep it competitive for the GOP (which is also why I have Arizona being only lean Dem as well).

Plus I suspect the Electoral Map will be lean D anyways.
It really all comes down to how the GOP shifts. Much better minority outreach will help nationwide, and if Gen Zers end up being libertarian-leaning and Republican-leading, then the party will still remain competitive.

Looking at demographic data, a winning GOP coalition in 2036-2040 would probably look something like this:

Whites: 63-67%
Asians: 50-54%
Hispanics: 42-46%
Blacks: 14-18%


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheSaint250 on August 29, 2017, 06:03:26 PM
Florida should be gray as it will replace Ohio as the "Missouri bellwether" state by then.

I suspect climate change will ultimately cause it to turn lean Dem. I think Texas and Illinois will be the bellwether states by this time.


The GOP will more likely than not have turned around on climate change by then.  It's not going to matter that many didn't believe it in the past.

By then yeah. I think there'll then enough of the youth today in Florida voting in the 2030's-2040 to keep it slightly Democratic. It's a state that has a fairly low income (even when adjusted for COLA) and is minority heavy. I do think counter trends of retiring Xers will keep it competitive for the GOP (which is also why I have Arizona being only lean Dem as well).

Plus I suspect the Electoral Map will be lean D anyways.
It really all comes down to how the GOP shifts. Much better minority outreach will help nationwide, and if Gen Zers end up being libertarian-leaning and Republican-leading, then the party will still remain competitive.

Looking at demographic data, a winning GOP coalition in 2036-2040 would probably look something like this:

Whites: 63-67%
Asians: 50-54%
Hispanics: 42-46%
Blacks: 14-18%
Thanks for the numbers :)

It's certainly possible, it just depends on whether the party wants to put in the effort or not


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Kingpoleon on August 31, 2017, 04:54:46 PM
We are a clash of Mississippian minorities
Arkansas is 72.9% white (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AR), well above the national average, and is therefore considered to be one of the whitest Southern states.

You mean how Arkansas has consistently ranked in the bottom 10 states in terms of GDP per capita for the past decade?

Deep South/Western/Midwestern/Northern culture.
I don't understand your implication here.

I'm not going to try to pretend to know more about your state than you do, but based off of statistical evidence, it seems that you have to try again at your argument.

Also, it's quite hilarious to see you refer to the affection for populism as a vulnerability.

... If you really can't understand relativity of GDP and income, then I don't know what you expect me to say. We have the lowest unemployment rate for fifty years - the amount of time it's been tracked.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheSaint250 on September 13, 2017, 08:03:56 AM
(
)


This map is mainly based off of information from the following:

https://public.tableau.com/profile/mycollegeoptions#!/vizhome/PresidentialPolling-Fall2016/PresidentialPolling2016

https://www.surveymonkey.com/elections/map/2016/us?poll=sm-exit-millennials-cps

The first site features a 50-state poll of over 80,000 14-18-year-olds.  The second site features how voters aged 18-34 voted in 2016.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: 15 Down, 35 To Go on September 13, 2017, 01:19:12 PM
(
)


This map is mainly based off of information from the following:

https://public.tableau.com/profile/mycollegeoptions#!/vizhome/PresidentialPolling-Fall2016/PresidentialPolling2016

https://www.surveymonkey.com/elections/map/2016/us?poll=sm-exit-millennials-cps

The first site features a 50-state poll of over 80,000 14-18-year-olds.  The second site features how voters aged 18-34 voted in 2016.

That second map is one Survey Monkey poll.  Trump won the 18-29 vote in 21 states, not 4!


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheSaint250 on September 13, 2017, 01:31:05 PM
(
)


This map is mainly based off of information from the following:

https://public.tableau.com/profile/mycollegeoptions#!/vizhome/PresidentialPolling-Fall2016/PresidentialPolling2016

https://www.surveymonkey.com/elections/map/2016/us?poll=sm-exit-millennials-cps

The first site features a 50-state poll of over 80,000 14-18-year-olds.  The second site features how voters aged 18-34 voted in 2016.

That second map is one Survey Monkey poll.  Trump won the 18-29 vote in 21 states, not 4!

Ah ok. Thanks. Where did you get that info?


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: 15 Down, 35 To Go on September 13, 2017, 01:47:23 PM
(
)


This map is mainly based off of information from the following:

https://public.tableau.com/profile/mycollegeoptions#!/vizhome/PresidentialPolling-Fall2016/PresidentialPolling2016

https://www.surveymonkey.com/elections/map/2016/us?poll=sm-exit-millennials-cps

The first site features a 50-state poll of over 80,000 14-18-year-olds.  The second site features how voters aged 18-34 voted in 2016.

That second map is one Survey Monkey poll.  Trump won the 18-29 vote in 21 states, not 4!

Ah ok. Thanks. Where did you get that info?

Exit polls (now, we don't have all of the Safe R/D states, but we can be reasonably confident in those, especially if similar less R/D states voted as expected.

https://i1.wp.com/amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/18-29-vote-exit-polls-2016.png

Here is just 18-24: https://i2.wp.com/amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/18-24-vote-exit-polls-2016.png (Note Minnesota!)


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: TheSaint250 on September 13, 2017, 01:55:57 PM
(
)


This map is mainly based off of information from the following:

https://public.tableau.com/profile/mycollegeoptions#!/vizhome/PresidentialPolling-Fall2016/PresidentialPolling2016

https://www.surveymonkey.com/elections/map/2016/us?poll=sm-exit-millennials-cps

The first site features a 50-state poll of over 80,000 14-18-year-olds.  The second site features how voters aged 18-34 voted in 2016.

That second map is one Survey Monkey poll.  Trump won the 18-29 vote in 21 states, not 4!

Ah ok. Thanks. Where did you get that info?

Exit polls (now, we don't have all of the Safe R/D states, but we can be reasonably confident in those, especially if similar less R/D states voted as expected.

https://i1.wp.com/amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/18-29-vote-exit-polls-2016.png

Here is just 18-24: https://i2.wp.com/amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/18-24-vote-exit-polls-2016.png (Note Minnesota!)

Thank you! I'll probably readjust the map then


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Orser67 on September 13, 2017, 05:09:03 PM
(
)


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Dr. MB on October 06, 2017, 05:35:55 PM
(
)


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Xing on October 07, 2017, 04:29:33 PM
In all seriousness, I don't see a true realignment happening in the next 20 years. I think we'll just see some things slowly shift. I definitely don't buy the whole WA/OR trending R while MS/AL trend D obsession, because we're not seeing the same kind of racial polarization in every part of the country, and in some parts of the country, it's really rural/urban polarization, which is why WA/OR are trending Democratic, not Republican. It's not the case that WA/OR are only Democratic because of "the culture wars." The political leanings or both states are more complex than that, and Republicans moving slightly left on social issues (which I see no sign of happening) won't magically make these states more competitive.

(
)

This is what the map could look like around 2032, IMO, though I could be totally wrong.


Title: Re: Future Realignment Possibilities?
Post by: Skill and Chance on October 08, 2017, 04:24:35 PM
In all seriousness, I don't see a true realignment happening in the next 20 years. I think we'll just see some things slowly shift. I definitely don't buy the whole WA/OR trending R while MS/AL trend D obsession, because we're not seeing the same kind of racial polarization in every part of the country, and in some parts of the country, it's really rural/urban polarization, which is why WA/OR are trending Democratic, not Republican. It's not the case that WA/OR are only Democratic because of "the culture wars." The political leanings or both states are more complex than that, and Republicans moving slightly left on social issues (which I see no sign of happening) won't magically make these states more competitive.

(
)

This is what the map could look like around 2032, IMO, though I could be totally wrong.

For the West Coast, I agree with this, but the Northeast and socially liberal parts of the Midwest will shift hard if e.g. abortion ever becomes a state issue and the state GOP doesn't run on banning it.