How would a map look like if the parties platform was like this

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

To all the people who are posting competitive maps, you are either interpreting this differently, or wrong. In the US of 2016, an election between Charlie Baker and Elizabeth Warren might be competitive in Massachusetts. An election between Phil Scott and Bernie Sanders might be competitive in Vermont. A democratic primary between a new democrat and a social democrat might be competitive. But in a general election in the US, all of those would be massive landslides. An election where the republican candidate wins a third of Clinton voters and 90% of trump voters in not competitive. The democrats here would do worse with hispanics. Worse with asians. Worse with blacks. Worse with college educated whites. They would very likely do worse with non college educated whites. The only demographic they would win would be blacks, and them by a much reduced margin. In practice, this setup would be insustainable. The republicans would be pulled right by their base. The democrats would moderate to win.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Social issues would matter less, but they still would matter. Meanwhile, the democrats pacificism and far left economic agenda would be excellent replacement wedge issues. They would suffer losses in both whites and blacks.
This election would resemble 1988 if you made it less favorable to Democrats. New York could easily flip.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Anyway if we are going for the good old "Democratic Party led by Bernie sanders" vs "Republican Party led by Charlie Baker" then this is what a close election would roughly end up looking like:

Anyway it wouldn't be as different as you'd think. Republicans would improve their performance in the northeast enough to start winning some states. Meanwhile the democrats would improve their numbers with southern rural whites enough to start winning some of the states in the southeast coastal area.

Overall the main effect wouldn't be a completely alien map, but more of a less polarised map, with red states and blue states moving closer to the centre, while still remaining in their respective parties.

Oh yeah and the Midwest would still be a swing area.
[/quote
I agree that that is a reasonable close election map. However, this wouldn't be close.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Anyway if we are going for the good old "Democratic Party led by Bernie sanders" vs "Republican Party led by Charlie Baker" then this is what a close election would roughly end up looking like:

Anyway it wouldn't be as different as you'd think. Republicans would improve their performance in the northeast enough to start winning some states. Meanwhile the democrats would improve their numbers with southern rural whites enough to start winning some of the states in the southeast coastal area.

Overall the main effect wouldn't be a completely alien map, but more of a less polarised map, with red states and blue states moving closer to the centre, while still remaining in their respective parties.

Oh yeah and the Midwest would still be a swing area.
[/quote
I agree that that is a reasonable close election map. However, this wouldn't be close.

1988 was only a landslide cause Bush was vp to a popular president in good times and Dukakis ran a horrible campaign.

If you run a far-left candidate against a center/center left candidate, you will lose.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

The democrats here would almost certainly be nativist.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

The democrats here would almost certainly be nativist.

Did the OP say that the democrats use nativists language in their campagins? No. And considering this Democratic Party will still comfortably be the party of Hispanics, I very much doubt that they will.

A socially left, protectionist is at the least going to do far worse.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

The democrats here would almost certainly be nativist.

Did the OP say that the democrats use nativists language in their campagins? No. And considering this Democratic Party will still comfortably be the party of Hispanics, I very much doubt that they will.

A socially left, protectionist is at the least going to do far worse.

Considering that this is how Obama basically campgained as in 2008, Hispanics seemed to be quite receptive to this campaign, and no a McCain who decided to campaign as his 2000 self, would not have prevented the swing of Hispanics to Obama.

Some of his early rhetoric in the democratic primaries was. In reality, he's clearly and strongly pro-immigration and free trade. The "democrats" in this are not.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Anyway if we are going for the good old "Democratic Party led by Bernie sanders" vs "Republican Party led by Charlie Baker" then this is what a close election would roughly end up looking like:

Anyway it wouldn't be as different as you'd think. Republicans would improve their performance in the northeast enough to start winning some states. Meanwhile the democrats would improve their numbers with southern rural whites enough to start winning some of the states in the southeast coastal area.

Overall the main effect wouldn't be a completely alien map, but more of a less polarised map, with red states and blue states moving closer to the centre, while still remaining in their respective parties.

Oh yeah and the Midwest would still be a swing area.
[/quote
I agree that that is a reasonable close election map. However, this wouldn't be close.

1988 was only a landslide cause Bush was vp to a popular president in good times and Dukakis ran a horrible campaign.

If you run a far-left candidate against a center/center left candidate, you will lose.

The GOP in this is not center left in any way : They support cutting taxes ,deregulation , cutting spending in every area , are pro free trade (which by the way was pushed by the GOP ) , and their position on the environment is not by more government regulation but by alternative energy companies .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Cool link, New Democrats don't support literally Republican economic policies, though.

1. Bill Clinton made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses
2. Deregulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000)
3. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/18/us/clinton-s-economic-plan-the-spending-cuts-a-wide-swath-on-earth-and-in-the-sky.html
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement.

The republican party in this is slightly left of center. The democrats are far left. That's not a winning combination for Dems.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Cool link, New Democrats don't support literally Republican economic policies, though.

The republican party in this is slightly left of center. The democrats are far left. That's not a winning combination for Dems.

Maybe you do, but to the vast majority of voters these two parties proposed by the OP, are a mainstream right wing party and a mainstream left wing party.

Oh, yes, I remember how in the GOP debates they all were arguing over whether the minimum wage should be 10 dollars or 12. Wait, no. They weren't. This isn't mainstream left versus mainstream right outside of Vermont.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Bill Clinton did all of that because he had a REPUBLICAN Congress that demanded all of it, and HUGE majorities of his own party voted against all of it, LOL.  Same with Obama and TPP, friend.

Half of those were passed with a democratic congress. The republican party in this is a lot closer to new democrats than their current itieration.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Cool link, New Democrats don't support literally Republican economic policies, though.

The republican party in this is slightly left of center. The democrats are far left. That's not a winning combination for Dems.

Maybe you do, but to the vast majority of voters these two parties proposed by the OP, are a mainstream right wing party and a mainstream left wing party.

Oh, yes, I remember how in the GOP debates they all were arguing over whether the minimum wage should be 10 dollars or 12. Wait, no. They weren't. This isn't mainstream left versus mainstream right outside of Vermont.

Who cares that a bunch of out touch GOP politicians said or didn't say. The main point is that most republican voters support a modest increase in the minimum wage and so therefore it is a mainstream opinion amongst right wingers.
It doesn't matter that a bunch of GOP politicians who wrongly thought that the average republican voter is some kind of hardcore conservative ideologue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/april_2016/few_americans_support_15_minimum_wage_in_their_state. The median position is 10.50. A 10 minimum wage is centrist.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Cool link, New Democrats don't support literally Republican economic policies, though.

The republican party in this is slightly left of center. The democrats are far left. That's not a winning combination for Dems.

Maybe you do, but to the vast majority of voters these two parties proposed by the OP, are a mainstream right wing party and a mainstream left wing party.

Oh, yes, I remember how in the GOP debates they all were arguing over whether the minimum wage should be 10 dollars or 12. Wait, no. They weren't. This isn't mainstream left versus mainstream right outside of Vermont.

Dude this is one issue they are left on and the increase in min wage gets made up by major deregulation, corporate tax cuts , and cuts in welfare spending .

I'm so sorry you missed 1993-2001. It must be a shame.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Cool link, New Democrats don't support literally Republican economic policies, though.

The republican party in this is slightly left of center. The democrats are far left. That's not a winning combination for Dems.

Maybe you do, but to the vast majority of voters these two parties proposed by the OP, are a mainstream right wing party and a mainstream left wing party.

Oh, yes, I remember how in the GOP debates they all were arguing over whether the minimum wage should be 10 dollars or 12. Wait, no. They weren't. This isn't mainstream left versus mainstream right outside of Vermont.

Who cares that a bunch of out touch GOP politicians said or didn't say. The main point is that most republican voters support a modest increase in the minimum wage and so therefore it is a mainstream opinion amongst right wingers.
It doesn't matter that a bunch of GOP politicians who wrongly thought that the average republican voter is some kind of hardcore conservative ideologue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/april_2016/few_americans_support_15_minimum_wage_in_their_state. The median position is 10.50. A 10 minimum wage is centrist.

Doesn't change the fact that this is still a mainstream right wing party that mostly holds policy positions to the right of the median American voter.

And no this GOP party is no centre left and this Democratic Party would not be regarded as far left. Deal with it.

If you think that that is a right wing party in the US of 2016, you have some problems. You might want that to be what the mainstream right is. I do too. That doesn't make it true. 

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Cool link, New Democrats don't support literally Republican economic policies, though.

The republican party in this is slightly left of center. The democrats are far left. That's not a winning combination for Dems.

Maybe you do, but to the vast majority of voters these two parties proposed by the OP, are a mainstream right wing party and a mainstream left wing party.

Oh, yes, I remember how in the GOP debates they all were arguing over whether the minimum wage should be 10 dollars or 12. Wait, no. They weren't. This isn't mainstream left versus mainstream right outside of Vermont.

Dude this is one issue they are left on and the increase in min wage gets made up by major deregulation, corporate tax cuts , and cuts in welfare spending .

I'm so sorry you missed 1993-2001. It must be a shame.

Dude being left on one issue doesnt make you center left


Trump opposed free trade- does that make him a leftist

and the min wage increase is not emphasized as much as tax cuts , spending cuts , deregulation.


And yes Bill Clinton was Center-Right after the 1994 elections , not center left.

Center right and center left aren't amorphous terms floating in the aether. They are in relation to the population.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Cool link, New Democrats don't support literally Republican economic policies, though.

The republican party in this is slightly left of center. The democrats are far left. That's not a winning combination for Dems.

Maybe you do, but to the vast majority of voters these two parties proposed by the OP, are a mainstream right wing party and a mainstream left wing party.

Oh, yes, I remember how in the GOP debates they all were arguing over whether the minimum wage should be 10 dollars or 12. Wait, no. They weren't. This isn't mainstream left versus mainstream right outside of Vermont.

Dude this is one issue they are left on and the increase in min wage gets made up by major deregulation, corporate tax cuts , and cuts in welfare spending .

I'm so sorry you missed 1993-2001. It must be a shame.

Dude being left on one issue doesnt make you center left


Trump opposed free trade- does that make him a leftist

and the min wage increase is not emphasized as much as tax cuts , spending cuts , deregulation.


And yes Bill Clinton was Center-Right after the 1994 elections , not center left.

Center right and center left aren't amorphous terms floating in the aether. They are in relation to the population.

Bush Jr raised min wage too

And?