I prefer evilmexicandictator's 2004 scenario myself. This Global Paradigms one smacks of ivory tower wonk detachedness from reality. Who's a Jacksonian nowadays? What the hell is a Buchanan Catholic?
They're nice, neat terms for people the Cato Institute doesn't like
It's all-in-all not a terrible division of the population, although I find it highly unlikely that we'd get pairs of moderate and radical parties.
Here's an IMO more realistic three-way breakdown, although some groups are left out or key ideas missing.
The
Liberal Party is fine as-is, if highly idealistic, and I think I would read it as an identifiable group as economically center to center-left with a strong free trade streak. The party of the intelligentsia, with nearly all of its support in (wealthier) cities and suburbs, especially in the Mid-Atlantic and West Coast.
The
Constitution Party is essentially the next group, economically protectionist (as a rule, not in order to intervene in specific industries) and opposed to internal intervention in the economy, including most forms of taxation (preferring tariffs and sales tax). Its support is mostly socially conservative, but it tends to shy away from government intervention in social issues, at least at the national level. At the local level, it can be harshly reactionary (or not, depending on the area). Strong in suburbs in the South and Midwest and in the rural mountain West.
The
Labor Party is the party of unions. Economically protectionist and interventionist, it is the most economically left-wing of the major parties. On social issues, the party tends to be divided, supporting older "social liberalism" such as abortion while opposing, for example, gay marriage. Essentially, this is the non-Southern Democratic Party in about 1955. It has overwhelming support in the Rust Belt as well as a strong following in primarily white or Hispanic poor urban areas and generally in the most economically depressed zones even outside of the Rust Belt such as northern Maine or rural Oregon.
Some key groups left out include blacks (as it's unclear here which party would have been the party of Civil Rights: the Liberals otherwise fit generically black politics extremely poorly) and neoconservatives/nationalists (although they would probably find some manifestation as a streak running within the Constitutionists with some slight run within the Liberals).
In the end, I find it unlikely that blacks would have a separate political party; I'm just not sure whether they'd be more Liberals or Laborites (ideologically the latter, but in loyalties perhaps the former). Foreign policy also isn't a strong enough platform for a whole separate party.
