Which party's electoral/demographic coalition is more unstable?

[All Along The Watchtower]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Voter_base

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29#Voter_base

Both parties are broad coalitions of demographics with often divergent interests. Both parties have intra-party divisions on issues of economics, trade, foreign policy, social programs, and the size and purpose of government. In recent years, social issues have been more important for partisan polarization than other issues.

That being said, which party has a more unstable electoral/demographic coalition, in your view?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The GOP base is rather uniform compared to the Democrats'; white, middle-aged to elderly, more religious and more wealthy than the national mean. The Democrats have since FDR been a "mosaic" party; Obama will win both hipsters and Teamsters this November for instance, so the GOP could hypothetically pick off one member of the alliance or another.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Democrats. Too many groups to hold everything together.

[Vosem]

I would actually say Republicans. The alliance between big-business libertarian types and populist social-conservative types ultimately cannot last.

[opebo]

The Democrats are more 'unstable' in marginal bits and bobs coming and going, but their coalition is growing.  The Republican one is unstable if we consider steady, marked decline as a share of the electorate to be a form of instability.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Democrats are more 'unstable' in marginal bits and bobs coming and going, but their coalition is growing.  The Republican one is unstable if we consider steady, marked decline as a share of the electorate to be a form of instability.

I'm a Republican and I must agree with this statement, unfortunately.

[morgieb]

Clearly the Democrats. The suburbanites have (to a strong degree) bolted the GOP, that isn't really the case with poorer Southerners/Appalachian voters.

[Donerail]

Republicans. Soccons are not going to keep sharing the same party with libertarians. One or the other has to crack.

[Indy Texas]

If you put Michael Moore, George Soros, a women's studies professor, a black single mom and a Hispanic construction worker in the same room, they might eventually run out of things to talk about.

If you put Grover Norquist, Rick Santorum, a hedge fund manager, Joe the Plumber and an Ayn Rand-quoting atheist in the same room, they might kill each other.

[後援会]

No one except the Ron Paul types thinks that the GOP is less stable than the Democrats. After all, the irreconcilable Ron Paul-type libertarians are and have never been a major part of the GOP base.

That being said, the Democratic base is more unstable primarily because it is larger, so take that as what you will. It gives the Democrats an advantage in most elections - but it's hard to forge an electoral coalition from both the most privileged and the least privileged members of society and claim they are both under attack from the "evil right".

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The Democrats are more 'unstable' in marginal bits and bobs coming and going, but their coalition is growing.  The Republican one is unstable if we consider steady, marked decline as a share of the electorate to be a form of instability.

I'm a Republican and I must agree with this statement, unfortunately.

[Bacon King]

Most of the people who bankroll the GOP have absolutely nothing in common (politically or culturally) with the typical Republican voter- and especially not the typical grassroots activist. This "coalition" will crumble whenever big business decides that attaching themselves to conservative social/religious issues are an electoral liability that keeps them from getting the tax breaks and regulation cuts they want. I could potentially see some serious infighting if/when Romney loses, with the "capitalist faction" placing the blame on  the base for forcing Romney to pander on abortion, gay rights, etc during the primaries, and the "grassroots faction" blaming the monied interests for forcing a candidate through the primaries who wasn't a genuine conservative. I'm not saying it will happen, of course, but the possibility is certainly there. I mean, for example, this is a party that Torie and Naso both proudly and actively support, and I don't know a single thing those two have in common (and if they happened to meet each other in real life, I assume they'd both probably think the other represents much of what's wrong with the country).

Also, yeah, the Democrats have a broad and nebulous "mosaic" coalition, but there are some common threads that unite pretty much everyone in the coalition (except maybe Dan Boren). At any rate, the various constituent parts of the Democratic coalition will stay together as long as the GOP keeps doing what they're doing, because if nothing else being the only viable non-Republican party keeps the Democratic Party unified enough, just by virtue of the wide variety of groups the GOP drives away in some form or another.           

[DC Al Fine]

The Democrats, almost certainly because their coalition is growing. I cannot see minorities, working class whites, and latte liberals all getting along indefinitely.

The first to go will be the working class white who will continue their exit from the Democrats. Upper income Hispanics and Asians will follow to a lesser extent.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Republicans, simply because any political movement that claims to follow the teachings of both Jesus Christ and Ayn Rand is eventually going to have to face up to the contradiction.

[fezzyfestoon]

The Republicans have the system working for them and the Democrats are stuck with the poor masses. The narratives have the Democrats as defenders of the meek and real champions of justice, so when they have to defend themselves to their constituents it becomes a little difficult to justify their corrupt, corporatist abuses of the American public. On the other side, the Republicans milk the money cow for all it's worth and carpet-bomb the ignorant masses with lies about it to the point that their lines become the truth in direct contrast to their prolific government profiteering.

[courts]

Republicans. Soccons are not going to keep sharing the same party with libertarians. One or the other has to crack.

libertarians don't actually exist outside of the internet

[Vosem]

Republicans. Soccons are not going to keep sharing the same party with libertarians. One or the other has to crack.

libertarians don't actually exist outside of the internet

Really? More than 1 million people voted for Libertarian Party in the congressional elections in 2010, to say nothing of members of the Republican Party with libertarian leanings. Libertarianism is a very real, and btw strengthening, force in American politics.

[courts]

Republicans. Soccons are not going to keep sharing the same party with libertarians. One or the other has to crack.

libertarians don't actually exist outside of the internet

Really? More than 1 million people voted for Libertarian Party in the congressional elections in 2010, to say nothing of members of the Republican Party with libertarian leanings. Libertarianism is a very real, and btw strengthening, force in American politics.

so? ralph nader received almost three times that many votes in 2000 alone. how many libertarians have been elected locally compared to the green party? how many americans favor cutting entitlements, let alone abolishing them? how many are on board with legalizing child labor or heroin or ending the tyranny of food safety laws? i could go on but you get the idea. just because a few idiots like glenn beck or neil boortz in the media call themselves 'libertarian' (they aren't btw) or you occasionally see john stossel let outside of his cage doesn't mean that libertarianism is at all an actually relevant movement.

[Sol]

Both, if that makes any sense. The Dems have a larger coalition than the republicans, but due to it's sheer diversity, its isn't prone to fracturing. The republicans have a less diverse coalition, but the divide between the buisiness types and the bible-belt types is more fundamental.

[courts]

anyway my answer is, obviously the republicans. as has already been pointed out non-hispanic white christian males are declining as a % of the electorate. plus in many respects their coalition was really just a holdover of the cold war era. in the absence of communism the bizarre mix of aggressive neoconservatism, evangelical appeals, occasional anti-federalist appeals, and 'supply side' smokescreens will collapse under its own absurdity.

[Vosem]

Republicans. Soccons are not going to keep sharing the same party with libertarians. One or the other has to crack.

libertarians don't actually exist outside of the internet

Really? More than 1 million people voted for Libertarian Party in the congressional elections in 2010, to say nothing of members of the Republican Party with libertarian leanings. Libertarianism is a very real, and btw strengthening, force in American politics.

so? ralph nader received almost three times that many votes in 2000 alone.

So is the 'green movement' in the US nonexistent?

how many libertarians have been elected locally compared to the green party?

Nationwide, there are 157 elected officials who are registered members of the Libertarian Party (list: http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials), compared to 135 registered members of the Green Party (list: http://www.gp.org/elections/officeholders/index.php).

how many americans favor cutting entitlements, let alone abolishing them?

'Cutting entitlements', vaguely, without specifying which ones? Probably a solid majority. 'Abolishing entitlements'? Probably somewhere in the 30s or maybe low 40s, again when you phrase it vaguely.

how many are on board with legalizing child labor or heroin or ending the tyranny of food safety laws?

The first, legalizing outright probably a very low number, but it's not hard to find people who think child labor law, especially for teens, is unnecessarily strict. (At least where I live; to get a job when your under 18 requires going through a lot of bureaucracy.) Heroin, probably a number in the teens or twenties. The last one, somewhere in the 30s. These are all rough estimates, but you get the idea: a non-negligible amount. I'm too lazy to search for it myself, but I'd love for someone to post a link to some polling about this (I freely admit these are estimates). Scaling down the food safety net and liberalizing child labor law are both 'mainstream' positions in the US; the middle one isn't.

i could go on but you get the idea. just because a few idiots like glenn beck or neil boortz in the media call themselves 'libertarian' (they aren't btw) or you occasionally see john stossel let outside of his cage doesn't mean that libertarianism is at all an actually relevant movement.

Er...it is, and it's gaining strength.

in the absence of communism the bizarre mix of aggressive neoconservatism, evangelical appeals, occasional anti-federalist appeals, and 'supply side' smokescreens will collapse under its own absurdity.

After 20 years, this doesn't seem to be happening, at all...

[courts]

So is the 'green movement' in the US nonexistent?

no but it's largely considered irrelevant these days, after a brief moment around 1996-2000 when it seemed to be becoming a relevant in part because of the '90s fixation on ecological issues and anti-globalization.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

so it is somewhat higher than i thought, but basically a comparable amount. i might add as well that even ed clark, easily the strongest libertarian candidate electorally, got less than 1 million votes in 1980.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

it was obviously a rhetorical question, any such cuts are incredibly unpopular you only have to look at something like pew for that. if you look at surveys of the tea party only about 30% would say they actually want to abolished medicare and social security. most were furious because they thought obamacare would lead to medicare cuts. many even wanted more benefits for themselves (probably most for obvious reasons), as has been posted ad nauseam on this site. did you think romney was only pandering to the middle by trotting out his $716 billion medicare cuts scare claim? no, he was pandering to his geriatric tp base.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

this was clearly not meant to be taken literally, again but i am sure you don't need to see the polls for any of these. the point is that libertarianism at its core is far too radical for americans, because it is based on a very alien set of moral principles. the libertarian if they are honest will tell you that they would rather people starve or grow sick and die if it came down to it than provide any public aid, because doing so requires 'initiation of force' through taxation. this is a non starter now for obvious reasons, and we are all very fortunate for that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

some particular libertarian positions such as anti central banking or drug legalization might continue to pick up support but that does not equal a thriving movement. as it stands the present political consensus could not be further from libertarianism. even the austerity proposals trotted out by the gop like ryan's plan amount to essentially massive subsidization of the hmos, public-private partnerships with wall street in place of the current social security system and of course a massive increase in military spending.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

i did not say that it would be overnight, i just said that such an alliance has obvious problems in terms of coherence and will not stay politically viable. as it is if you look at polling americans are much less enthusiastic about intervening overseas than '20 years ago,' for example (granted the anti war vote does not presently count for much, particularly given nearly unlimited donations + the reality congress can invest in the same contractors and weapons manufacturers they are subsidizing...). likewise positions like tax cuts for the rich, privatizing social security, etc. are not good sells for the public. it is only social issues that americans are somewhat more receptive and even then if you look at polling on various issues like pornography or attitudes towards homosexuality or birth control it is obvious which side is losing out. this does not mean that there could not be an eventual counter-revolution of sorts to secularism and/or liberalism just that it is clear where things are heading right now. and everybody knows it.

in any case if you look at public attitudes towards the republican party, even now their numbers are horrific in terms of approval ratings. this is not just congress (although that's unprecedentedly low) that's at basically all levels. and that will again, in the long run only get worse as whites shrink as a % of electorate. unless they somehow manage to capture a far larger % of white voters to counterbalance minorities or there's some abrupt reversal in their numbers with hispanics then over the next generation they are going to be in the political wilderness if not going the way of the whigs. you are beginning to see more open discussion of this amongst the gop and 'conservatives' (e.g. karl rove).

[Donerail]

Republicans. Soccons are not going to keep sharing the same party with libertarians. One or the other has to crack.

libertarians don't actually exist outside of the internet

Really? More than 1 million people voted for Libertarian Party in the congressional elections in 2010, to say nothing of members of the Republican Party with libertarian leanings. Libertarianism is a very real, and btw strengthening, force in American politics.

so? ralph nader received almost three times that many votes in 2000 alone. how many libertarians have been elected locally compared to the green party? how many americans favor cutting entitlements, let alone abolishing them? how many are on board with legalizing child labor or heroin or ending the tyranny of food safety laws? i could go on but you get the idea. just because a few idiots like glenn beck or neil boortz in the media call themselves 'libertarian' (they aren't btw) or you occasionally see john stossel let outside of his cage doesn't mean that libertarianism is at all an actually relevant movement.

According to the 2006 Kirby-Boaz study, it's something like 14%.

[opebo]

in the absence of communism the bizarre mix of aggressive neoconservatism, evangelical appeals, occasional anti-federalist appeals, and 'supply side' smokescreens will collapse under its own absurdity.

After 20 years, this doesn't seem to be happening, at all...

Well, now, the trajectory since the fall of the Berlin Wall hasn't exactly been good for the GOP nonsense, now has it?  Reagan won landslides, no Republican since has, and as of late they were even ignominiously beaten by a black, for gosh sakes.  

Basically Romney's bid is really the last one to potentially work selling the same old malarkey.  They're really going to have to come up with something new to appeal to a changing electorate.

[Bacon King]

According to the 2006 Kirby-Boaz study, it's something like 14%.

Sure, there's a sizeable chunk of the electorate that believes government should be less involved in both economy and society. But I doubt even if the US had a purely proporational system of government that even a quarter of them would want to vote for a party that openly advocates for the removal of every regulation on corporations and banks, the abolishment of all Federal programs not mandated by the Constitution, and even states in it's national platform that "parents should have responsibilty for all funds expended by their children's education"; "libertarian" is a very different and much broader label than "Libertarian," honestly.