The future of the two parties

[TJ in Oregon]

The Democrats certainly do seem to have the current advantage, but the US is set up enough to encourage a two-party system that what I think will end up happening is the future parties will be polarized according to some current event or issue that isn't seen as important yet or hasn't happened yet.

[Sconnie]

I don't see the Republican party lasting too much longer in its current form (super-religious, super white, etc.).

Therefore, I think the two party system will have to split along different lines (i.e. gay marriage will be legalized and become a non-issue... other social issues will move in that direction too)...

Republican Party = Libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially libertarian live and let live.

Democratic Party = Fiscally liberal, not socialist but moving in that direction, socially still more liberal and using the government to solve social problems.

I could actually see Republicans becoming competitive in states like New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa again... and Democrats becoming competitive in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, etc.

And what happens to the social conservatives? Do they form their own party? Or do you intend to purge them?

The suggestion that the Republicans are suddenly going to be what liberals want them to be is mind-boggling. If anything, the Republican Party will become even less attractive to Internet liberals, as it's probably going down the road to become a sort of Third Positionist political outfit. As it declines in numbers, the GOP will become more, not less, extreme in its rhetoric and policy positioning. As more and more Hispanic immigrants make it to the polls and the country becomes majority-minority, the Republican Party will be more of a 'white man's party' than the vast majority of liberals can scarcely imagine. I'm talking about a party that will openly advocate closing the borders outright. This of course will likely alienate the business community from the GOP, which will continue moving towards the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party on the other hand will morph into a weird kind of 'market social democracy' party which enacts social democratic ends by market means. Thus it'll kind of be a crony capitalist party with a lot of big friends on Wall Street that it funnels state funds as the state itself becomes a sort of middleman between corporate America and literally everyone else. We'll have universal healthcare, higher education, all that, but it'll be thoroughly corporatized; that is, we'll have them on the terms of the massive international corporations that control our politics, not on the terms of a democratic citizenry. Imagine Obamacare, but replicated on a massive scale. It won't be a traditional 20th century welfare state (because organized labor will be essentially neutralized), but rather a massive, bloated middleman state where tax dollars are shifted through various corporate organs to deliver the public a product, rather than a public service. There will still be a 'pity-charity' welfare state, but it'll be on the terms of the corporate elite that runs the country and the Democratic Party, not the public at-large. Food stamps* will still exist, as will traditional welfare, but these programs will be changed beyond recognition; Social Security will be privatized, turned into something that some parasitic Wall Street middleman can turn a profit off of, and Medicare will likewise be the same, turned into a functional extension of Obamacare by enterprising Democratic politicians.



*Food Stamps will very likely be limited in nature to promote 'healthy diets,' aka no more using food stamps to buy soda and potato chips, you must buy organic arugula or something.

The Democratic Party will be so fractious and heterogeneous that their coalition simply will not last (assuming, of course, that the party becomes such in the future). What you describe here is unthinkable; the most likely scenario is that Republicans will chip away at the minority vote over time and continue to remain viable.

My opinion on the future parties:

Republicans-Largely the same as today, but with a slightly broader tent. They will find a way to change their messaging to appeal to minorities.
Democrats-Largely the same as today, but more minority dominated. Liberals complain about disagreements within their own party; well, it is only likely to get worse as America gets more diverse (hey, that rhymes).

[MalaspinaGold]

I don't see the Republican party lasting too much longer in its current form (super-religious, super white, etc.).

Therefore, I think the two party system will have to split along different lines (i.e. gay marriage will be legalized and become a non-issue... other social issues will move in that direction too)...

Republican Party = Libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially libertarian live and let live.

Democratic Party = Fiscally liberal, not socialist but moving in that direction, socially still more liberal and using the government to solve social problems.

I could actually see Republicans becoming competitive in states like New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa again... and Democrats becoming competitive in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, etc.

And what happens to the social conservatives? Do they form their own party? Or do you intend to purge them?

I see them becoming more of a faction of the Republican party; not all "true" Republicans will have to oppose ssm in 10-20 years for instance. The population is becoming more and more socially liberal; the Republican Party could get hypothetically get away with it.

That said, by all means the evangelical wing could break off. It's not unprecedented; the Bull Moose Progressives split off from the Republicans because they truly hated the business wing, and the Greenback Labor Party split off from the Democrats for more complex reasons; but mainly because there were increasing tensions with city democrats in the late 19th century. A breakoff would be unlikely, but could definitely happen.

My opinion on the future parties:

Republicans-Largely the same as today, but with a slightly broader tent. They will find a way to change their messaging to appeal to minorities.
Democrats-Largely the same as today, but more minority dominated. Liberals complain about disagreements within their own party; well, it is only likely to get worse as America gets more diverse (hey, that rhymes).

I think Republicans for the next ten years will continue to become more extreme, culminating in a McGovernesque loss. Then, they will probably move toward the center on social issues, and POSSIBLY a little bit on economic issues.

[ElectionsGuy]

I think Republicans for the next ten years will continue to become more extreme, culminating in a McGovernesque loss. Then, they will probably move toward the center on social issues, and POSSIBLY a little bit on economic issues.

Pipe dream, the modern democratic party is almost as extreme.

+ Why should the republican party get more moderate while the democratic party doesn't? Because they're having problems electorally? That's basically asking them to surrender. The democratic party didn't get more moderate after losing 3 presidential elections in a row, they found a way to appeal. That's all a political party has to do. The idea that republicans will have to get more moderate because they're not doing well at the moment nationally is a fantasy, and so is the idea of the democrats having a "lock" on anything.

[barfbag]

I don't see the Republican party lasting too much longer in its current form (super-religious, super white, etc.).

Therefore, I think the two party system will have to split along different lines (i.e. gay marriage will be legalized and become a non-issue... other social issues will move in that direction too)...

Republican Party = Libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially libertarian live and let live.

Democratic Party = Fiscally liberal, not socialist but moving in that direction, socially still more liberal and using the government to solve social problems.

I could actually see Republicans becoming competitive in states like New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa again... and Democrats becoming competitive in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, etc.

And what happens to the social conservatives? Do they form their own party? Or do you intend to purge them?

I see them becoming more of a faction of the Republican party; not all "true" Republicans will have to oppose ssm in 10-20 years for instance. The population is becoming more and more socially liberal; the Republican Party could get hypothetically get away with it.

That said, by all means the evangelical wing could break off. It's not unprecedented; the Bull Moose Progressives split off from the Republicans because they truly hated the business wing, and the Greenback Labor Party split off from the Democrats for more complex reasons; but mainly because there were increasing tensions with city democrats in the late 19th century. A breakoff would be unlikely, but could definitely happen.

My opinion on the future parties:

Republicans-Largely the same as today, but with a slightly broader tent. They will find a way to change their messaging to appeal to minorities.
Democrats-Largely the same as today, but more minority dominated. Liberals complain about disagreements within their own party; well, it is only likely to get worse as America gets more diverse (hey, that rhymes).

I think Republicans for the next ten years will continue to become more extreme, culminating in a McGovernesque loss. Then, they will probably move toward the center on social issues, and POSSIBLY a little bit on economic issues.

They said the same thing in the 60's about becoming more socially liberal. Then in the 80's and 90's things were better. It could go back and forth as it's been doing for our whole lives. To suggest otherwise would contradict what we've seen. The only exception is gay marriage which wasn't an issue until recently.

[hopper]

I think Republicans for the next ten years will continue to become more extreme, culminating in a McGovernesque loss. Then, they will probably move toward the center on social issues, and POSSIBLY a little bit on economic issues.

Pipe dream, the modern democratic party is almost as extreme.

The Dems are left-wing while the Republicans are on the hard-right.  The Moderates are extinct. Its like if you are a Moderate what party should you vote for.

[ElectionsGuy]

I think Republicans for the next ten years will continue to become more extreme, culminating in a McGovernesque loss. Then, they will probably move toward the center on social issues, and POSSIBLY a little bit on economic issues.

Pipe dream, the modern democratic party is almost as extreme.

The Dems are left-wing while the Republicans are on the hard-right.  The Moderates are extinct. Its like if you are a Moderate what party should you vote for.

Right, moderate voters unfortunately have to choose between the lesser of two evils in most situations. This extreme polarization is also why many registered democrats in the south vote now vote republican, and why so many independents and republicans in New England now vote democrat. Its the older generation that lived through the 60's and saw how (in New England) extreme the republican party has gotten and (in the South) how extreme the democratic party has gotten since then. Younger generations are likely to think the same, and the states that have gone much to the right and left will likely stay that way until the next electoral alignment.

The two parties have been pretty similar since Nixon (late 60's once the civil rights movement cooled down a bit) But when it comes down to elections, its not even so much extremism. Its what I call stiff voters, voters who can't be convinced, voters who will always stick with one party. There's so many of these voters for each party now that I feel like its very hard for any party to pull off any massive landslide like Reagan or Nixon did. And of course, Barack Obama is one of our most polarizing presidents.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

If not, the Democrats will probably narrowly keep the senate and the white house in 2014 and 2016 but by 2020, the Republicans will probably take full control when they convince enough young rural people and moderate minorities to bring back the Bush coalition the way Clinton did with the New Dealers in the 90s.

Bush didn't have a coalition. He had a few Tea Party whack-a-doodles who he got to stamp the floor.

[barfbag]

If not, the Democrats will probably narrowly keep the senate and the white house in 2014 and 2016 but by 2020, the Republicans will probably take full control when they convince enough young rural people and moderate minorities to bring back the Bush coalition the way Clinton did with the New Dealers in the 90s.

Bush didn't have a coalition. He had a few Tea Party whack-a-doodles who he got to stamp the floor.

Bush had a coalition of every congressman from both parties who voted for the war in Iraq. We had several countries behind us when the war started.

[barfbag]

I think Republicans for the next ten years will continue to become more extreme, culminating in a McGovernesque loss. Then, they will probably move toward the center on social issues, and POSSIBLY a little bit on economic issues.

Pipe dream, the modern democratic party is almost as extreme.

The Dems are left-wing while the Republicans are on the hard-right.  The Moderates are extinct. Its like if you are a Moderate what party should you vote for.

Right, moderate voters unfortunately have to choose between the lesser of two evils in most situations. This extreme polarization is also why many registered democrats in the south vote now vote republican, and why so many independents and republicans in New England now vote democrat. Its the older generation that lived through the 60's and saw how (in New England) extreme the republican party has gotten and (in the South) how extreme the democratic party has gotten since then. Younger generations are likely to think the same, and the states that have gone much to the right and left will likely stay that way until the next electoral alignment.

The two parties have been pretty similar since Nixon (late 60's once the civil rights movement cooled down a bit) But when it comes down to elections, its not even so much extremism. Its what I call stiff voters, voters who can't be convinced, voters who will always stick with one party. There's so many of these voters for each party now that I feel like its very hard for any party to pull off any massive landslide like Reagan or Nixon did. And of course, Barack Obama is one of our most polarizing presidents.

It's always about the lesser of two evils.

[opebo]

I think Republicans for the next ten years will continue to become more extreme

Pipe dream, the modern democratic party is almost as extreme.

+ Why should the republican party get more moderate while the democratic party doesn't? Because they're having problems electorally? That's basically asking them to surrender. The democratic party didn't get more moderate after losing 3 presidential elections in a row, they found a way to appeal.

The Dems are left-wing while the Republicans are on the hard-right.  The Moderates are extinct. Its like if you are a Moderate what party should you vote for.

You guys are just silly - the Democratic party is not left wing - its precisely moderate to even center right!  It has always been a centrist party, and has never had any real left wing bent, and particularly not since the 1980s.

[hopper]

I think Republicans for the next ten years will continue to become more extreme

Pipe dream, the modern democratic party is almost as extreme.

+ Why should the republican party get more moderate while the democratic party doesn't? Because they're having problems electorally? That's basically asking them to surrender. The democratic party didn't get more moderate after losing 3 presidential elections in a row, they found a way to appeal.

The Dems are left-wing while the Republicans are on the hard-right.  The Moderates are extinct. Its like if you are a Moderate what party should you vote for.

You guys are just silly - the Democratic party is not left wing - its precisely moderate to even center right!  It has always been a centrist party, and has never had any real left wing bent, and particularly not since the 1980s.

What I meant to say and maybe should have said is the Dems are to far to the left on economic issues while the Republicans are on the extreme right. Nutty Tea Party wing and the Fox News Arm to a lesser extent drove Republicans to the extreme right after 2010. The country is in the center when it comes to economic issues not left of center(Moderate Liberalism) or on the extreme right.

I like the Dems when they had Clinton he had the right policies for the right time period.

[hopper]

If not, the Democrats will probably narrowly keep the senate and the white house in 2014 and 2016 but by 2020, the Republicans will probably take full control when they convince enough young rural people and moderate minorities to bring back the Bush coalition the way Clinton did with the New Dealers in the 90s.

Bush didn't have a coalition. He had a few Tea Party whack-a-doodles who he got to stamp the floor.

The Tea Party wasn't around in 2000 or 2004. I think it first maybe appeared in 2007 when the Tea Party started but it didn't blow up popularity wise till April 15th, 2009(tax day of that year.)

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The Tea Party wasn't around in 2000 or 2004.

They were around under the name "values voters" and such.

[opebo]

What I meant to say and maybe should have said is the Dems are to far to the left on economic issues while the Republicans are on the extreme right. Nutty Tea Party wing and the Fox News Arm to a lesser extent drove Republicans to the extreme right after 2010. The country is in the center when it comes to economic issues not left of center(Moderate Liberalism) or on the extreme right.

I like the Dems when they had Clinton he had the right policies for the right time period.

But the Democrats are centrist to center-right on economic issues, hopper.

[hopper]

What I meant to say and maybe should have said is the Dems are to far to the left on economic issues while the Republicans are on the extreme right. Nutty Tea Party wing and the Fox News Arm to a lesser extent drove Republicans to the extreme right after 2010. The country is in the center when it comes to economic issues not left of center(Moderate Liberalism) or on the extreme right.

I like the Dems when they had Clinton he had the right policies for the right time period.

But the Democrats are centrist to center-right on economic issues, hopper.

I'm just not buying that though currently. Maybe with Clinton they might have been but not now.

[hopper]

The Tea Party wasn't around in 2000 or 2004.

They were around under the name "values voters" and such.

Yeah but the Tea Party name and brand wasn't organized then.

[ElectionsGuy]

What I meant to say and maybe should have said is the Dems are to far to the left on economic issues while the Republicans are on the extreme right. Nutty Tea Party wing and the Fox News Arm to a lesser extent drove Republicans to the extreme right after 2010. The country is in the center when it comes to economic issues not left of center(Moderate Liberalism) or on the extreme right.

I like the Dems when they had Clinton he had the right policies for the right time period.

But the Democrats are centrist to center-right on economic issues, hopper.

No, no they're not. Unless you live in a world where you are so far left of the democratic party that you call them "center-right". I'm guessing you are very far-left socialist yourself guessing from your arguments.

[Joe Republic]

Relative to virtually the entire civilized world, the US Democrats as a whole are very much center to center-right.

(Which should tell you volumes about where the US Republicans sit, if you didn't already know.)

[ElectionsGuy]

Relative to virtually the entire civilized world, the US Democrats as a whole are very much center to center-right.

Yes, but not in America. If they want to become more socialistic and further left, then fine. But look at history of socialistic nations and tell me that they've succeeded. Socialism has always failed anywhere its tried and always will fail. The great thing about America is that we have capitalism and free enterprise, which is what this nation was built upon, and as long as we have our constitution and capitalism America will still be America (and to the right of almost all countries, of course).

Now, the republicans can really screw things up too, as well as libertarians by taking the policies way into the extreme, there has to be a limit somewhere, but it seems like all political fields are getting more polarized by the day.

[Joe Republic]

Yes, but not in America. If they want to become more socialistic and further left, then fine. But look at history of socialistic nations and tell me that they've succeeded. Socialism has always failed anywhere its tried and always will fail. The great thing about America is that we have capitalism and free enterprise, which is what this nation was built upon, and as long as we have our constitution and capitalism America will still be America (and to the right of almost all countries, of course).

Oh dear.  Yet another "It's either America or socialism!" false dichotomy.  So, so familiar among simple-minded right-wingers.

There are many, many ways in which the rest of the world does things better than us.  Only if you live in an opaque bubble could you not see that.

[opebo]

What I meant to say and maybe should have said is the Dems are to far to the left on economic issues while the Republicans are on the extreme right. Nutty Tea Party wing and the Fox News Arm to a lesser extent drove Republicans to the extreme right after 2010. The country is in the center when it comes to economic issues not left of center(Moderate Liberalism) or on the extreme right.

I like the Dems when they had Clinton he had the right policies for the right time period.

But the Democrats are centrist to center-right on economic issues, hopper.

No, no they're not. Unless you live in a world where you are so far left of the democratic party that you call them "center-right". I'm guessing you are very far-left socialist yourself guessing from your arguments.

Dude, regarding economics socialism is left, and capitalism is right wing.  The Democrats support capitalism.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes, but not in America. If they want to become more socialistic and further left, then fine. But look at history of socialistic nations and tell me that they've succeeded. Socialism has always failed anywhere its tried and always will fail. The great thing about America is that we have capitalism and free enterprise, which is what this nation was built upon, and as long as we have our constitution and capitalism America will still be America (and to the right of almost all countries, of course).

Oh dear.  Yet another "It's either America or socialism!" false dichotomy.  So, so familiar among simple-minded right-wingers.

There are many, many ways in which the rest of the world does things better than us.  Only if you live in an opaque bubble could you not see that.

Oh Joe, I didn't mean to take it out of context in a "Murica and Freedom" way. I agree there are many ways that the foreign world does better than us. But just generally speaking about socialism when it comes to government and economics, socialism almost never does much good at all.

[ElectionsGuy]

What I meant to say and maybe should have said is the Dems are to far to the left on economic issues while the Republicans are on the extreme right. Nutty Tea Party wing and the Fox News Arm to a lesser extent drove Republicans to the extreme right after 2010. The country is in the center when it comes to economic issues not left of center(Moderate Liberalism) or on the extreme right.

I like the Dems when they had Clinton he had the right policies for the right time period.

But the Democrats are centrist to center-right on economic issues, hopper.

No, no they're not. Unless you live in a world where you are so far left of the democratic party that you call them "center-right". I'm guessing you are very far-left socialist yourself guessing from your arguments.

Dude, regarding economics socialism is left, and capitalism is right wing.  The Democrats support capitalism.

Around the world yes, the democrats are right wing. But I have a feeling the maximum polarization going on right now that many democrats won't support capitalism in the future, and republicans will be crazy nut jobs as well who don't want any government and federal abortion bans.., etc. I hope I'm wrong, but it has me worried about the future.

[opebo]

socialism when it comes to government and economics, socialism almost never does much good at all.

Utter nonsense.