|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 04:25:48 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virgini)
  25 Years From Now. . .
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: 25 Years From Now. . .  (Read 10221 times)
Ben Meyers
BenMeyers
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 933
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 01, 2005, 08:34:16 pm »

Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,369
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2005, 08:45:32 pm »

Maybe something like this:

Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,407


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2005, 09:07:29 pm »

Here is my prediction

Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,649
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2005, 09:47:34 pm »

Only problem is that with all things being equal, Florida is trending Republican.
Logged
Erc
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,820
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2005, 10:57:06 pm »

I'm not going to even try to predict what it'll be like in 2030...

Exhibit A:



Exhibit B:

Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,369
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2005, 05:58:08 am »

Only problem is that with all things being equal, Florida is trending Republican.

Even with Bush's gain this year, Florida is still trending Democratic slowly in the long run.  One election doesn't change a trend.  Look at Florida in 1988 and look at it today.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2005, 06:18:42 am »

Re: Erc's maps?
They're the 1948 and 1972 results, of course, but why were they posted? Why not 1980 and 1956, say, sticking with the 25 years theme?
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2005, 09:14:33 am »

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2005, 09:54:45 am »


Very interesting. Seeing as (IMO anyway) your analysis is usually worth reading, I'd be interested to know why you think that.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2005, 12:37:23 pm »


I'd say this looks very reasonable.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,407


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2005, 12:53:02 pm »
« Edited: May 02, 2005, 12:57:26 pm by thefactor »


Very interesting. Seeing as (IMO anyway) your analysis is usually worth reading, I'd be interested to know why you think that.

This is basically my current view of what would happen if the Thomas Frank view of the party was revived. I'm not surprised that you are interested in it, though I am not at all sure that it what would necessarily happen. I threw it in there for no small part in to contrast between the other predictions. One of the biggest trends in American politics over the past 5 years you see is the rise of economic liberalism and the decline of social liberalism. As with other trends I see this not only as a U.S. trend but a worldwide trend, starting with the Mexican peso crisis in 1994. That was the first major blow to the neoliberal economic establishment (the first major blow for that establishment also came in Latin America, with the success of Augusto Pinochet's economic policies, which were later followed by leaders of the UK, US. Russia, China, and 100 other countries. This may be one not-so-oft-told reason why the left hates him in particular so much).

This (economic liberalism, or as you say in Europe leftism) is going in the opposite direction of what the other predictions are hinting at. They suggest that the libertarian-leaning southwest could trend Democratic. The problem is if economic liberalism is finally reviving after 35 years of crisis (which would fit any theory of cyclical economic performance or of self-balancing economics), then the Democrats will soon move in the opposite direction, and all the predictions based on Clinton's "triangulation" formula will collapse. If John Kerry had had the will to smash the free-trade consensus in a Goldwateresque fashion by proposing protective tariffs, for example, he might have won Ohio. It's just a matter of time before the Democrats figure this out. I just thought it was funny all the other projections are based on the late 1990s paradigm of the future when reality has been going in the other direction the past 5 years or more. That's not to say they're necessarily wrong, but they're not necessarily right either.

The recent trends could be a backlash to the 1990's, or it could be something deeper, especially given the long term trends of economics and religion. The Nixon win of 1968 was seen as just a backlash to the '60s, but it turned out to not just be a backlash but a realignment. Under these circumstances the social scientists will begin to point out that since 1932, the more populist party has always been the majority party. Thus, both parties would adopt relatively socially conservative views, ala what Gore tried but failed to project in 2000, in order to be seen as as populist as possible. Under these circumstances, the battle is fought out over economic issues, with higher-income states falling on one side and lower-income states falling on another side. And I made my map based on a balanced election taking place under those circumstances.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,692
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2005, 12:55:43 pm »


Very interesting. Seeing as (IMO anyway) your analysis is usually worth reading, I'd be interested to know why you think that.

From what I can extrapolate it seems that thefactor's map seems to show a shift with the Democrats becoming moderate populists and the Republicans becoming moderate libertarians. That would account for why the South and Great Plains has turned red while the west coast has turned blue. Seems also that the Republicans pick up more of the Black vote while the Hispanic vote remains about the same as it is now. Party loyalty or, possibly, a successful liberal third party in the Northeast allows states like New York and Vermont to stay in the red column while latte liberals go back into the Republican voting block.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2005, 04:36:26 pm »

One of the biggest trends in American politics over the past 5 years you see is the rise of economic liberalism and the decline of social liberalism. As with other trends I see this not only as a U.S. trend but a worldwide trend,

Interestingly the same sort of thing seems to be happening over here; some of the rhetoric (and policies) coming from Labour have been much more leftish than the previous two elections (they're being more open about the re-distributive stuff as well) while the Tories have not tried the usual "we'll slash spending and cut yer taxes" trick they've been using since 1979 as much as normal (Flight got fired for suggesting that they'd do that if they won the election...) which would seem to indicate that it's not electorally popular anymore. The decline of social liberalism in the U.K is very obvious from UKIP's strong showing in last years Euro elections, and the increasly hardline stances politicians are taking on immigration/multiculturalism/crime/asylum seekers/etc.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting theory that

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also very interesting

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

IMO his entire strategy was wrong; he shouldn't have bothered with states where the economy hadn't been doing all that bad, he should have concentrated more on the rust belt.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe they have; they got Casey to run for Senate after all.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very interesting. Thanks for the analysis.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,266


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2005, 05:15:48 pm »



From what I can extrapolate it seems that thefactor's map seems to show a shift with the Democrats becoming moderate populists and the Republicans becoming moderate libertarians. That would account for why the South and Great Plains has turned red while the west coast has turned blue. Seems also that the Republicans pick up more of the Black vote while the Hispanic vote remains about the same as it is now. Party loyalty or, possibly, a successful liberal third party in the Northeast allows states like New York and Vermont to stay in the red column while latte liberals go back into the Republican voting block.

So latte liberal = libertarian?
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,969
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2005, 08:18:48 pm »



From what I can extrapolate it seems that thefactor's map seems to show a shift with the Democrats becoming moderate populists and the Republicans becoming moderate libertarians. That would account for why the South and Great Plains has turned red while the west coast has turned blue. Seems also that the Republicans pick up more of the Black vote while the Hispanic vote remains about the same as it is now. Party loyalty or, possibly, a successful liberal third party in the Northeast allows states like New York and Vermont to stay in the red column while latte liberals go back into the Republican voting block.

So latte liberal = libertarian?
It's kind of werid how the pc can break down at times.  I'd say on average they would be more liberal socially and conservative ecnomically, but yet in a washed down, suburbanite kind of way.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,409
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2005, 09:38:22 pm »

Re: Erc's maps?
They're the 1948 and 1972 results, of course, but why were they posted? Why not 1980 and 1956, say, sticking with the 25 years theme?

The same thing





Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 03, 2005, 04:05:24 am »

Thing is some things are predictable if your willing to think the unthinkable; 1948 clearly showed that a large rift had opened up between the Deep South Democrats and the national Party for example.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 03, 2005, 04:14:06 am »

It's an interesting analysis, factor, yes.
I'll agree the other maps are much too cautious (and much too stuck on keeping the two parties roughly similar, btw.) Just look at King's every-24-years timeline.
Some minor points (to Al as well as you): I don't think the law & order rhetoric and especially the anti-immigration rhetoric we're getting over here is really socially conservative. Certainly it doesn't appeal only to social conservatives. Nor is it to any extent whatsoever founded on christian teachings.
And I don't even want to try and count how many times I've pointed out that Pinochet's government did not, never had any intention to, govern according to the rules of neoliberal economics. Pinochet nationalized all the utilities and most major industries - something Allende had wanted to do but had not dared. And he didn't pay compensation if the owners happened to be Chileans. (Which provided an extra bonus for the government when much of it was sold off again towards the end of and just after Pinochet's reign.) The copper mines, Chile's main export and until quite recently only really relevant export, had been under state control for donks before Allende, and remain so now. What he did do is boost private agricultural exports (wine and fruit, mostly), by easy state-guaranteed credits to entrepreneurs.
As I said, very minor to your argument, actually.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 03, 2005, 04:22:16 am »

I don't think the law & order rhetoric and especially the anti-immigration rhetoric we're getting over here is really socially conservative.

I tend to think that it is (up to a point) in the U.K, mainly because the last time there was a lot of it (early '70's) was effectively a backlash to the percieved (and IMO innacurate; 20 million people watched the Black and White Minstels every week in the '60's...) liberalism of the '60's.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Very true. We'll only find that out for sure on friday morning, but I have a suspicion that while a lot of socially conservative people have liked the vicious attacks on immigrants, a lot of others have been appalled by it. Have to wait... oh... 48 hours or so to find out though.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very true, but the thing is, it wasn't seen like that by the rest of the world.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,692
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 03, 2005, 04:35:37 pm »



From what I can extrapolate it seems that thefactor's map seems to show a shift with the Democrats becoming moderate populists and the Republicans becoming moderate libertarians. That would account for why the South and Great Plains has turned red while the west coast has turned blue. Seems also that the Republicans pick up more of the Black vote while the Hispanic vote remains about the same as it is now. Party loyalty or, possibly, a successful liberal third party in the Northeast allows states like New York and Vermont to stay in the red column while latte liberals go back into the Republican voting block.

So latte liberal = libertarian?
It's kind of werid how the pc can break down at times. I'd say on average they would be more liberal socially and conservative ecnomically, but yet in a washed down, suburbanite kind of way.


Yes actually Preston is rather right. Many of these people, who are usually upperclass suburbanites used to be Republicans back when the party could be described as more moderate. Many of these people fled the party after the Reagan era do to the growing influence of the social conservative wing and the so-called religious right wing. They are economically centre-right and socially libertarian, or to put it in terms that you know jfern liberal. If the Republicans moved into a more moderate libertarian position many of these would come back into the fold of the Republican Party, especially if the Democrats move to a more Populist position.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,407


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 03, 2005, 07:33:45 pm »
« Edited: May 03, 2005, 07:36:02 pm by thefactor »

Al- your welcome.

It's an interesting analysis, factor, yes.
I'll agree the other maps are much too cautious (and much too stuck on keeping the two parties roughly similar, btw.) Just look at King's every-24-years timeline.
Some minor points (to Al as well as you): I don't think the law & order rhetoric and especially the anti-immigration rhetoric we're getting over here is really socially conservative. Certainly it doesn't appeal only to social conservatives. Nor is it to any extent whatsoever founded on christian teachings.

I would consider that law & order and immigration are social issues, only in the sense that they are not economic or foreign policy issues. They certainly don't involve religion, but I tend to categorize any issue that isn't primarily either economic or foreign policy as a social issue. For the most part, I identify less libertarian (tough-on-crime and anti-immigrant) policies as relatively conservative on the social axis, though of course this suffers the pitfalls of all left-right axis thinking. And certain tendencies such as the Democrats' anti-smoking/gun control bent would seem to go against the grain. But I think they're generally speaking the exceptions.
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I won't pretend to be an expert on Pinochet, I know very little about him... and I hadn't seen your previous posts, I didn't intend to discount them. One of the things I had picked up though besides his brutal authoritarianism was that he was one of the first to implement the neoliberal economic policies. Here's what wikipedia says on his economic policy:

"Once in power, Pinochet immediately set about making market-oriented economic reforms. He declared that he wanted "to make Chile not a nation of proletarians, but a nation of entrepreneurs". To formulate his economic policy, Pinochet relied on the so-called Chicago Boys, who were economists trained at the University of Chicago and heavily influenced by the monetarist policies of Milton Friedman.

Pinochet launched an era of economic deregulation and privatization. To accomplish his objectives, he abolished the minimum wage, rescinded trade union rights, privatized the pension system, state industries, and banks, and lowered taxes on wealth and profits. Supporters of these policies (most notably Milton Friedman himself) have dubbed them "The Miracle of Chile", due to the 35% increase in real per capita GDP from 1960 to 1980 (later, from 1980 to 2000, it increased by 94%, but Pinochet was no longer in power after 1990). Opponents such as Noam Chomsky dispute this "miracle" label, [5] (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199011--.htm) pointing out that the unemployment rate increased from 4.3% in 1973 to 22% in 1983, while real wages declined by 40%. However, Pinochet did manage to address at least part of these problems during his final years as President, since unemployment was down to 7.8% in 1990. The shortage problems during the final years of Allende's administration were also remedied.

The privatizations, cuts in public spending and anti-union policies generally had a negative impact on Chile's working class and a positive one on the country's more wealthy strata.

The former President Allende's economic policy had involved nationalizations of many key companies, notably U.S.-owned copper mines. This had been the primary reason for the external (mostly American) opposition to Allende's government. Much of the internal opposition to Allende's policies was from business sectors, and recently released US government documents confirm that the U.S. funded the lorry driver's strike, [6] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,260382,00.html) which was to a significant degree responsible for the chaotic situation just before the coup."
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,489


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2005, 02:55:30 am »


Not feeling you on Ohio.  I would put Wisconsin and possibly North Carolina as tossups.
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,489


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2005, 02:58:43 am »



Here's mine.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2005, 05:21:02 am »


Not feeling you on Ohio. I would put Wisconsin and possibly North Carolina as tossups.

Well I didn't allow myself any tossups - heck if I did that there'd be tons of 'em on there. Smiley
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 05, 2005, 05:51:54 am »

I won't pretend to be an expert on Pinochet, I know very little about him... and I hadn't seen your previous posts, I didn't intend to discount them.
I didn't just mean on this board, or on the net at large. Smiley
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
He certainly did sell himself like that.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Well, to a certain extent that's true of course...although they were not the policies that Milton Friedman, the IMF etc have since been touting everywhere.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Their version of the story - the neoliberal myth, if you prefer.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
no.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
yes.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
yes.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
not sure.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Late in his term. After having nationalized them before.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
ditto
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
yes.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You'll notice that Pinochet was in office from 1973...and throughout the first two years or so of his administration, GDP fell IIRC. Most of this increase probably occurred in the 60's...if these figures were 1950-70, they would have to be considered extremely low.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Forty percent is a hell of a lot. Not sure if that figure is genuine.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
true.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Which are largely a myth
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Most of the copper mines was in Chilean government's hands (the army's, in fact) long before Allende. But yeah, Allende nationalized the rest. They remain in government control now.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
This had been the primary reason for the external (mostly American) opposition to Allende's government. Much of the internal opposition to Allende's policies was from business sectors, and recently released US government documents confirm that the U.S. funded the lorry driver's strike, [6] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,260382,00.html) which was to a significant degree responsible for the chaotic situation just before the coup."
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
true enough. The CIA also tried to engineer a coup a while before the actual coup, and spoke to Pinochet in that context. That the actual coup was actively CIA-supported (which most people around the world believed at the time) is not true, however.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines