|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 05, 2020, 06:57:18 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: Virginiá)
  2024: Is Wyoming a blue state yet?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 2024: Is Wyoming a blue state yet?  (Read 4233 times)
kydmb99
Newbie
*
Posts: 18


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 09, 2017, 08:07:07 pm »

Or is it the last remaining purple state before Democrats begin their thousand year reich?
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,117
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2017, 05:35:01 pm »

It could theoretically have the same thing happen to it as Colorado, and since it's a tiny state, a large amount of people coming into it and forming a metropolitan area would change it pretty dramatically. That would turn it into either a CO-lite or CO on steroids, making it a (non-atlas) blue state.

However, if Wyoming were to become blue, it would be in isolation of national swings. Perhaps the same thing would be happening in Montana or Idaho? And even then, it's unlikely as all hell
Logged
Oh Jeremy Corbyn!
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,635


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2017, 07:30:59 pm »

It could theoretically have the same thing happen to it as Colorado, and since it's a tiny state, a large amount of people coming into it and forming a metropolitan area would change it pretty dramatically. That would turn it into either a CO-lite or CO on steroids, making it a (non-atlas) blue state.

However, if Wyoming were to become blue, it would be in isolation of national swings. Perhaps the same thing would be happening in Montana or Idaho? And even then, it's unlikely as all hell

This is true.  A large urban center like Denver, Portland, Seattle or Las Vegas could easily turn the state blue.  But I don't see that happening any time soon.  I think Democrats have a better chance of winning Utah by increasing their strength in Salt Lake City.
Logged
❤️❤️❤️
omegascarlet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,655


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2017, 08:18:34 pm »

Yes. Definitely.

Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,048
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2017, 12:30:50 am »

Absolutely not----

Although like many Western States, there is a significant concentration of population in "urban areas", namely the belt of cities that stretch all the way from Evanston to Cheyenne, even if we were to see a return to levels of support that the Democratic Party saw in these cities/counties some 30-40 years ago, the rural population would still outweigh the largest population centers in the state.

In a weird parallel universe, if Trump were to shift towards importing cheap Petroleum from the Middle East and Latin America, and undermine domestic Petro production, as part of an attempt to seal the deal with urban/suburban consumers in 2020, I could see a major swing in this part of the oil patch.

In such a scenario, the Democrats would need to have a candidate in 2024 that promotes energy independence, with domestic production of Petro/Natural Gas to protect American producers, combined with a significant investment into alternative energy production (Solar & Wind), where these are feasible and job creators that helps build a local economic boom, (akin to what North Dakota recently experienced).

Also, the Democratic candidate would need to let go of being perceived as an extremist on gun control, and instead solely focus on relatively popular items like universal background checks, and gun loopholes that allow Mexican cartels to buy their guns North of the border and export to Mexico, etc....

Voters in Wyoming do have a fairly strong "Big L" Libertarian streak, so aren't as concerned about items like Abortion and Gays, and similar such items....

Most likely as well, in order to win Wyoming in 2024, the Democratic candidate would need to significantly outperform Democratic margins in Rural Wyoming, where Natural Resource issues and similar items of the great "Sagebrush Rebellion" of the '80s were born, which would likely put the candidate at odds with the Environmentalist base of the Party....

Don't quite see it happening anytime soon, but IF Trump does a Reagan '85/'86 and screws over the Oil Patch by negotiating some sweetheart deal with the Saudis/Kuwaitis/Iraqis, etc..... I could potentially see a major swing even out in the heart of rough-neck country. Naturally, I would be looking for precinct results from Cheyenne and Rock Springs in such a hypothetical situation.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,466
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2017, 10:01:07 am »

2024: climate change has caused singnicant portions of the West Coast to become threatened by rising ocean waters, and the Beenie Bros of coastal northern Cakifornia and Oregon flock to Wyoming's Yellowstone National Park to reconnect with nature, causing the state to form a block in the new blue wall running from New Mexico through Colorado and now Wyoming 1!2!2!!

Though I suppose that kind of mass migration has a non-zero chance of happening.

Well, it happened in Vermont and to an extent Colorado.  It's not like the people in those states who kept them red just randomly changed their minds, the states' populations fundamentally changed.  Always possible, I guess.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,846


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2017, 11:33:11 am »

2024: climate change has caused singnicant portions of the West Coast to become threatened by rising ocean waters, and the Beenie Bros of coastal northern Cakifornia and Oregon flock to Wyoming's Yellowstone National Park to reconnect with nature, causing the state to form a block in the new blue wall running from New Mexico through Colorado and now Wyoming 1!2!2!!

Though I suppose that kind of mass migration has a non-zero chance of happening.

Well, it happened in Vermont and to an extent Colorado.  It's not like the people in those states who kept them red just randomly changed their minds, the states' populations fundamentally changed.  Always possible, I guess.

In Vermont, the people who were there previously did change their minds, to some extent.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,466
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2017, 12:57:10 pm »

2024: climate change has caused singnicant portions of the West Coast to become threatened by rising ocean waters, and the Beenie Bros of coastal northern Cakifornia and Oregon flock to Wyoming's Yellowstone National Park to reconnect with nature, causing the state to form a block in the new blue wall running from New Mexico through Colorado and now Wyoming 1!2!2!!

Though I suppose that kind of mass migration has a non-zero chance of happening.

Well, it happened in Vermont and to an extent Colorado.  It's not like the people in those states who kept them red just randomly changed their minds, the states' populations fundamentally changed.  Always possible, I guess.

In Vermont, the people who were there previously did change their minds, to some extent.

To some extent, sure, but it's pretty obvious (when you look at both election results every four years and VT's population increases by census) that older Republicans dying off and more liberal transplants moving in had a more significant effect, IMO.  I mean, the whole "Take Back Vermont" thing would not have existed otherwise, right?
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,466
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2017, 01:08:12 pm »

Yeah, Vermont's Republicans were by-and-large progressive. Colorado is a good example, though. Maybe California.

1) I think that's largely a myth, they had several very conservative ones, too.  When you have near one-party rule for a long time (pre-'60s), you're obviously going to have a wide range of ideologies.

2) Let's never forget that "progressive Republican" (and "conservative Democrat," for that matter) usually means "progressive FOR A REPUBLICAN" (and "conservative FOR A DEMOCRAT") unless there's some motive of rewriting history involved. Wink
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,466
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2017, 01:35:33 pm »

They're obviously not the same party, that was SO long ago, LOL.  None of the issues are the same, there's literally not a single issue you could transfer onto today besides maybe class issues/support for business interests and immigration restriction, both of which Lincoln's GOP would, of course, be to the right of Jackson's Democrats, but I'll go ahead you're not interested in that fact.

Saying "they've flipped" is so intellectually lazy, dude.  Not to mention blatantly false.
Logged
Cath
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,675
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2017, 02:21:11 pm »

This [mumbles incoherently] school of thought regarding the parties changing stems from the (correct) idea that the Republicans since the 1850's have been, to some extent or another, a "business party" and the Democrats have, similarly, framed themselves as a "people's party". There is also the fact that the parties since, what, the 1960's, have been in a process of narrowing themselves down and adhering to a bit more ideological rigor. I would have to assume that the primary process allowed this to occur; instead of what basically constituted clientelism via party bosses and defined interests, you as a candidate had to craft a message explaining why you were better than other potential nominees; this favored high turnout and ideological groups, as opposed to some allegedly calculation by party bosses.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,466
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2017, 02:29:59 pm »

Actually, most Republicans argued that THEY were the ones who were truly carrying forward the tradition of States' Rights and the Constitution, characterizing slavery as a complete abomination and bastardization of the Founders' intent.  After all, can we think of a more hideous attack on States' Rights and the Constitution than the Dred Scott decision, which Southern Democrats championed?  Proponents of slavery SAID they respected small government and States' Rights, but their actions suggested otherwise.  After all, the CSA was anything but a decentralized government, and it levied ridiculous taxes and seized private property for the war effort, measures that made Lincoln's actions look marginal.  Further, Lincoln's income tax was meant as a wartime measure that was to be repealed after the war (and it was); it wasn't until the 1890s that a Democratic Congress levied the first permanent income tax in US history.

Look, dude, I'm not saying liberals supported slavery and conservatives opposed it, but saying the opposite is just as ignorant.  To even project our modern politics onto that era is dubious, but to literally draw parallels with the two parties we happen to have is just insane.  Would Lincoln probably be uncomfortable with the GOP's "Southernization"?  Sure.  He'd also probably yearn for a GOP that won a higher percent of the minority vote (assuming we "2017ized him, and he wasn't a huge racist by today's standards).  However, being a man who championed free market capitalism, economic individualism, self-reliance and literally was a corporate lawyer for the railroads, I think he'd have just as much issue with Hillary Clinton's economic agenda.  Neither party is carrying a legacy of past parties, it's been 170 years!

As for "small government" vs. "big government," I thought most on this site had agreed that there's nothing inherently conservative or liberal about either.  I think motive is much more important.  Andrew Jackson opposed centralized government because it was too connected to money and business interests and left the poorest Americans in the dust ... similar rhetoric is used by Democrats today to attack Republicans who want to deregulate and decentralize.  What's more important, what they're doing, or why they're doing it?  The Republicans wanted a federal government that was organized and competent enough to allow talented American entrepreneurs to thrive and succeed, I think it's asinine to move that forward to say they'd want increased spending on welfare or higher taxes on "the wealthy," especially when our rates are astronomically higher than anything they would have put forward.

It's just silly to say anything like "the parties have flipped" or something like that.  It ignores such a complicated history.
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,117
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2017, 02:49:08 pm »

The parties didn't flip, but they did reshuffle. Parties are the sum of the pieces of their coalitions.

The GOP (waayy oversimplifying) was the party of northern liberals, business interests, what we would now call evangelicals, and black people.

The Democratic Party was the party of immigrants, white southerners, poor rural farmers/populists, etc.

The parties changed over time because, say, white southerners and rural westerners traded places with african-americans and northern liberals. But the GOP still has business interests in its coalition, and the Democrats still have immigrant groups in theirs. (though the ethnicities have changed)

I doubt Lincoln would comfortably slot into either modern party because his party pulled from both of what make up the modern parties while shunning others. Same goes for Jackson.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,466
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2017, 03:23:56 pm »

The parties didn't flip, but they did reshuffle. Parties are the sum of the pieces of their coalitions.

The GOP (waayy oversimplifying) was the party of northern liberals, business interests, what we would now call evangelicals, and black people.

The Democratic Party was the party of immigrants, white southerners, poor rural farmers/populists, etc.

The parties changed over time because, say, white southerners and rural westerners traded places with african-americans and northern liberals. But the GOP still has business interests in its coalition, and the Democrats still have immigrant groups in theirs. (though the ethnicities have changed)

I doubt Lincoln would comfortably slot into either modern party because his party pulled from both of what make up the modern parties while shunning others. Same goes for Jackson.

As you said, this is oversimplified but definitely fair.
Logged
Hillary Lost
Rookie
**
Posts: 59
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2017, 03:39:15 pm »

Trump got 70-71% there?  Yea it'll swing 20 points in 2 cycles and be blue.
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,117
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2017, 03:50:08 pm »
« Edited: January 18, 2017, 03:53:05 pm by Zombie Spenstar »

Trump got 70-71% there?  Yea it'll swing 20 points in 2 cycles and be blue.

The topic was obviously mocking the left for making sweeping predictions of landslides. I tried to salvage it with a way that Wyoming might drastically change, in isolation of the rest of the nation. And that moved to talking about how the parties have changed over time because there is a possible configuration of the Democratic Party that would win that state. What exactly are you contributing here?

The parties didn't flip, but they did reshuffle. Parties are the sum of the pieces of their coalitions.

The GOP (waayy oversimplifying) was the party of northern liberals, business interests, what we would now call evangelicals, and black people.

The Democratic Party was the party of immigrants, white southerners, poor rural farmers/populists, etc.

The parties changed over time because, say, white southerners and rural westerners traded places with african-americans and northern liberals. But the GOP still has business interests in its coalition, and the Democrats still have immigrant groups in theirs. (though the ethnicities have changed)

I doubt Lincoln would comfortably slot into either modern party because his party pulled from both of what make up the modern parties while shunning others. Same goes for Jackson.

As you said, this is oversimplified but definitely fair.

Thanks. It does piss me off a little when sweeping generalisations of past party behaviour are made, usually to claim a universally beloved President for one side or the other.

Having said that, I do have a question. At what point do you think you can say that every president since X would feel completely at home in one of the modern political parties? I'm tempted to say Harding but it could be Taft. (not 100% sure about Wilson)
Logged
Hillary Lost
Rookie
**
Posts: 59
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2017, 04:07:11 pm »

Trump got 70-71% there?  Yea it'll swing 20 points in 2 cycles and be blue.

The topic was obviously mocking the left for making sweeping predictions of landslides. I tried to salvage it with a way that Wyoming might drastically change, in isolation of the rest of the nation. And that moved to talking about how the parties have changed over time because there is a possible configuration of the Democratic Party that would win that state. What exactly are you contributing here?

Ah very good!  Perhaps they'll just stick to states they thought they have a chance in like GA, NC, and AZ.  I mean they had MI, PA, and WI locked up right? I enjoy a good amount of sarcasm.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,466
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2017, 05:32:40 pm »

Trump got 70-71% there?  Yea it'll swing 20 points in 2 cycles and be blue.

The topic was obviously mocking the left for making sweeping predictions of landslides. I tried to salvage it with a way that Wyoming might drastically change, in isolation of the rest of the nation. And that moved to talking about how the parties have changed over time because there is a possible configuration of the Democratic Party that would win that state. What exactly are you contributing here?

The parties didn't flip, but they did reshuffle. Parties are the sum of the pieces of their coalitions.

The GOP (waayy oversimplifying) was the party of northern liberals, business interests, what we would now call evangelicals, and black people.

The Democratic Party was the party of immigrants, white southerners, poor rural farmers/populists, etc.

The parties changed over time because, say, white southerners and rural westerners traded places with african-americans and northern liberals. But the GOP still has business interests in its coalition, and the Democrats still have immigrant groups in theirs. (though the ethnicities have changed)

I doubt Lincoln would comfortably slot into either modern party because his party pulled from both of what make up the modern parties while shunning others. Same goes for Jackson.

As you said, this is oversimplified but definitely fair.

Thanks. It does piss me off a little when sweeping generalisations of past party behaviour are made, usually to claim a universally beloved President for one side or the other.

Having said that, I do have a question. At what point do you think you can say that every president since X would feel completely at home in one of the modern political parties? I'm tempted to say Harding but it could be Taft. (not 100% sure about Wilson)

That's very hard to say.  Given that all (or nearly all) of them are *politicians*, I'm inclined to believe they would adapt to the political landscape, similar to what we saw with someone like Zel Miller (who went from being a fiery Southern liberal to a true centrist, all to save his own ass as his state changed its political philosophy).  I think it's more or less certain that every President after Hoover would absolutely still be in the party they were in, as people who become increasingly at odds with their party tend to stay in it, as switching is often a bad look.  Some would argue the switch from Romney to Trump was damn near insane for four years, yet hardly any Republicans have become Democrats; parties change, and they all knew that coming in.

Regarding Wilson, I think he'd be a Democrat today.  While his racism is out of line with today's Democratic Party, it was perfectly compatible with not just being a Democrat but being a progressive in his day, and I believe his basic outlook on the world and how society should be crafted has a lot more in common with many modern liberals than it does with any modern conservatives.
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,117
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2017, 06:56:39 pm »

Trump got 70-71% there?  Yea it'll swing 20 points in 2 cycles and be blue.

The topic was obviously mocking the left for making sweeping predictions of landslides. I tried to salvage it with a way that Wyoming might drastically change, in isolation of the rest of the nation. And that moved to talking about how the parties have changed over time because there is a possible configuration of the Democratic Party that would win that state. What exactly are you contributing here?

The parties didn't flip, but they did reshuffle. Parties are the sum of the pieces of their coalitions.

The GOP (waayy oversimplifying) was the party of northern liberals, business interests, what we would now call evangelicals, and black people.

The Democratic Party was the party of immigrants, white southerners, poor rural farmers/populists, etc.

The parties changed over time because, say, white southerners and rural westerners traded places with african-americans and northern liberals. But the GOP still has business interests in its coalition, and the Democrats still have immigrant groups in theirs. (though the ethnicities have changed)

I doubt Lincoln would comfortably slot into either modern party because his party pulled from both of what make up the modern parties while shunning others. Same goes for Jackson.

As you said, this is oversimplified but definitely fair.

Thanks. It does piss me off a little when sweeping generalisations of past party behaviour are made, usually to claim a universally beloved President for one side or the other.

Having said that, I do have a question. At what point do you think you can say that every president since X would feel completely at home in one of the modern political parties? I'm tempted to say Harding but it could be Taft. (not 100% sure about Wilson)

That's very hard to say.  Given that all (or nearly all) of them are *politicians*, I'm inclined to believe they would adapt to the political landscape, similar to what we saw with someone like Zel Miller (who went from being a fiery Southern liberal to a true centrist, all to save his own ass as his state changed its political philosophy).  I think it's more or less certain that every President after Hoover would absolutely still be in the party they were in, as people who become increasingly at odds with their party tend to stay in it, as switching is often a bad look.  Some would argue the switch from Romney to Trump was damn near insane for four years, yet hardly any Republicans have become Democrats; parties change, and they all knew that coming in.

Regarding Wilson, I think he'd be a Democrat today.  While his racism is out of line with today's Democratic Party, it was perfectly compatible with not just being a Democrat but being a progressive in his day, and I believe his basic outlook on the world and how society should be crafted has a lot more in common with many modern liberals than it does with any modern conservatives.

Would Harding and Coolidge be comfortable in the modern Republican Party then or is there something about them that I don't see? Because if they are then the X in "every president since X would be comfortable (to some extent) in one of the modern political parties" would be Wilson, or more likely, Taft.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,466
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2017, 10:52:48 pm »

I don't take issue with it as much as we will have to wait and see.  Affluent Whites didn't even vote Democratic against Trump, the worst possible candidate for them running against one of the best possible Democrats for them, and they voted more Republican downballot.  They are still a Republican voting bloc.  Also, the original GOP had a very moralist (and, as uncomfortable as it is, RABIDLY abolitionist) evangelical voting bloc, which is clearly a key part of the GOP today, too.  Additionally, Northern farmers have been pretty consistently in the GOP for a very, very long time.

Post-Trump politics will tell a lot, but the Democrats' response to 2016 (an election where they FAILED to woo enough moderate GOPers to win) has been anything but embracing a "Rockefeller Republican" (for lack of better term) image, and in fact it has been quite the opposite (see Chuck Schumer putting the likes of Warren, Sanders and Manchin in the position to lead his party).
Logged
kydmb99
Newbie
*
Posts: 18


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2017, 12:13:32 pm »

Good to see my thread trolling non-swing voter take off
Logged
respect mah majoritah!
SlippingJimmy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 375


Political Matrix
E: 3.16, S: 5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2017, 01:10:52 am »

As long as the Republicans are the party of energy independence and diversification and a limited federal government, WY will be firmly in their demesne.
Logged
This Has Only Just Begun
Crimson King
Rookie
**
Posts: 32
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2017, 05:19:43 am »

They're obviously not the same party, that was SO long ago, LOL.  None of the issues are the same, there's literally not a single issue you could transfer onto today besides maybe class issues/support for business interests and immigration restriction, both of which Lincoln's GOP would, of course, be to the right of Jackson's Democrats, but I'll go ahead you're not interested in that fact.

Saying "they've flipped" is so intellectually lazy, dude.  Not to mention blatantly false.

I wouldn't go that far, just that a lot of people have a profound misunderstanding of the foundation of the Republican Party.  Which was, it was very issue based (opposition to slavery) and not really as ideological (left vs. right) as some make it out to be.  By contrast a lot of Democrats back then often accused the GOP of opposing unions because they were bigoted against immigrants, especially Roman Catholics.  It wasn't like there was one party that was open minded on everybody and one party that was closed minded on everybody.  It depended on the issue and the Democrats often catered to the prejudices of the "common man" because that was literally what their party was about.  As the "common man" became less white that obviously became an issue so they had to pivot to include strong support of Civil Rights and what not.

And of course you've gone over the GOP largely being a party of business concerns and the social elite.  That was largely the result of the jettisoning of the more liberal factions of the GOP after Reconstruction ended.  If you'll notice a lot of "radicals" later became either Democrats or Mugwumps.  That's not some random thing, the corruption and cronyism of the GOP under Grant and other Republicans disgusted them enough to defect.

So yeah maybe intellectually lazy, but it's not like it's some insane conclusion to make.  Just misunderstanding the history of it due to pretty biased sources telling them.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2017, 02:56:37 pm »

Will we ever see the two parties trade platforms completely or will there be a rough line between the Republicans of 1860 and 2020 and Democrats of 1828 and 2020 (assuming we assume that the GOP is the 'pro-business' coalition while the Democrats are the 'people's party.')

I would note that the Republicans date from Alexander Hamilton's Federalist pro-business industrial philosophy which lost out to Jefferson's agrarian philosophy (only by virtue of being 60 years too early) and the Whig forerunners (Henry Clay, notably). The Democrats take their populism from Andrew Jackson's frontiersman ideology that in turn borrowed much from Jefferson's agrarian ideology.

It would be interesting to imagine what the political GOP and DNC will look like, if they're still around, in 2100.
Logged
Pages: [1] 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