The Northern Strategy Explained (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 04, 2022, 04:37:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  The Northern Strategy Explained (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Northern Strategy Explained  (Read 27807 times)
blacknwhiterose
Rookie
**
Posts: 93


« on: February 08, 2017, 01:43:51 PM »
« edited: February 08, 2017, 01:46:11 PM by blacknwhiterose »


Future elections will probably be more about the coasts (globalists) vs middle america (white nationalists) than north vs south.  Republicans needed to go the populist route because there aren't enough white Christian conservatives out there to win elections and their numbers are depleting every year.  The next logical extension of their base would be working class whites who are less religious (former union people, etc.).  They gladly traded white college educated suburbanites for this because the suburbanites they are losing are largely in states they had no chance in anyways. 

I do think this strategy is fine for them in the short term, but will kill their party in 20 years, especially for the White House and the House.  The Senate will probably be their last bastion of support.

I agree with this, but get this: many non-whites over time could also find themselves on the Republican/Nationalist/Populist side of the spectrum, provided the Republicans can avoid the Richard Spencer wing of the alt-right and actually start talking to minorities who feel increasingly betrayed by the Democratic Party.  As the GOP becomes more economic populist, the big business conservatives will drift over to the Democrats, a party that is already controlled at its core by urban/coastal (mostly white) elites.  Bernie-type Democrats who are genuinely disadvantaged, could move over to the GOP, including even some inner city minorities.  Hispanics for that matter, I think are naturally becoming swing voters over the next 20 years.  They are already not monolithic, if The Wall and the ensuing media onslaught couldn't make Hispanic-identifying voters monolithically anti-Trump, nothing will.

There's an interesting article here, about what the 2 parties could look like in 15-20 years if trends continue:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/time-for-a-realignment.html?_r=0 

Logged
blacknwhiterose
Rookie
**
Posts: 93


« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2017, 03:33:13 PM »
« Edited: February 08, 2017, 03:55:59 PM by blacknwhiterose »


Future elections will probably be more about the coasts (globalists) vs middle america (white nationalists) than north vs south.  Republicans needed to go the populist route because there aren't enough white Christian conservatives out there to win elections and their numbers are depleting every year.  The next logical extension of their base would be working class whites who are less religious (former union people, etc.).  They gladly traded white college educated suburbanites for this because the suburbanites they are losing are largely in states they had no chance in anyways. 

I do think this strategy is fine for them in the short term, but will kill their party in 20 years, especially for the White House and the House.  The Senate will probably be their last bastion of support.

I agree with this, but get this: many non-whites over time could also find themselves on the Republican/Nationalist/Populist side of the spectrum, provided the Republicans can avoid the Richard Spencer wing of the alt-right and actually start talking to minorities who feel increasingly betrayed by the Democratic Party.  As the GOP becomes more economic populist, the big business conservatives will drift over to the Democrats, a party that is already controlled at its core by urban/coastal (mostly white) elites.  Bernie-type Democrats who are genuinely disadvantaged, could move over to the GOP, including even some inner city minorities.  Hispanics for that matter, I think are naturally becoming swing voters over the next 20 years.  They are already not monolithic, if The Wall and the ensuing media onslaught couldn't make Hispanic-identifying voters monolithically anti-Trump, nothing will.

There's an interesting article here, about what the 2 parties could look like in 15-20 years if trends continue:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/time-for-a-realignment.html?_r=0 



-Problem: minorities elected Hillary Clinton to the position of nominee of the Democratic Party. So while this is a plausible future, it'll have to wait a while.

Yes, blacks especially nominated Hillary, they had a choice between the Clintons (who had name recognition and a long relationship with the black community) and a then-little-known socialist senator from Vermont.  Bernie gained partial traction with blacks once he started winning primaries and his policies became more well known.  Hispanics also became less of a lock for Hillary as the Sanders campaign became competitive, younger Hispanics were favoring Sanders almost as much as their young white contemporaries in some of the primaries.   

It will take a while, though, that is true.  I do believe that if this globalism vs nationalism trend is seriously going to define the future political landscape, and we have a Trump-esque GOP vs a Hillary/Neoliberal Dem party, issues of economic substance may once again become the primary factors in determining who's a Dem and who's Repub, and then we'll see more than another wave of white Reagan Democrats finding themselves on a different side.   
Logged
blacknwhiterose
Rookie
**
Posts: 93


« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2017, 05:23:55 PM »
« Edited: February 08, 2017, 05:45:10 PM by blacknwhiterose »

A lot of misinformation in this thread.


1. White Evangelical Christians make up less of a percentage as a whole of the nation, but Evangelical Christianity is still out there.  Studies show that Catholic and mainline protestant congregations have experienced population loss (particularly Episcopalians), but evangelical/non-denominational churches are still filling their pews.  For every white millennial who drops their religious observance, there's a white ex-Catholic, Hispanic, or some other immigrant-type to take their seat.

2.  Most conservative Christians/evangelicals wanted Ted Cruz, not Donald Trump.  Well, a good chunk also voted for Trump, and a few voted for Carson and Rubio, and that was enough vote-splitting in an already wide field for the fairly secular New Yorker to bust through the social conservative firewall.  The Republican Party is more diverse than some people think it is.

3. America is a different animal from Europe.  Europeans stopped attending church when large secular governments took over their war torn, cynical countries and they still had their nationality, ethnicity, deep history, and soccer hooliganism to keep themselves united and happy.  While it's true that many Americans have ditched church, many more (white) Americans continue to keep religion as a central part of their identity, social life, and worldview.  This is because America is bigger and more diverse than Denmark, and people need some sort of community/identity/faith/something-to-keep-them-happy.  For this reason, I don't see religion ever completely tanking in the USA the way it has in Western Europe, even amongst white Americans.   

4. It is also important to note that Christians/churches are having a crisis from within.  The future of Christian doctrine itself hangs in the balance.  You have the obvious moderation in tonality and tactics from Falwell/Robertson/Graham to the Rick Warrens of today.  Then you have the Joel Osteens, the accusations of the watering-down or outright liberalization of Christianity.  Christians have their own "cuckservatives" to fight on the inside (read Dalrock's blog).  I've met some unabashed progressive Christians who would not disagree on one major issue with the average secular American leftist.  Then you have the ones who still want to fight the culture wars.  And then there's the ones who are personally traditional/conservative, but just plain apathetic on politics.  Whatever happens inside of churches and what a "Christian" looks like in the future, I think the Religious Right is definitely less of a united political force today, so OP's proposal of an avowedly secular Republican Party sounds plausible on paper, but even Donald Trump had to say "we're saying Merry Christmas again folks!".       
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 13 queries.