The Northern Strategy Explained

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The alliance of poor industrial workers and rural white working class that propelled the populist right throughout the west is not sustainable, because they turned to the populist right at a time where they're becoming less important, or even because they are. At least in the United States, the 2016 alignment is on a life support of suburbians willing to overlook the right's populism for the fiscal conservatism. Once the fiscal conservatism's gone, they're gone, and the GOP will be shut out of the house and presidency for as long as the Republicans stay right wing populist. Right wing populism won't be able to get them the urban poor vote that they would need to win on that platform.

The right will be libertarian in the future, because the affluent suburbs will be the overwhelming drivers of conservatism, and for whatever reason they like social conservatism less and less. The left will be Sandersesque populism because the urban poor will drive the left. The rural areas will be hyperelastic bellwethers when this occurs, assuming they stay in a state of decline.

-Hillary won the cities, not Crazy Bernie. You are describing the 1996 election, or maybe the 1976 one. It's 2016.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The Trump strategy is to get him reelected and that is it. He didn't do much to prop up candidates down ballot in 2016 and he probably won't do much come 2018. You are right on the fact of Trump's pivot to working class voters up North. Where I find disagreements is that this is setting up to be the southern strategy of the north; it isn't at all. Trump is like Arnie in California almost. He will build up a coalition for him to get reelected by a large margin and the party will only have one goal: to reelect Trump. I don't think the northern strategy is set up now but it will be down the road.

-Jason Lewis?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.   

-Winning 20-30% of the Black vote (as opposed to 10%) is not how I define "traction", even partial. Bernie still only won 34% of the Democratic vote in the most Hispanic county in California. Weak! The fundamentals of the primary were curiously stable from beginning to end. HRC won Iowa; she won South Dakota.