|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 09:24:12 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 will be the realigning election of our lifetimes
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: 2024 will be the realigning election of our lifetimes  (Read 5323 times)
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,156
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 18, 2017, 12:03:18 am »


I don't know whether you get this or not, but you annoy a lot of people on here. That someone doesn't want to discuss something with you any longer is not by any means "evidence" of your side of the argument. You have a hard-headed, tedious and somewhat negative nature to you that doesn't exactly invite friendly discourse.

As for the question, polling data has shown voters growing up under Nixon to be notably less Republican than those under Ford/Carter.

As for party systems - there is no concrete length and there are not enough of them for anyone to say without a doubt what the standard length is. If 2024 was a year where a realigning event was most apparent, then the Reagan era would have been about as long as the New Deal era.

You can do your own reading on this - perhaps with an open mind, instead of nitpicking at everything here with short answers that add virtually nothing to the conversation.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2017, 12:29:41 am »

There will be a realignment; it will probably be in the 2030s, and it may involve the Dems becoming the party of the rich.

That's largely already happened.  Rich people over 50 vote Republican, rich people under 50 vote Democrat.

I feel that the rich people voting Democratic are actually Republicans disgusted with their evangelical base. Or rather they're voting for the Democratic coalition that exists under the Reagan age. Which amounts to neoliberal lite.

With Sanders on the scene I could see the traditional Jeffersonian - Jacksonian Democratic coalition reemerging based on working class folks. I take a middle road between Tom RINO and you here.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 18, 2017, 12:39:09 am »


I don't know whether you get this or not, but you annoy a lot of people on here. That someone doesn't want to discuss something with you any longer is not by any means "evidence" of your side of the argument. You have a hard-headed, tedious and somewhat negative nature to you that doesn't exactly invite friendly discourse.

As for the question, polling data has shown voters growing up under Nixon to be notably less Republican than those under Ford/Carter.

As for party systems - there is no concrete length and there are not enough of them for anyone to say without a doubt what the standard length is. If 2024 was a year where a realigning event was most apparent, then the Reagan era would have been about as long as the New Deal era.

You can do your own reading on this - perhaps with an open mind, instead of nitpicking at everything here with short answers that add virtually nothing to the conversation.

-People born in the early Eisenhower years (the strongest age demographic for McGovern) are in their early 60s today. The exit polls are not consistent with this being a Dem-leaning age group.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,449
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 18, 2017, 10:44:40 am »

There will be a realignment; it will probably be in the 2030s, and it may involve the Dems becoming the party of the rich.

False.

(Conversing with you how you converse with others.)
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 18, 2017, 11:22:37 am »

There will be a realignment; it will probably be in the 2030s, and it may involve the Dems becoming the party of the rich.

False.

(Conversing with you how you converse with others.)

-Come on, man, this is like a Vermonter in the 1950s saying the Dems will never win Vermont because they're too racist.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,449
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 18, 2017, 11:44:07 am »

There will be a realignment; it will probably be in the 2030s, and it may involve the Dems becoming the party of the rich.

False.

(Conversing with you how you converse with others.)

-Come on, man, this is like a Vermonter in the 1950s saying the Dems will never win Vermont because they're too racist.

No, it's not.  You're completely projecting a trend based on what you want to happen.  MUH THE PEOPLE VS. THE ELITES.  It hasn't happened in modern times, and it never will again; politics will never be that simple ever again.

Just because something happened in the past (Presidential voting trickling down in the South, for example) does not mean it's destined to happen in the future.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,156
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 18, 2017, 12:14:26 pm »

-People born in the early Eisenhower years (the strongest age demographic for McGovern) are in their early 60s today. The exit polls are not consistent with this being a Dem-leaning age group.

Except 60+ would be over 20 years worth of voters (depending on how many >80yr voters you take into account), while Nixon served for what, 5 and a half years?

Of course analyzing limited polling data for such a small slice of the electorate would be error-prone, so you can go with that if you want. Doesn't change the differences to the Ford/Carter years and then the Reagan years as well, though.
Logged
jojoju1998
1970vu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 295
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: February 18, 2017, 11:56:13 pm »

There will be a realignment; it will probably be in the 2030s, and it may involve the Dems becoming the party of the rich.

That's largely already happened.  Rich people over 50 vote Republican, rich people under 50 vote Democrat.

I feel that the rich people voting Democratic are actually Republicans disgusted with their evangelical base. Or rather they're voting for the Democratic coalition that exists under the Reagan age. Which amounts to neoliberal lite.

With Sanders on the scene I could see the traditional Jeffersonian - Jacksonian Democratic coalition reemerging based on working class folks. I take a middle road between Tom RINO and you here.

That is absolutely true and it is the main reason I vote Democrat.  I would obviously benefit personally from Republicans getting their way on taxes and repealing Obamacare.  However, I have nothing but contempt and disgust for the Evangelical wing of the Republican party... as long as they are in charge... and THEY ARE in charge... I will never vote Republican for any level of government.  I would like Democrats to do even better with rich people in the future because then the party will align itself accordingly on fiscal issues.  There are lots of people in suburbs that are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.  The Republican party is turning into the opposite of this.

Rockerfeller Republicans ? TD did a pretty good timeline on this.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: February 19, 2017, 12:35:06 am »

There will be a realignment; it will probably be in the 2030s, and it may involve the Dems becoming the party of the rich.

That's largely already happened.  Rich people over 50 vote Republican, rich people under 50 vote Democrat.

I feel that the rich people voting Democratic are actually Republicans disgusted with their evangelical base. Or rather they're voting for the Democratic coalition that exists under the Reagan age. Which amounts to neoliberal lite.

With Sanders on the scene I could see the traditional Jeffersonian - Jacksonian Democratic coalition reemerging based on working class folks. I take a middle road between Tom RINO and you here.

That is absolutely true and it is the main reason I vote Democrat.  I would obviously benefit personally from Republicans getting their way on taxes and repealing Obamacare.  However, I have nothing but contempt and disgust for the Evangelical wing of the Republican party... as long as they are in charge... and THEY ARE in charge... I will never vote Republican for any level of government.  I would like Democrats to do even better with rich people in the future because then the party will align itself accordingly on fiscal issues.  There are lots of people in suburbs that are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.  The Republican party is turning into the opposite of this.

So in theory what would your feelings be if the Republican Party remained neoliberal and economically conservative and foreign policy hawks while jettisoning their evangelical base? Would you (, to make a pun) become a swing voter?

I haven't really studied this issue a ton, its just a theory that Democrats won areas like Fairfax, etc on the basis of being the more acceptable neoliberal Party so my bolded line was almost a casual throwaway line.
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