2024 will be the realigning election of our lifetimes
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:45:21 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  2024 will be the realigning election of our lifetimes
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: 2024 will be the realigning election of our lifetimes  (Read 8459 times)
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


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: 2,934


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: 17,002
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: 2,934


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: 17,002
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
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,414
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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


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
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,624
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: April 01, 2021, 02:12:45 PM »
« Edited: April 01, 2021, 02:16:34 PM by Vosem »

Another good point to make is that trends are not forever. Trump's famous win in staunchly Democratic Trumbull County was not predicted by 2012 trends; indeed, the county trended Democratic in 2012. Reversion to the mean is a strong force, and most trends immediately reverse. Here is a map of which states trended the same way across Barack Obama's two elections:



Most states trended in opposite directions over the two elections. I expect Trump to have a similar pattern.

EDIT: Note that these actual strong trends for the most part were repeated in 2016, with the exceptions of Hawaii and Vermont.

Here's the same map, but for the two Trump elections rather than the two Obama elections:



I was very nearly wrong. In Obama's two elections, 34 states trended in different directions, and I expected this number to remain basically the same for Trump; instead, it plunged to 26. My prediction I thought was totally correct just barely came true.

4 states trended towards Democrats at the last four consecutive elections: Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington. Just 2 states trended towards Republicans at the last four consecutive elections: Arkansas and Pennsylvania.
Logged
David Hume
davidhume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,581
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: 1.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: April 03, 2021, 10:12:22 PM »

Another good point to make is that trends are not forever. Trump's famous win in staunchly Democratic Trumbull County was not predicted by 2012 trends; indeed, the county trended Democratic in 2012. Reversion to the mean is a strong force, and most trends immediately reverse. Here is a map of which states trended the same way across Barack Obama's two elections:



Most states trended in opposite directions over the two elections. I expect Trump to have a similar pattern.

EDIT: Note that these actual strong trends for the most part were repeated in 2016, with the exceptions of Hawaii and Vermont.

Here's the same map, but for the two Trump elections rather than the two Obama elections:



I was very nearly wrong. In Obama's two elections, 34 states trended in different directions, and I expected this number to remain basically the same for Trump; instead, it plunged to 26. My prediction I thought was totally correct just barely came true.

4 states trended towards Democrats at the last four consecutive elections: Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington. Just 2 states trended towards Republicans at the last four consecutive elections: Arkansas and Pennsylvania.
PA? I guess you mean FL
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: April 04, 2021, 04:01:52 PM »

I believe that a Centrist third party will win in a landslide in 2024 after disasters from the right form 2017-2021 , and the left from 2021-2025

looking back at some of these posts I made sometimes are cringeworthy lol
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: April 05, 2021, 09:49:09 AM »

I think this still pretty likely TBH.  There's a pretty substantial chance of either 1. A narrow Dem win dependent on the Sunbelt or 2. A Republican carrying the Hispanic vote, both would be game changers away from the Reagan/Clinton era.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,624
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: April 11, 2021, 04:07:15 PM »

Another good point to make is that trends are not forever. Trump's famous win in staunchly Democratic Trumbull County was not predicted by 2012 trends; indeed, the county trended Democratic in 2012. Reversion to the mean is a strong force, and most trends immediately reverse. Here is a map of which states trended the same way across Barack Obama's two elections:



Most states trended in opposite directions over the two elections. I expect Trump to have a similar pattern.

EDIT: Note that these actual strong trends for the most part were repeated in 2016, with the exceptions of Hawaii and Vermont.

Here's the same map, but for the two Trump elections rather than the two Obama elections:



I was very nearly wrong. In Obama's two elections, 34 states trended in different directions, and I expected this number to remain basically the same for Trump; instead, it plunged to 26. My prediction I thought was totally correct just barely came true.

4 states trended towards Democrats at the last four consecutive elections: Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington. Just 2 states trended towards Republicans at the last four consecutive elections: Arkansas and Pennsylvania.
PA? I guess you mean FL

No, FL trended Democratic in 2012. The only states that trended Republican in 2008/2012/2016/2020 are Arkansas and Pennsylvania.
Logged
Nightcore Nationalist
Okthisisnotepic.
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,827


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: April 17, 2021, 03:47:46 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.

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.



LOLOL
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: April 17, 2021, 05:09:16 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.

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.



LOLOL

Copy and paste my response from him to you, lol.  Our political coalitions are QUITE gray on matters of class, unless you’re desperate to paint your side as “for the people” or “for the elites.”  Neither side is either, unless you’re a chump and a sucker.
Logged
Suburban Republican
omelott
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,064
Israel



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: April 18, 2021, 02:16:02 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.



LOLOL

Copy and paste my response from him to you, lol.  Our political coalitions are QUITE gray on matters of class, unless you’re desperate to paint your side as “for the people” or “for the elites.”  Neither side is either, unless you’re a chump and a sucker.

It is true that both political parties are grey on matters of class. Both parties consist of groups that have been disadvantaged by the current political order (the white working class in the GOP, minorities in the Democratic party). However, it is not unreasonable to speculate that these groups (or instead, the children of these groups who are more easily moldable and currently do not vote because they feel left out of politics) will eventually join forces under a single party and instigate a political realignment. The question is whether they unite under the democratic or republican party. There is, in my opinion, immense potential for both parties to become this party. So I guess we'll find out the answer to that question over the next few election cycles.
Logged
LAKISYLVANIA
Lakigigar
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,165
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -4.78

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: April 18, 2021, 03:29:42 AM »

PA trending right for four consecutive elections is something i didn't expect.

Also WI trended right in 2020 but it flipped (same for PA).
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
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 0.056 seconds with 13 queries.