Future Realignment Possibilities? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:16:22 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)
  Future Realignment Possibilities? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Future Realignment Possibilities?  (Read 8577 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

« on: August 23, 2017, 05:42:28 PM »

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?
http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

Yeah andRepublicans are not the only who lies to their base. There are many Democrats who want to move the party to the left just like the Bannon wing in the GOP want to move to the right but it won't happen. Plus the Democrats base is really pro establishment. When was the last time a Democrat incumbent lost the primary not barring a corruption scandal or redistricting?

False equivalence. Bannon is a moderate Republican economically, his extreme conservatism came with his social views. The majority of Berniecrats are economically left-wing and socially moderate to liberal. Also, the Overton window has shifted way too far to the right on economics in this point in time. Pretending that the Democratic base is "pro-establishment" is a load of horse-s**t. Clinton had every single institutional advantage over Sanders, we all knew that she was going to win the primary from the start. The fact that Sanders was even competitive should be a sign about the changing winds. Oh, and at the moment, Sanders is more popular than Clinton amongst Democrats. No, this idea that the Democrats will become even more fiscally conservative is very baseless, especially considering how younger voters broke for Sanders. The main reason Gary Johnson had millennial support was because of the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd.

There's also something in here (targeted to Jalawest2) about describing Sanders's policies as "economic liberalism". Economic liberalism is more akin to free-market capitalism than social democracy; it is not a left-wing ideology by any means, and certainly doesn't describe Sanders's policies. If you want to try to make a political argument, at least use the proper terminology. I like the terms "economic egalitarianism" (thanks RINO Tom), "New Deal liberalism", or, in the case of Sanders, simply "social democracy".

Also, the current time period is very similar to that of the late 1970s. Here:

The New Deal Era and The Neoliberal Era

Stage 1: The Root (Maximum number of terms)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democratic)
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
The root politician is immensely popular, winning all of his elections in a landslide. He is considered to have very bold economic ideas that set the standard for the next several decades, along with having a strong base of support among their respective parties.

Stage 2: The Continuation (1 elected term)
Harry S. Truman (Democratic)
George H. W. Bush (Republican)
The continuation is, to its namesake, a continuation of the root's policies. He tends to be more moderate and more friendly with the party establishment than the root. He is mildly popular and tends to win elections in an upset (1948, 1988).

Stage 3: Opposition Realignment (2 terms)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
The opposition realignment is a member from the opposite party who is now confined to the modern political consensus, and so he shifts his party to the center. He is very popular, winning both elections by wide margins, and largely governing in a period of tranquility. However, the majority party makes large gains during his presidency.

Stage 4: The Expansion (2 terms)
John F. Kennedy & Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)
George W. Bush (Republican)
The expansion not only adopts the root's policies, but goes even further, reforming government to fit the root's ideal agenda. Their first election is decided by a very close margin. However, an unpopular war tanks the approval ratings of the expansion, and political unrest begins to rise. People are ready for change, and four years later, the majority party tries to forget that the expansion ever existed.
Oh, and something about LBJ and Dubya both being from Texas.

Stage 5: Faux-Change (2 terms)
Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford (Republican)
Barack Obama (Democratic)
The candidate's first election is largely built on a message of change, a sign of discontent at the political order under the expansion, and they win by a comfortable margin. However, when in office, they try to break out of the current political confines, but are not able to; whether this means Nixon being unable to enact fiscally conservative policies, or Obama unable to enact proper healthcare reform. The majority party makes large gains during this presidency.

Stage 6: Unpopular Outsider (1 term)
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Donald Trump (Republican)
While the unpopular outsider is from the majority party, they (to their namesake) are not part of the political establishment. They win their election by a very narrow margin in a time of turmoil, and their presidency is plagued by a myriad of issues. They are deeply unpopular in both parties, yet more so from the political opposition. Their presidency ends up, in a way, being opposed to the root; look at Carter's deregulation and Trump's protectionism. The current political era is crumbling, and soon it is time to start anew...

I want to refine this political theory and post it on its own someday, but I think it's quite useful to explain to establishment Democrats why their """theories""" are wrong.

I predict that the next "root" will be Sanders, because he seem to fit the bill. He, like Reagan, was/is hated by their respective party establishment. He, like Reagan, mounted a primary challenge against the moderate establishment candidate that was lost, but energized a large part of the base nonetheless.

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.


Also Sanders is much more left wing than Reagan was Right Wing or FDR was left wing so Sanders polices unlike Reagan/FDR will skip the "Root" phase of a political era and go straight to the "Expansion " phase of a political era which will mean he likely wont usher in a new era.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2017, 08:23:49 PM »


except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .


Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2017, 10:09:19 PM »


except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .




Americans have had it with Republicans and centrist Democrats. Macron in France has an approval rating on par with Trump. He was elected with the lowest turnout in modern French history. Same thing that's happening in America (the 2014 midterms had the lowest measured turnout in US history!). People dont want any more right wing policies but at the same time, they dont want anymore phoney ass Centrist DLC types who drop to their knees for corporate cash while forcing a wedding cake baker in Ohio to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Every realignment in US History, the person who seems most ''extremist'' there ends up winning.

Except those presidents also have to be be pretty good ones ,and Bernie sanders would be a disaster for the country .


Again Lincoln was a moderate , FDR ran as a moderate. If you ask me the real realignment was not in 1980 but by the fact that Reagan presidency was successful.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2017, 12:22:24 AM »


except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .




Okay, but let's not pretend that that alignment just fizzled out naturally. It was only through terrorism that Democrats managed to claw their way back to competitiveness, otherwise allowing free elections would have caused states like Louisiana and South Carolina would have remain republican leaning.


Grant also screwed it up with his corrupt 2nd term , and without that Hayes easily wins 1876 thus compromise of 1877 never happens.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2017, 01:41:41 AM »

I was the first one on the forum to bring up the country balkanizing along racial/ethnic lines. At the time, I was viciously mocked and attacked for it. Sanchez even said I was more racist than Bannon [!] Now it seems like the conventional wisdom, everyone says it.

I will maintain until the end, that the Democratic party choosing to nominate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 was a grave mistake. Having the face of the Democrats be a minority, especially from a group that already voted 85%+ Democratic, for eight years deepened and entrenched the ethnic polarization of the country along partisan lines.


I believe the GOP base hates Hillary more than Obama
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 0.035 seconds with 12 queries.