Future Realignment Possibilities?

[TheLeftwardTide]

I'll admit that the dramatic realignment theories on atlas are a bit overblown, but I'll just play along. If Democrats turn back to how they were before Clintonism and third-wayism, here's what I think the map may look like:

This map looks about right, though I'd put Iowa as a toss-up and Tennessee as Lean R.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Democrats re-align in a more libertarian direction:

What in tarnation? Tennessee is not libertarian whatsoever, there's no reason for it to be more Democratic than its neighbors. Oklahoma is basically the least libertarian state in the Union, Little Dixie is the epitome of economically egalitarian and socially conservative, so why is it only Lean R? Why would NE-03 be Republican yet Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota be strongly Democratic? Why would Illinois be Republican yet Indiana be Democratic? Why would Vermont lean Republican? Why would Maryland be strongly Republican?

Also, such a realignment would never happen. There are people in this party like myself that would prevent the Democrats from ever becoming so fiscally conservative.

[TheLeftwardTide]

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.

[TheLeftwardTide]

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.

Yeah, that's a blatant double standard. Writing away Johnson's support as irrelevant and Sanders as a perfect predictor of the future is nothing more than pretending your fantasies are the truth.
In the real world, Sanders had more conservative supporters than Clinton (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.5ad91356e91a)

His "success" (at not leaving even after he lost) was due far more to personality and identity politics than support for his socialism.

Mind actually coming up with some reason to back up your claims? Gary Johnson only garnered a very small part of the vote, so comparing his share of the vote is rather irrelevant in terms of determining generational trends. The millennial swing towards him can be very easily explained by what I said above; the fact that he was the only pro-weed candidate, and there are many millennials who vote solely based on weed. Sanders, on the other hand, garnered a much more energized bloc of support from millennials, and a much larger chunk of millennials supported Sanders as well. Ask any Sanders supporter why they voted for him, and you'll usually get similar answers.
- Student loan debt
- Unable to find a decent job
- Authenticity; doesn't take big-money donations

Also, you don't seem to understand what "identity politics" really is. I think Sanders represents the epitome of refusing to do identity politics. Here, he explains to a room full of high school students how Republicans use identity politics to divide the white and black working class into blocs, so that they can win. Sanders wants to unite all of the working class under one banner. If anything, the establishment was peddling identity politics by pushing the message of "racist, sexist Bernie Bros". The article that you posted doesn't confirm your claim in any way, shape, or form. Instead of just pasting an article, why don't you think of an argument?

>b-b-but Clinton swept minority voters, they obviously don't like Burning Sandals

Yes, Clinton swept minority voters. However, the minority voters weren't necessarily picking between a good and an evil, but rather a good and a greater good. They liked Sanders's economic message, but they saw how the Clintons have helped their respective communities, and they thought that Clinton would have a better chance at defeating the eventual Republican nominee. The evidence is in the polling; Sanders is actually more popular among women and minorities than with men and whites. This destroys the entire narrative, which was very popular among establishment Democrats. This narrative is the epitome of identity politics, solidifying my point above.

Final point, if you say that Sanders's success was due to his personality, aren't you implying that he's a likable candidate, or at least a good enough politician to frame himself as likable?

[TheLeftwardTide]

-snippity snip-

Sanders supporters tended to be more liberal on social issues, not economic ones. So were Johnson supporters, who often polled in double digits among millenials.
Sanders managed to acquire a reputation as honest and full of integrity. Being as it is not true, I can't imagine it lasting long.

For your first point, can you provide a source? The article you posted doesn't have this point as a central point, do you mind copying the text for me? It doesn't necessarily make sense, considering how Sanders won by large margins in the more fiscally egalitarian, socially conservative states like West Virginia and Oklahoma. He also came really close, outperforming his national margin significantly, in Kentucky and Missouri. It was Clinton who swept fiscally conservative, socially liberal states such as New Jersey. Of course, both Sanders and Clinton swept states that are fiscally and socially left-wing; Sanders winning the Oregon and Washington, Clinton winning Maryland.

Also, about the Johnson voters, there is another point to be brought up too (that I forgot about at first), and that is the fact that even millennial conservatives tend to be less socially conservative than the Republicans. It is more likely than not that Johnson pulled more voters from these two main groups; millennial conservatives, who wanted the fiscal conservatism yet not the social conservatism, and the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd, which was the overlap between Johnson and Sanders.

As for your second point, again, can you provide any evidence? Sanders built his reputation of honesty and integrity because he refuses to take big-money donations, unlike Clinton who does speeches for Goldman Sachs. He made campaign finance reform a central point of his campaign. If he continues to do this, how exactly will this reputation decline? Please, lay it out for me. Sanders didn't get his honest reputation from a shooting star, he built it from scratch. He has held elected office for much longer than Clinton, so it's not because of political career length.

>b-b-but Clinton was ferociously attacked by the GOP

Yeah, so? This is politics, put up or shut up. You have to be able to defend yourself and your reputation from such attacks. If you can't, you're an incompetent politician. This didn't happen to Barack Obama, look at the approval ratings at the end of his presidency. He also had the added disadvantage of being a black guy with the middle name Hussein.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Full disclosure: I would never vote for libertarian dems ever, barring a literal apocalypse if they don't win. I might vote for libertarian GOPhers if I believe they will further the cause of making the republican party realign in that direction

That being said:

YOUNG PEOPLE ARE NOT FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE

NOT EVERY DEMOCRAT IS FROM NOVA

NEITHER CLINTONISM NOR BERNIEISM IS LIBERTARIAN

I agree. I never wanted to imply that Clintonism is libertarian. I consider libertarianism to be a subset of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal"-ism, i.e. you can be "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" but not libertarian at the same time.

[TheLeftwardTide]

1. You managed to misunderstand the identity politics point.
2. If the generation of the future is libertarian, maybe consider moving towards them.
3. Usually I consider helping your wife commit loan fraud and abandoaning your principles for easy money to be more corrupt than taking money from a (((corporation))), but different strokes for different folks.
4. If someone recieves the most negative news coverage of any candidate, and has both sides attacking them, they might drop in popularity. Who knew?

1. You managed to misunderstand the identity politics point.

No, you just don't understand what identity politics is, see my point above.

2. If the generation of the future is libertarian, maybe consider moving towards them.

Wrong. I never said that the generation of the future is libertarian. I said that millennial conservatives draw their conservatism from fiscal issues, while they tend to be socially moderate or liberal. This is just among millennial conservatives, not necessarily the rest of the generation. I used this point to explain the other part of Johnson's popularity among millennials.
If you want your party to be libertarian so badly, why not join the Libertarians? If it's because they're relegated to a permanent minority, then why not join the Republicans? Their ideology is much closer to libertarianism, especially from the "old guard".

3. Usually I consider helping your wife commit loan fraud and abandoning your principles for easy money to be more corrupt than taking money from a (((corporation))), but different strokes for different folks.

Ah yes, the old "Sanders scandal" card. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't prove any misconduct on the behalf of Sanders. The FBI won't find anything, lol. There was a larger probability of misconduct in Benghazi and Emailgate. Oh, and if I recall correctly, Bernie already got cleared, so the current investigation only involves Jane Sanders. Also, where's the evidence of collusion? Please don't cite Breitbart. This is more or less a right-wing hit job on Bernie Sanders, and I predict that the American people will see it as such, especially with the declining popularity of the right.

4. If someone receives the most negative news coverage of any candidate, and has both sides attacking them, they might drop in popularity. Who knew?

You mean like every single presidential nominee in modern times? Again, refer to my point above.

[TheLeftwardTide]

In general I like the stage ideas you have but the limits seem arbitrary. For instance, FDR won EV landslides but his PV margin was getting notably smaller after 1936. After 12 years, particularly during the New Deal era, POTUS would have to take responsibility for a whole lot of issues the country faced, and that wears on his popularity and his party.

The main issue I had was Stage 2. One-term only doesn't seem correct. I get that you have Truman and GHWB, but 2 data points isn't enough (also Truman chose not to run, although you could easily argue he'd have lost just the same). I'd say there is a decent chance they are a one term president, but not guaranteed. They simply have a higher probability of being booted out. You might equate that to the same issue as the root president, except that because the continuation president doesn't have the same flair/deep popularity as the root, they are far more easily ruined by something like a recession, scandal or other issue. However, I don't think there is any rule that would prevent them from winning 2 terms.

I don't see the "one elected term" property of the continuation to be necessarily a limit, but more or less a parallel to draw between Truman and Bush to prove how history has effectively reflected itself. I agree with your analysis on why the continuation is the way that he is, though.

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.

Like Virginia, I find the governor attribute arbitrary. FDR more or less used his governor position as a stepping stone to his presidency, not accomplishing anything very significant (to my recollection). It is a good side point though, like saying how both expansions are from Texas. If Sanders ends up being the root, I don't think it's even possible for his expansion to be a Texan, considering how far to the right Texas has shifted.

As Mondale Won 1 State said, Reagan was essentially considered to be Goldwater 2.0 when he first ran, and you underestimate how far right he seemed to be in the 70s. I think you underestimate how far left FDR was as well. While he did attack Hoover on spending in 1932, he also proposed policies such as the maximum wage and an economic bill of rights later in his presidency, which is completely outside of the Overton window today.

But I see no way how Sanders will be an expansion president. The expansion is able to exist and do what he does because of the current political status quo. In the 60s, that status quo was the post-war consensus, which advocated for government intervention in the economy, along with social democratic policy. This was a necessary condition for LBJ to get his domestic policy through. Likewise, the neoliberal consensus is more or less what made the Bush-era tax cuts possible. The expansion has to draw from the root. Seeing as we're now in the neoliberal era, with the current root of Reagan, he can't be the expansion.

It is not only possible, but likely, that history doesn't reflect itself for a third time. Sanders could very well not run, or lose to Trump, or not govern as a root. If he does ended up getting elected, and his position was not a root, I think the only other possible stage here would be faux-change. Opposition realignment has to be a centrist, and the other stages tend to be from the majority party.

This parallel was brought up to explain why I think the current Democratic establishment will not remain the same in the 2020s. Here, centrism tends to be less of a legitimate ideology and more of a punishment for the minority party, something done out of necessity.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Anyway, here's my realignment map if a left-populist Democratic party becomes the majority party, by the early 2030s:

The Democratic coalition is powerful but a skilled Republican can win in the Lean D states.

If a popular Orange County Republican runs in 2032 versus an uninspiring Democrat:

[TheLeftwardTide]

I'd personally love to see West Virginia go D even as the Democratic nominee loses handily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988 (edit - removed mobile link)

I thought that West Virginia would hate this type of fiscally conservative, socially moderate-to-liberal, wealthy, coastal Republican. By the late 2020s, I think the wishes of coal coming back will begin to fade, yet the old fiscally left-wing spirit will remain. The current coal-baiting strategy is, like the conservative economy itself, unsustainable.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Your maps look good, but they do strike me as bit too much rooted in the 20th century. For example I don't think Washington would be more democratic than California at this point with the dramatic changes that have occurred in the state.
Also I doubt that a state like Mississippi would be more republican than states like Arkansa and Tennessee. The days of the whiter southern states being relatively unaffected by racial polarisation are over.

I based a large part of my predictions off of where each state lies on the political spectrum. Washington is definitely still to the left of California on economic issues, and in such a situation I would expect the GOP to make inroads into California. The same situation applies for Louisiana and Arkansas - I think they would respond well to left-wing populism, but Mississippi and Alabama would not.

You are right in saying that this map is like that of the 20th century, however. I think that may be what happens; a sort of political redux into the New Deal era.

Also, Louisiana has the 2nd highest black population, after Mississippi.

[TheLeftwardTide]

We are a clash of Mississippian minorities

Arkansas is 72.9% white, well above the national average, and is therefore considered to be one of the whitest Southern states.

upper middle class people

You mean how Arkansas has consistently ranked in the bottom 10 states in terms of GDP per capita for the past decade?

Deep South/Western/Midwestern/Northern culture.

I don't understand your implication here.

I'm not going to try to pretend to know more about your state than you do, but based off of statistical evidence, it seems that you have to try again at your argument.

Also, it's quite hilarious to see you refer to the affection for populism as a vulnerability.