Why a Bernie style Democrat won't realign the country

[OSR stands with Israel]

One popular theory on here is that Bernie Sanders is the Ronald Reagan of the left and a Democrat of Bernie's fold will realign the electorate for the next generation.


The reason for that is this:

1. Reagan's Coalition was an extension of Nixon's 1968 Coalition, while Bernie Coalition is NOT an extension of Obama's Coalition.

- Both Nixon's and Reagan's Coalition was a Sunbelt + Suburbs Coalition (The coalition was just stronger in the 1980s than it was from 1968 and 1972).

- Reagan moving the GOP way from the Rockefeller Republican type party did not hurt the party because the North East had already become a Democratic Region by the 1960s, and many of the States the GOP won were getting more and more electoral votes while the North East is losing Electoral Votes


- Obama's Coalition clearly was meant to target the South West and many upper-class highly educated suburbs(which flipped states like CO , VA and on verge of flipping GA and NC as well to dems). On the other hand, Bernie Coalition is more based upon winning WWC voters in the Industrial Midwest and low-income voters who voted Republican in recent years. In fact, Bernie's Coalition resembles Hillary 2008 Primary Coalition more than Obama's 2008 Primary one(So his coalition would have had a better chance of realigning the electorate if Hillary won in 08 and not Obama).


- This means that while Bernie Sanders Type Dems will win back the Industrial Midwest, states like AZ , TX, NC, GA will stay Solidly GOP in the Long run while states like VA , and CO may even flip back to the GOP.



2. Realignments are based more on Geography than Ideology

- The GOP from 1948-1968 were dominated by Rockefeller Republicans because the only way they could win elections during that period was by winning States such as New York, Pennsylvania, and many other North East States in General. To win those states there nominee had to be of the Rockefeller Republican type, or there was no way they could win those states and thus the election.By the time 1980 came around the Sunbelt  + Suburbs Coalition meant they no longer had to be Rockefeller Republicans to win because that Coalition made up for the GOP losing New York, and the North East.


- The Democrats from 1992-2008 were dominated by Centrist Democrats because the only way they could win elections in that time period was by winning a few states from the Deep South and by winning centrist voters. The only way a Democratic candidate could do that was by being centrist and if they moved to far to the left they would not win those states, and voters , and thus lose the election . Obama win in 2008 meant they could bypass many of those states (like AK , LA , KY, MO, WV) and still win because he compensated for it by flipping CO and VA to the Dem column. In the future, this coalition can compensate losing the Midwest by winning AZ, GA, NC which the Obama Coalition puts them on the path to do . This means the only way the GOP can win (after 2020 if this is true) is by being more populist and thus moving to the left economically.


- On the Other hand If Bernie style dems take over the party he wins back the Industrial Midwest for the Dems but that ensures AZ , NC, GA stay GOP for a long time to come and maybe flip VA and CO back to the GOP . This means the GOP will be more economically conservative and buisness friendly if they want to win elections if Bernie Style Dems take over the party.


For that Reason I think the realigning Dem would have to come from the Obama wing

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Nonwhites would still have voted overwhelmingly for Bernie in the general election if he was the candidate. His coalition would have been exactly like the Obama one. The reason why the sunbelt is trending democrat (and the reason why NM, NV, VA, etc vote democrat now) is demographics, not some brilliant strategy by Obama or Clinton to realign the suburban sunbelt. Bernie would have done moderately worse than Hillary in the suburbs and better in WWC areas, likely giving him a narrow victory over Trump in WI, MI, and maybe even PA. If anything, Bernie wouldn't have caused a realignment, but rather he'd have prevented Trump from doing so. Together, Trump and Hillary accelerated trends that were already visible in places like Iowa in 2014.

[YE]

At this point, if Trump remains as unpopular as he is now, VA/CO will stay in the D column in 2020, and AZ/GA/NC are in play. If there's an economic crisis, he'll (and tbh most Dems at this point to some extent fit this category now) sweep all states I mentioned, and put states like MT and IN in play. I suppose one could argue that in 2024-28, his programs will cause a backlash among suburban voters to break such coalition but I'm not sure how long that'd take to play out, especially if Bernie resolves the crisis. If I had to guess, we as a country would become a lot less polarized then and less divided into red and blue states, where a number of winning coalitions exist for both parties.

[OSR stands with Israel]

At this point, if Trump remains as unpopular as he is now, VA/CO will stay in the D column in 2020, and AZ/GA/NC are in play. If there's an economic crisis, he'll (and tbh most Dems at this point to some extent fit this category now) sweep all states I mentioned, and put states like MT and IN in play. I suppose one could argue that in 2024-28, his programs will cause a backlash among suburban voters to break such coalition but I'm not sure how long that'd take to play out, especially if Bernie resolves the crisis. If I had to guess, we as a country would become a lot less polarized then and less divided into red and blue states, where a number of winning coalitions exist for both parties.

Just winning one or even 2 big win does not constitute a realignment. Even if Bernie say wins those Obama coalition states plus GA AZ NC they will still trend back to the GOP(trend not swing) meaning in future GOP wins they will be part of GOP coalition again ,meaning they don’t need to abandon  Reaganomics to win. Only way they will be forced to abandon Reaganism is if they have to rely on the industrial midwest to win(and with a Bernie style dem Party their coalition still will be suburbs and sunbelt not the Midwest)


Reagan coalition in many ways was an extension of Nixon’s (the suburbs plus sunbelt coalition ) and by 1980 that coalition became the majority coalition in Presidential elections. This meant the GOP could afford to lose the North East , Industrial Midwest (with exception of Ohio) and still win elections so that meant the only way a democrat could win an election from 1980-2008 was if they were able to win those states and only way they could do that was by being neo liberal .


Similarly in the New Deal era only way gop could win was by winning the North East and much of the industrial Midwest And only way to do that is by nominating Liberal Republicans .



Realignments are geographical IMO not ideological


1932-1980: Politics were dominated by large urban areas, and blue collar areas which meant both parties had to be more economically liberal to win

1980-Present: Politics were dominated by The Sunbelt and Suburbs which meant both parties had to be more neo liberal to win .

 

[YE]

At this point, if Trump remains as unpopular as he is now, VA/CO will stay in the D column in 2020, and AZ/GA/NC are in play. If there's an economic crisis, he'll (and tbh most Dems at this point to some extent fit this category now) sweep all states I mentioned, and put states like MT and IN in play. I suppose one could argue that in 2024-28, his programs will cause a backlash among suburban voters to break such coalition but I'm not sure how long that'd take to play out, especially if Bernie resolves the crisis. If I had to guess, we as a country would become a lot less polarized then and less divided into red and blue states, where a number of winning coalitions exist for both parties.

Just winning one or even 2 big win does not constitute a realignment. Even if Bernie say wins those Obama coalition states plus GA AZ NC they will still trend back to the GOP(trend not swing) meaning in future GOP wins they will be part of GOP coalition again ,meaning they don’t need to abandon  Reaganomics to win. Only way they will be forced to abandon Reaganism is if they have to rely on the industrial midwest to win(and with a Bernie style dem Party their coalition still will be suburbs and sunbelt not the Midwest)


Reagan coalition in many ways was an extension of Nixon’s (the suburbs plus sunbelt coalition ) and by 1980 that coalition became the majority coalition in Presidential elections. This meant the GOP could afford to lose the North East , Industrial Midwest (with exception of Ohio) and still win elections so that meant the only way a democrat could win an election from 1980-2008 was if they were able to win those states and only way they could do that was by being neo liberal .


Similarly in the New Deal era only way gop could win was by winning the North East and much of the industrial Midwest And only way to do that is by nominating Liberal Republicans .



Realignments are geographical IMO not ideological


1932-1980: Politics were dominated by large urban areas, and blue collar areas which meant both parties had to be more economically liberal to win

1980-Present: Politics were dominated by The Sunbelt and Suburbs which meant both parties had to be more neo liberal to win .

 

If the GOP gets blown out during an election or two, it's bench would be decimated due to the fact in the short term ticket splitting is still high, and the party would be force to adopt, as its brand would be toxic for starting the crisis, similar to how toxic the Dem brand was post-Reagan (although the Dems had a large enough Blue Dog wing that feared losing their seats that they were able to adjust quickly and cooperate with Reagan). They'd most likely adopt by appealing to the suburbs but with a more socially moderate message, and one that doesn't seek to repeal reforms made by Bernie Sanders (or similar) since it would be toxic to the electorate. Would they still be economically right leaning? To some extent yes but at least be fairly pragmatic and probably govern in a manner similar to how blue state GOP governors do today.

If the Democrats go the Sun Belt strategy, it kills them in the Senate since that focuses basically on winning large states, unless they can appeal to the working class Midwest. Sure, that'd keep them out of the White House, but then the GOP can block everything in the senate and we're stuck with well more gridlock. You're stuck with a geographic re-alingment of sorts but fundamentally the government isn't working for anyone with that level of gridlock, unless there's a de-polarization that occurs with this sort of realignment, but without resolving the fundamental crisis, I don't see a reason for the electorate to de-polarize.

[OSR stands with Israel]

At this point, if Trump remains as unpopular as he is now, VA/CO will stay in the D column in 2020, and AZ/GA/NC are in play. If there's an economic crisis, he'll (and tbh most Dems at this point to some extent fit this category now) sweep all states I mentioned, and put states like MT and IN in play. I suppose one could argue that in 2024-28, his programs will cause a backlash among suburban voters to break such coalition but I'm not sure how long that'd take to play out, especially if Bernie resolves the crisis. If I had to guess, we as a country would become a lot less polarized then and less divided into red and blue states, where a number of winning coalitions exist for both parties.

Just winning one or even 2 big win does not constitute a realignment. Even if Bernie say wins those Obama coalition states plus GA AZ NC they will still trend back to the GOP(trend not swing) meaning in future GOP wins they will be part of GOP coalition again ,meaning they don’t need to abandon  Reaganomics to win. Only way they will be forced to abandon Reaganism is if they have to rely on the industrial midwest to win(and with a Bernie style dem Party their coalition still will be suburbs and sunbelt not the Midwest)


Reagan coalition in many ways was an extension of Nixon’s (the suburbs plus sunbelt coalition ) and by 1980 that coalition became the majority coalition in Presidential elections. This meant the GOP could afford to lose the North East , Industrial Midwest (with exception of Ohio) and still win elections so that meant the only way a democrat could win an election from 1980-2008 was if they were able to win those states and only way they could do that was by being neo liberal .


Similarly in the New Deal era only way gop could win was by winning the North East and much of the industrial Midwest And only way to do that is by nominating Liberal Republicans .



Realignments are geographical IMO not ideological


1932-1980: Politics were dominated by large urban areas, and blue collar areas which meant both parties had to be more economically liberal to win

1980-Present: Politics were dominated by The Sunbelt and Suburbs which meant both parties had to be more neo liberal to win .

 

If the GOP gets blown out during an election or two, it's bench would be decimated due to the fact in the short term ticket splitting is still high, and the party would be force to adopt, as its brand would be toxic for starting the crisis, similar to how toxic the Dem brand was post-Reagan (although the Dems had a large enough Blue Dog wing that feared losing their seats that they were able to adjust quickly and cooperate with Reagan). They'd most likely adopt by appealing to the suburbs but with a more socially moderate message, and one that doesn't seek to repeal reforms made by Bernie Sanders (or similar) since it would be toxic to the electorate. Would they still be economically right leaning? To some extent yes but at least be fairly pragmatic and probably govern in a manner similar to how blue state GOP governors do today.

If the Democrats go the Sun Belt strategy, it kills them in the Senate since that focuses basically on winning large states, unless they can appeal to the working class Midwest. Sure, that'd keep them out of the White House, but then the GOP can block everything in the senate and we're stuck with well more gridlock. You're stuck with a geographic re-alingment of sorts but fundamentally the government isn't working for anyone with that level of gridlock, unless there's a de-polarization that occurs with this sort of realignment, but without resolving the fundamental crisis, I don't see a reason for the electorate to de-polarize.

I agree on social issues the GOP will be significantly more moderate than they are now .


On economic issues I say they would be like Kasich (moderate on issues like Healthcare , but on economic issues they still will be conservative  ).

[OSR stands with Israel]

bump

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Obama did really well in the midwest both times.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Obama did really well in the midwest both times.

This.

The Upper Midwest had been a swing region since 1992, similar to how the South was largely a swing region from 1960-1980.

Obama crushed both McCain and Romney in every Upper Midwestern state (sans Indiana, but he did exceptionally well in that state as a Democrat), to the point where it wasn't really considered to be a swing region anymore. Likewise, Nixon did exceptionally well in the South for a Republican.

In 2016, HRC bottomed out in the Upper Midwest, in a similar manner to how Ford bottomed out in the South. Just because Trump did well in the Upper Midwest and Carter did well in the South does not mean that those regions are on lock for their respective parties.

I think it's plausible that a Bernie-style Democrat can realign the country. More importantly, I think it's plausible that a Bernie-style Democrat can realign the country with an extension of the Obama coalition.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Obama did really well in the midwest both times.

This.

The Upper Midwest had been a swing region since 1992, similar to how the South was largely a swing region from 1960-1980.

Obama crushed both McCain and Romney in every Upper Midwestern state (sans Indiana, but he did exceptionally well in that state as a Democrat), to the point where it wasn't really considered to be a swing region anymore. Likewise, Nixon did exceptionally well in the South for a Republican.

In 2016, HRC bottomed out in the Upper Midwest, in a similar manner to how Ford bottomed out in the South. Just because Trump did well in the Upper Midwest and Carter did well in the South does not mean that those regions are on lock for their respective parties.

I think it's plausible that a Bernie-style Democrat can realign the country. More importantly, I think it's plausible that a Bernie-style Democrat can realign the country with an extension of the Obama coalition.

Except the South (especially the southwest ) was a region which was getting more and more influential electorally , the Midwest isn’t



If the Dems want to realign the country it has to be by flipping states like AZ NC GA Dem while keeping VA  dem and Bernie style Dems is a terrible fit for all of those states . They also need to do well in high in affluent suburbs and Bernie style Dems  again are a terrible fit for that.

 


The fact is the Suburbs and the Sunbelt is the future and populism is not popular in those areas. If the Dem coalition is still based in the industrial Midwest than yes they will not realign the country because those areas are losing electoral influence, and those are the areas where populism does well in.

[junior chįmp]

Realignments are not based on geography. Realignments are caused by strong leadership responses to crises at a time when one generation is ascending and the one in power is on its way out. There are many political scientists who theorize that America has only had 2 REAL realignments: 1860 and 1932. The rest were half assed realignments.

Without a crisis and a strong leader, you don't get a full realignment. You get a weak one. That's why it's so important that centrist trash like Biden, Booker, Harris, Cuomo, et all, doesn't get elected in 2020. These centre left technocratic hacks are failing everywhere in the world: their failing in Germany, Italy, UK, etc...

Again, realignments don't have to happen. If the wrong person gets elected or the crises is overwhelming enough then it just skips a generation

[TheLeftwardTide]

Realignments are not based on geography. Realignments are caused by strong leadership responses to crises at a time when one generation is ascending and the one in power is on its way out. There are many political scientists who theorize that America has only had 2 REAL realignments: 1860 and 1932. The rest were half assed realignments.

Without a crisis and a strong leader, you don't get a full realignment. You get a weak one. That's why it's so important that centrist trash like Biden, Booker, Harris, Cuomo, et all, doesn't get elected in 2020. These centre left technocratic hacks are failing everywhere in the world: their failing in Germany, Italy, UK, etc...

Again, realignments don't have to happen. If the wrong person gets elected or the crises is overwhelming enough then it just skips a generation

Yeah, exactly. The Reagan realignment did have geography play a large part, but you can't necessarily extrapolate that to other realignments.

What region was most important in the FDR realignment?

No one region really, except for maybe the South. While FDR got a higher % of the vote in the South than any other Democrat, immediately after his presidency was the beginning of the end of Southern Democratic dominance (State's Rights Dixiecrats in 1948). Plus, the Democratic Party had been dominating the South long before FDR. So...no, not really.

Re-alignments are about bringing together several disparate groups into one large, common coalition that generally has the upper hand in the electorate. For the Reagan coalition, this was bringing together fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and neoconservatives, doing a great deal to associate social conservatism with fiscal conservatism and thus bringing the Sunbelt into the Republican column. For the New Deal coalition, this was bringing together urban liberals, Catholics, African-Americans, and Southerners; all groups that shared the common trait of economic hardship.

[junior chįmp]

Realignments are not based on geography. Realignments are caused by strong leadership responses to crises at a time when one generation is ascending and the one in power is on its way out. There are many political scientists who theorize that America has only had 2 REAL realignments: 1860 and 1932. The rest were half assed realignments.

Without a crisis and a strong leader, you don't get a full realignment. You get a weak one. That's why it's so important that centrist trash like Biden, Booker, Harris, Cuomo, et all, doesn't get elected in 2020. These centre left technocratic hacks are failing everywhere in the world: their failing in Germany, Italy, UK, etc...

Again, realignments don't have to happen. If the wrong person gets elected or the crises is overwhelming enough then it just skips a generation

Yeah, exactly. The Reagan realignment did have geography play a large part, but you can't necessarily extrapolate that to other realignments.

What region was most important in the FDR realignment?

No one region really, except for maybe the South. While FDR got a higher % of the vote in the South than any other Democrat, immediately after his presidency was the beginning of the end of Southern Democratic dominance (State's Rights Dixiecrats in 1948). Plus, the Democratic Party had been dominating the South long before FDR. So...no, not really.

Re-alignments are about bringing together several disparate groups into one large, common coalition that generally has the upper hand in the electorate. For the Reagan coalition, this was bringing together fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and neoconservatives, doing a great deal to associate social conservatism with fiscal conservatism and thus bringing the Sunbelt into the Republican column. For the New Deal coalition, this was bringing together urban liberals, Catholics, African-Americans, and Southerners; all groups that shared the common trait of economic hardship.

This is very true. For this fundamental reason, I can't stand centrist hacks in the Democratic Party. They just don't get it. FDR won partly because he turned out people who don't turn out and created a coalition around them.

Centrist hacks are still beating the dead horse of trying to win people and groups who just aren't going to vote for them anyway. It's so important that who gets nominated in 2020 is a strong leader who uses strong language and takes bold action. This is how you "imprint" your leadership on whole generations so they never leave the party.

Can you honestly imagine a clown like Biden or Booker using strong language and having strong leadership? They'll get elected, tell their grassroots supporters: "it's time to bring our Republican friends to the table." People will feel they got scammed, check out of voting, and the GOP will roll them like chumps. This has literally been happening since Clinton won in 1992.

[Sumner 1868]

There was never truly a Reagan realignment. Throughout the 80s Democrats - not just the boil weevil/Blue Dog types but even very liberal ones were easily elected in districts that voted for Reagan. Sure, his relative popularity was just strong enough that Republicans have held a consistent advantage with first-wave Gen Xers for decades, but did he create an overwhelming block of solid Republican voters like FDR had done for the Democratic Party? No, not even close.

[OSR stands with Israel]

There was never truly a Reagan realignment. Throughout the 80s Democrats - not just the boil weevil/Blue Dog types but even very liberal ones were easily elected in districts that voted for Reagan. Sure, his relative popularity was just strong enough that Republicans have held a consistent advantage with first-wave Gen Xers for decades, but did he create an overwhelming block of solid Republican voters like FDR had done for the Democratic Party? No, not even close.

Reagan Realignment shifted the dominant region of politics from the North East and Industrial Midwest to the Southwest and South East and the dominant area from Urban Areas to Suburban Areas. Thats why Free Trade , Lower Taxes, and pro-business policies became the norm.


FDR Realignment made urban areas , the North East(Which really built on the gains made first by Woodrow Wilson and later Al Smith) along with flipping the Industrial Midwest and Appalachia as well.The New Deal in the long run really was centered around those voters and thats why Keynesian Economics and Pro Union Politics was the consensus.


In Fact Bernie Sanders coalition would have been a winning coalition during the New Deal Coalition Era because his Coalition is best fit for that era.


IMO the next Coalition will mix the Reaganomics consensus: of Free Trade, Low Taxes , Less Regulation on Small Buisnesses with the New Deal Consensus of Strong Labor Laws, Regulation of Banks, and increased spending on Infrastructure.

[OSR stands with Israel]

bump

[Bidenworth2020]

reagan hardly realigned things, he just strengthened the nixon coallition

[Tartarus Sauce]

IMO the next Coalition will mix the Reaganomics consensus: of Free Trade, Low Taxes , Less Regulation on Small Buisnesses with the New Deal Consensus of Strong Labor Laws, Regulation of Banks, and increased spending on Infrastructure.

Tax cutting obsession is on the way out as a salient public issue. Only Congressional Republicans and their cadre of aloof, dogmatic think tanks care about cutting taxes anymore as a universal goal in itself. The general public doesn't respond to it the way they did in the 80s and 90s anymore. Maybe that's because the economic issues we face are different than 30 years ago, and reflexive tax cuts aren't the panacea to solve them. Taxes will just become another tool in the box that get either raised or lowered depending on the scenario in question.

That doesn't mean they stop being a contentious matter entirely, taxes will always be contentious, but slavish devotion to lowering taxes regardless of its appropriateness in context is not something the new political consensus will be rewarding.

[OSR stands with Israel]

IMO the next Coalition will mix the Reaganomics consensus: of Free Trade, Low Taxes , Less Regulation on Small Buisnesses with the New Deal Consensus of Strong Labor Laws, Regulation of Banks, and increased spending on Infrastructure.

Tax cutting obsession is on the way out as a salient public issue. Only Congressional Republicans and their cadre of aloof, dogmatic think tanks care about cutting taxes anymore as a universal goal in itself. The general public doesn't respond to it the way they did in the 80s and 90s anymore. Maybe that's because the economic issues we face are different than 30 years ago, and reflexive tax cuts aren't the panacea to solve them. Taxes will just become another tool in the box that get either raised or lowered depending on the scenario in question.

That doesn't mean they stop being a contentious matter entirely, taxes will always be contentious, but slavish devotion to lowering taxes regardless of its appropriateness in context is not something the new political consensus will be rewarding.

I said low taxes not cutting taxes

[OSR stands with Israel]

reagan hardly realigned things, he just strengthened the nixon coallition

Thats the whole point Im trying to make


Reagan coalition was basically Nixon Coalition in full swing


the Next Dem Coalition will be Obama in full swing, or the Sunbelt will probably swing back to the GOP with a bernie style dem president 

[YE]

If Bernie (or someone similar) resolves the crisis, it'll take a while for the Sun Belt to go to the GOP (my guess is a secular pro-life moderate GOPer comes in and carries parts of either the Northeast or Sun Belt while maintains the status quo with a few liberal and a few conservative policies are passed while working with a Dem congress much like Clinton/Ike but that's somewhat hard to say). Now is Bernie capable of resolving the crisis? Then, that's a bigger question, and where I think the OP and I disagree.

[Thunderbird is the word]

One popular theory on here is that Bernie Sanders is the Ronald Reagan of the left and a Democrat of Bernie's fold will realign the electorate for the next generation.


The reason for that is this:

1. Reagan's Coalition was an extension of Nixon's 1968 Coalition, while Bernie Coalition is NOT an extension of Obama's Coalition.

- Both Nixon's and Reagan's Coalition was a Sunbelt + Suburbs Coalition (The coalition was just stronger in the 1980s than it was from 1968 and 1972).

- Reagan moving the GOP way from the Rockefeller Republican type party did not hurt the party because the North East had already become a Democratic Region by the 1960s, and many of the States the GOP won were getting more and more electoral votes while the North East is losing Electoral Votes


- Obama's Coalition clearly was meant to target the South West and many upper-class highly educated suburbs(which flipped states like CO , VA and on verge of flipping GA and NC as well to dems). On the other hand, Bernie Coalition is more based upon winning WWC voters in the Industrial Midwest and low-income voters who voted Republican in recent years. In fact, Bernie's Coalition resembles Hillary 2008 Primary Coalition more than Obama's 2008 Primary one(So his coalition would have had a better chance of realigning the electorate if Hillary won in 08 and not Obama).


- This means that while Bernie Sanders Type Dems will win back the Industrial Midwest, states like AZ , TX, NC, GA will stay Solidly GOP in the Long run while states like VA , and CO may even flip back to the GOP.



2. Realignments are based more on Geography than Ideology

- The GOP from 1948-1968 were dominated by Rockefeller Republicans because the only way they could win elections during that period was by winning States such as New York, Pennsylvania, and many other North East States in General. To win those states there nominee had to be of the Rockefeller Republican type, or there was no way they could win those states and thus the election.By the time 1980 came around the Sunbelt  + Suburbs Coalition meant they no longer had to be Rockefeller Republicans to win because that Coalition made up for the GOP losing New York, and the North East.


- The Democrats from 1992-2008 were dominated by Centrist Democrats because the only way they could win elections in that time period was by winning a few states from the Deep South and by winning centrist voters. The only way a Democratic candidate could do that was by being centrist and if they moved to far to the left they would not win those states, and voters , and thus lose the election . Obama win in 2008 meant they could bypass many of those states (like AK , LA , KY, MO, WV) and still win because he compensated for it by flipping CO and VA to the Dem column. In the future, this coalition can compensate losing the Midwest by winning AZ, GA, NC which the Obama Coalition puts them on the path to do . This means the only way the GOP can win (after 2020 if this is true) is by being more populist and thus moving to the left economically.


- On the Other hand If Bernie style dems take over the party he wins back the Industrial Midwest for the Dems but that ensures AZ , NC, GA stay GOP for a long time to come and maybe flip VA and CO back to the GOP . This means the GOP will be more economically conservative and buisness friendly if they want to win elections if Bernie Style Dems take over the party.


For that Reason I think the realigning Dem would have to come from the Obama wing

I disagree, Bernie's coalition in 2016 had elements of Obama's (young college educated voters) and Hillary's (white working class voters.) Basically in 2008 Hillary had wealthy and working class whites and in 2016 she had wealthy whites and black and hispanic voters. Younger black and hispanic voters are more likely to support Bernie in addition to college educated whites and some of the white working class. It's different but not a reversion to earlier trends within the party. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

One popular theory on here is that Bernie Sanders is the Ronald Reagan of the left and a Democrat of Bernie's fold will realign the electorate for the next generation.


The reason for that is this:

1. Reagan's Coalition was an extension of Nixon's 1968 Coalition, while Bernie Coalition is NOT an extension of Obama's Coalition.

- Both Nixon's and Reagan's Coalition was a Sunbelt + Suburbs Coalition (The coalition was just stronger in the 1980s than it was from 1968 and 1972).

- Reagan moving the GOP way from the Rockefeller Republican type party did not hurt the party because the North East had already become a Democratic Region by the 1960s, and many of the States the GOP won were getting more and more electoral votes while the North East is losing Electoral Votes


- Obama's Coalition clearly was meant to target the South West and many upper-class highly educated suburbs(which flipped states like CO , VA and on verge of flipping GA and NC as well to dems). On the other hand, Bernie Coalition is more based upon winning WWC voters in the Industrial Midwest and low-income voters who voted Republican in recent years. In fact, Bernie's Coalition resembles Hillary 2008 Primary Coalition more than Obama's 2008 Primary one(So his coalition would have had a better chance of realigning the electorate if Hillary won in 08 and not Obama).


- This means that while Bernie Sanders Type Dems will win back the Industrial Midwest, states like AZ , TX, NC, GA will stay Solidly GOP in the Long run while states like VA , and CO may even flip back to the GOP.



2. Realignments are based more on Geography than Ideology

- The GOP from 1948-1968 were dominated by Rockefeller Republicans because the only way they could win elections during that period was by winning States such as New York, Pennsylvania, and many other North East States in General. To win those states there nominee had to be of the Rockefeller Republican type, or there was no way they could win those states and thus the election.By the time 1980 came around the Sunbelt  + Suburbs Coalition meant they no longer had to be Rockefeller Republicans to win because that Coalition made up for the GOP losing New York, and the North East.


- The Democrats from 1992-2008 were dominated by Centrist Democrats because the only way they could win elections in that time period was by winning a few states from the Deep South and by winning centrist voters. The only way a Democratic candidate could do that was by being centrist and if they moved to far to the left they would not win those states, and voters , and thus lose the election . Obama win in 2008 meant they could bypass many of those states (like AK , LA , KY, MO, WV) and still win because he compensated for it by flipping CO and VA to the Dem column. In the future, this coalition can compensate losing the Midwest by winning AZ, GA, NC which the Obama Coalition puts them on the path to do . This means the only way the GOP can win (after 2020 if this is true) is by being more populist and thus moving to the left economically.


- On the Other hand If Bernie style dems take over the party he wins back the Industrial Midwest for the Dems but that ensures AZ , NC, GA stay GOP for a long time to come and maybe flip VA and CO back to the GOP . This means the GOP will be more economically conservative and buisness friendly if they want to win elections if Bernie Style Dems take over the party.


For that Reason I think the realigning Dem would have to come from the Obama wing

I disagree, Bernie's coalition in 2016 had elements of Obama's (young college educated voters) and Hillary's (white working class voters.) Basically in 2008 Hillary had wealthy and working class whites and in 2016 she had wealthy whites and black and hispanic voters. Younger black and hispanic voters are more likely to support Bernie in addition to college educated whites and some of the white working class. It's different but not a reversion to earlier trends within the party. 

The thing is though the Sunbelt and states like VA and NC trended dem in the first place is because of the Dems embracing free trade , didnt support raising taxes back to pre 1986 levels , and became more business friendly. Bernie's protectionism, support of dramatically raising taxes, and being significantly more anti buisness than most politicans would cause a major pushback in the region to his type of policies.

Bernie Sanders Coalition for it to work would require the Rust Belt to become solid dem , Appalachia to become dem again along with parts of the upper south.



Will there be a realignment yes but I think more to where elections become Brian Sandoval or Kasich type Republicans vs Obama type dems not a rerun of Rockefellerism vs the New Dealers

[RINO Tom]

reagan hardly realigned things, he just strengthened the nixon coallition

Thats the whole point Im trying to make


Reagan coalition was basically Nixon Coalition in full swing


the Next Dem Coalition will be Obama in full swing, or the Sunbelt will probably swing back to the GOP with a bernie style dem president 

If you're suggesting the only way a Democratic President can realign the country in the future is by being more economically to the right in order to win *Sun Belt suburbanites*, that's absurd.

[GlobeSoc]

reagan hardly realigned things, he just strengthened the nixon coallition

Thats the whole point Im trying to make


Reagan coalition was basically Nixon Coalition in full swing


the Next Dem Coalition will be Obama in full swing, or the Sunbelt will probably swing back to the GOP with a bernie style dem president 

If you're suggesting the only way a Democratic President can realign the country in the future is by being more economically to the right in order to win *Sun Belt suburbanites*, that's absurd.

To be fair, saying that dems would need to move to the economic right to win sun belt suburbanites in sufficient numbers to win elections is not necessarily true - the GOP has burned a lot of goodwill in those areas, particularly on education and healthcare.