If/when depolarization happens, what will it look like?

[Alcibiades]

I don't think you'll get a "socially liberal" Republican; you will get a socially tolerant Republican.  John Kasich is a social conservative through and through ... yet he has tons of issues with Trump's rhetoric (on the record, anyway).  Any "GOP Clinton" will likely be a reaction to Democratic control for an extended period of time, as the Democratic Party exerts its power to enact progressive legislation.  Such a GOP nominee would hold together culturally and socially conservative voters, economic conservatives and regain several moderate areas, most likely in the suburbs.

Everyone stereotypes middle- and upper-middle class voters who have fled the GOP as "socially liberal," but they're not from my experience.  They like stability.  In the right climate, that is as socially conservative as it is socially liberal ... Trump is just giving "social conservatism" a very demagogic and unsavory face, bordering on reactionary appeal.

It's been four years and Atlas still doesn't get that fiscon-soclib barely exists outside the internet.

There is a misconeption that wealthy suburbs have shifted to the Democrats as more fiscon/soclibs enter the party. Rather, the main reason is that the suburbs have become more liberal on both social and economic issues.

[RINO Tom]

I don't think you'll get a "socially liberal" Republican; you will get a socially tolerant Republican.  John Kasich is a social conservative through and through ... yet he has tons of issues with Trump's rhetoric (on the record, anyway).  Any "GOP Clinton" will likely be a reaction to Democratic control for an extended period of time, as the Democratic Party exerts its power to enact progressive legislation.  Such a GOP nominee would hold together culturally and socially conservative voters, economic conservatives and regain several moderate areas, most likely in the suburbs.

Everyone stereotypes middle- and upper-middle class voters who have fled the GOP as "socially liberal," but they're not from my experience.  They like stability.  In the right climate, that is as socially conservative as it is socially liberal ... Trump is just giving "social conservatism" a very demagogic and unsavory face, bordering on reactionary appeal.

It's been four years and Atlas still doesn't get that fiscon-soclib barely exists outside the internet.

In fairness to them, this is a common misconception perpetuated by the many fiscon/soclib Beltway powerbrokers and their allies.

No offense, but did you guys read what I wrote?  How do you think posting that chart and a quip were warranted responses to my post...?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I don't think you'll get a "socially liberal" Republican; you will get a socially tolerant Republican.  John Kasich is a social conservative through and through ... yet he has tons of issues with Trump's rhetoric (on the record, anyway).  Any "GOP Clinton" will likely be a reaction to Democratic control for an extended period of time, as the Democratic Party exerts its power to enact progressive legislation.  Such a GOP nominee would hold together culturally and socially conservative voters, economic conservatives and regain several moderate areas, most likely in the suburbs.

Everyone stereotypes middle- and upper-middle class voters who have fled the GOP as "socially liberal," but they're not from my experience.  They like stability.  In the right climate, that is as socially conservative as it is socially liberal ... Trump is just giving "social conservatism" a very demagogic and unsavory face, bordering on reactionary appeal.

It's been four years and Atlas still doesn't get that fiscon-soclib barely exists outside the internet.

In fairness to them, this is a common misconception perpetuated by the many fiscon/soclib Beltway powerbrokers and their allies.

No offense, but did you guys read what I wrote?  How do you think posting that chart and a quip were warranted responses to my post...?

I was responding to the chart - the post wasn't directly aimed at yours, although I can see how I might have created that impression (sorry). There's certainly room to grow by being conservative but not reactionary (and much more to grow by not being as obviously cruel/stupid as Trump), but I think the path beyond avoiding his personal obnoxiousness and corruption is rather narrow because of the recent downballot weakness (at the federal level) of socially conservative, non-reactionary GOP politicians (who've often underperformed Trump). The populist appeal required to draw in several GOP-trending, key constituencies is abandoned when the GOP nominee is no longer prepared to invoke nostalgia and the base isn't enthused when starved of red meat (see: turnout dropping in rural areas in 2012). At the same time, that the Democrats are more socially progressive means the cultural bastions will mostly still opt for them and their newer voters will follow suit. This is what is happening to Tillis and McSally.

I could see this strategy working well if the Democrats actually passed substantial or controversial reforms, or as a means to win midterms or achieve one-term presidencies when dissatisfaction with Democratic rule is sufficient to fire up the base all by itself, but it doesn't seem like the best long-term plan.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I’ve seen this chart before, but why don’t you see someone with Rick Santorum’s social views and Bernie’s economics in real life or run for office? Fiscally left/socially right may be the future winning ticket. Populist parties in Europe are trending this way already.

Wasn't that Trump's 2016 campaign?  He ran promising to protect Medicare/Medicaid, replace Obamacare with something better, institute protectionist tariffs, invest massively in infrastructure, etc.  He hasn't governed that way, but he did run as a fiscally left/socially right candidate.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I’ve seen this chart before, but why don’t you see someone with Rick Santorum’s social views and Bernie’s economics in real life or run for office? Fiscally left/socially right may be the future winning ticket. Populist parties in Europe are trending this way already.

Wasn't that Trump's 2016 campaign?  He ran promising to protect Medicare/Medicaid, replace Obamacare with something better, institute protectionist tariffs, invest massively in infrastructure, etc.  He hasn't governed that way, but he did run as a fiscally left/socially right candidate.

To an extent, yes. His mean economic position was significantly to the left of the average Republican, but the standard deviation was high and his credibility was somewhat limited by his background as an evil property mogul.

More competent Republicans with much higher ceilings may well attempt to follow in his footsteps and do far better in using this formula.

[Person Man]

I’ve seen this chart before, but why don’t you see someone with Rick Santorum’s social views and Bernie’s economics in real life or run for office? Fiscally left/socially right may be the future winning ticket. Populist parties in Europe are trending this way already.

Wasn't that Trump's 2016 campaign?  He ran promising to protect Medicare/Medicaid, replace Obamacare with something better, institute protectionist tariffs, invest massively in infrastructure, etc.  He hasn't governed that way, but he did run as a fiscally left/socially right candidate.

To an extent, yes. His mean economic position was significantly to the left of the average Republican, but the standard deviation was high and his credibility was somewhat limited by his background as an evil property mogul.

More competent Republicans with much higher ceilings may well attempt to follow in his footsteps and do far better in using this formula.

Does Josh Hawley have the charisma?

[Hope For A New Era]

I’ve seen this chart before, but why don’t you see someone with Rick Santorum’s social views and Bernie’s economics in real life or run for office? Fiscally left/socially right may be the future winning ticket. Populist parties in Europe are trending this way already.

Wasn't that Trump's 2016 campaign?  He ran promising to protect Medicare/Medicaid, replace Obamacare with something better, institute protectionist tariffs, invest massively in infrastructure, etc.  He hasn't governed that way, but he did run as a fiscally left/socially right candidate.

To an extent, yes. His mean economic position was significantly to the left of the average Republican, but the standard deviation was high and his credibility was somewhat limited by his background as an evil property mogul.

More competent Republicans with much higher ceilings may well attempt to follow in his footsteps and do far better in using this formula.

Does Josh Hawley have the charisma?

He's the overhyped candidate who will quickly flop in the primaries.

[Person Man]

I’ve seen this chart before, but why don’t you see someone with Rick Santorum’s social views and Bernie’s economics in real life or run for office? Fiscally left/socially right may be the future winning ticket. Populist parties in Europe are trending this way already.

Wasn't that Trump's 2016 campaign?  He ran promising to protect Medicare/Medicaid, replace Obamacare with something better, institute protectionist tariffs, invest massively in infrastructure, etc.  He hasn't governed that way, but he did run as a fiscally left/socially right candidate.

To an extent, yes. His mean economic position was significantly to the left of the average Republican, but the standard deviation was high and his credibility was somewhat limited by his background as an evil property mogul.

More competent Republicans with much higher ceilings may well attempt to follow in his footsteps and do far better in using this formula.

Does Josh Hawley have the charisma?

He's the overhyped candidate who will quickly flop in the primaries.

I think he could be like Huckabee. There's just a lot of people who want to be the next Trump. Even if Jr or Ivanka run, they might not get it because there are the likes of DeSantis, Hawley, and Cotton that they must contend with in the "alt-right lane" of the GOP primary. I could see a first (someone like Reagan, HW, or Romney) or second generation of "New Right" (someone like McCain or W) candidate getting nominated in that environment. That might give Democrats a chance because that means  Republicans will have to reshuffle their campaign above and beyond simply not being able to vote for the real deal.

[RINO Tom]

I maintain that there will be no "next Trump."  Trump capitalized on the moment, and his coalition to win the primaries encompassed everything from former Democrats who left the party for good to hardline conservative (but of the "Country Club" variety) Republicans like my dad.  The things that people like about Trump (e.g., "telling it like it is" or "owning the libs" or whatever) aren't specific to ANYTHING about his ideology; they merely speak to his intolerance with playing by a set decorum that is dictated by liberals, and anyone can do that.  I think Trump has indeed *changed the game* in that you don't need to follow a politics playbook to win the nomination of either party for a while, but I think any Republican who conveys his or her willingness to stand up to Democratic lawmakers could "fill that void" to the extent it can be filled, and in some ways it just cannot, as it was unique to 2016.

[Person Man]

I maintain that there will be no "next Trump."  Trump capitalized on the moment, and his coalition to win the primaries encompassed everything from former Democrats who left the party for good to hardline conservative (but of the "Country Club" variety) Republicans like my dad.  The things that people like about Trump (e.g., "telling it like it is" or "owning the libs" or whatever) aren't specific to ANYTHING about his ideology; they merely speak to his intolerance with playing by a set decorum that is dictated by liberals, and anyone can do that.  I think Trump has indeed *changed the game* in that you don't need to follow a politics playbook to win the nomination of either party for a while, but I think any Republican who conveys his or her willingness to stand up to Democratic lawmakers could "fill that void" to the extent it can be filled, and in some ways it just cannot, as it was unique to 2016.

If Trump wins in 2020, do you think Democrats will try to field someone who can "fill that void"? Could they? Would they? Do they even need to under current or potential circumstances?

[RINO Tom]

I maintain that there will be no "next Trump."  Trump capitalized on the moment, and his coalition to win the primaries encompassed everything from former Democrats who left the party for good to hardline conservative (but of the "Country Club" variety) Republicans like my dad.  The things that people like about Trump (e.g., "telling it like it is" or "owning the libs" or whatever) aren't specific to ANYTHING about his ideology; they merely speak to his intolerance with playing by a set decorum that is dictated by liberals, and anyone can do that.  I think Trump has indeed *changed the game* in that you don't need to follow a politics playbook to win the nomination of either party for a while, but I think any Republican who conveys his or her willingness to stand up to Democratic lawmakers could "fill that void" to the extent it can be filled, and in some ways it just cannot, as it was unique to 2016.

If Trump wins in 2020, do you think Democrats will try to field someone who can "fill that void"? Could they? Would they? Do they even need to under current or potential circumstances?

I fear that if Trump wins in 2020, he will exit office with a Bush-level image, and this will prompt Democrats to more or less double down on being the "Adult in the Room" party, effectively dooming our political system to AT LEAST four more years of completely dysfunctional workings.

[Person Man]

I maintain that there will be no "next Trump."  Trump capitalized on the moment, and his coalition to win the primaries encompassed everything from former Democrats who left the party for good to hardline conservative (but of the "Country Club" variety) Republicans like my dad.  The things that people like about Trump (e.g., "telling it like it is" or "owning the libs" or whatever) aren't specific to ANYTHING about his ideology; they merely speak to his intolerance with playing by a set decorum that is dictated by liberals, and anyone can do that.  I think Trump has indeed *changed the game* in that you don't need to follow a politics playbook to win the nomination of either party for a while, but I think any Republican who conveys his or her willingness to stand up to Democratic lawmakers could "fill that void" to the extent it can be filled, and in some ways it just cannot, as it was unique to 2016.

If Trump wins in 2020, do you think Democrats will try to field someone who can "fill that void"? Could they? Would they? Do they even need to under current or potential circumstances?

I fear that if Trump wins in 2020, he will exit office with a Bush-level image, and this will prompt Democrats to more or less double down on being the "Adult in the Room" party, effectively dooming our political system to AT LEAST four more years of completely dysfunctional workings.

You think Dems would run as antipopulists a third time?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I’ve seen this chart before, but why don’t you see someone with Rick Santorum’s social views and Bernie’s economics in real life or run for office? Fiscally left/socially right may be the future winning ticket. Populist parties in Europe are trending this way already.

Part of this is the difference between the average profile of people likely to make serious runs at public office (much more likely to be college-educated, white and metropolitan) and the profile of the median voter. Another plank is institutional conventional wisdom lagging behind current political norms - a couple of decades ago, Reaganomics was a lot more popular. These two are somewhat related in that institutions that form said conventional wisdom (most of the press etc.) also come from these backgrounds in which socially liberal, economically conservative people are a lot more prevalent (think NYT, WSJ, etc.).

I believe the main reason why you won't see it very often in presidential candidacies is because most institutionalists despise the economic component and do their best to tie it to more divisive social policy. Sanders' more populist 2016 campaign was disingenuously decried as racist and tied to Republicans (where his 2020 campaign moved from this, the same people claimed it was suddenly "Unelectable"). Any Republican equivalent's would be tied to "America-hating socialists" (probably with reference to AOC) - we've already seen this begin with the Republican hit pieces on Hawley. Reasonable compromise^TM for Republicans will almost always be on social issues and, for Democrats, usually on economic issues - the opposite of where each party has most room to grow with the general populace. The more politics is focused on the culture war, the less likely it is that its most corrupt operatives will be called to account.

Tucker seems to be setting himself up for a run based on that quadrant. It seems pretty likely that his charisma and popularity with the base will let him get through the primary if Trump loses, and a Tucker-Kamala election could be pretty brutal for Dems.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I’ve seen this chart before, but why don’t you see someone with Rick Santorum’s social views and Bernie’s economics in real life or run for office? Fiscally left/socially right may be the future winning ticket. Populist parties in Europe are trending this way already.

Part of this is the difference between the average profile of people likely to make serious runs at public office (much more likely to be college-educated, white and metropolitan) and the profile of the median voter. Another plank is institutional conventional wisdom lagging behind current political norms - a couple of decades ago, Reaganomics was a lot more popular. These two are somewhat related in that institutions that form said conventional wisdom (most of the press etc.) also come from these backgrounds in which socially liberal, economically conservative people are a lot more prevalent (think NYT, WSJ, etc.).

I believe the main reason why you won't see it very often in presidential candidacies is because most institutionalists despise the economic component and do their best to tie it to more divisive social policy. Sanders' more populist 2016 campaign was disingenuously decried as racist and tied to Republicans (where his 2020 campaign moved from this, the same people claimed it was suddenly "Unelectable"). Any Republican equivalent's would be tied to "America-hating socialists" (probably with reference to AOC) - we've already seen this begin with the Republican hit pieces on Hawley. Reasonable compromise^TM for Republicans will almost always be on social issues and, for Democrats, usually on economic issues - the opposite of where each party has most room to grow with the general populace. The more politics is focused on the culture war, the less likely it is that its most corrupt operatives will be called to account.

Tucker seems to be setting himself up for a run based on that quadrant. It seems pretty likely that his charisma and popularity with the base will let him get through the primary if Trump loses, and a Tucker-Kamala election could be pretty brutal for Dems.

I'm skeptical of the Tucker hype. There are just too many base-breaking soundbites/too lengthy and comprehensive a history of media exposure for anyone working in cable news as long as he has (such as him referring to himself as an elitist, etc.). He may also have gone so far on certain civil rights issues as to alienate even the persuadable Democrats in 2024, although that wouldn't hurt him in his bid for the GOP nomination.

I also suspect he's aware of this and is more likely to play a role in anointing Trump's heir than wearing his crown.

[Person Man]

I maintain that there will be no "next Trump."  Trump capitalized on the moment, and his coalition to win the primaries encompassed everything from former Democrats who left the party for good to hardline conservative (but of the "Country Club" variety) Republicans like my dad.  The things that people like about Trump (e.g., "telling it like it is" or "owning the libs" or whatever) aren't specific to ANYTHING about his ideology; they merely speak to his intolerance with playing by a set decorum that is dictated by liberals, and anyone can do that.  I think Trump has indeed *changed the game* in that you don't need to follow a politics playbook to win the nomination of either party for a while, but I think any Republican who conveys his or her willingness to stand up to Democratic lawmakers could "fill that void" to the extent it can be filled, and in some ways it just cannot, as it was unique to 2016.

If Trump wins in 2020, do you think Democrats will try to field someone who can "fill that void"? Could they? Would they? Do they even need to under current or potential circumstances?

I fear that if Trump wins in 2020, he will exit office with a Bush-level image, and this will prompt Democrats to more or less double down on being the "Adult in the Room" party, effectively dooming our political system to AT LEAST four more years of completely dysfunctional workings.

What if there are no serious problems in a potential second term? Could you see Republicans abandoning him because he can't run again? Could that hurt the GOP in 2022?

For Trump to be in Bush's position, I would say that he won this election narrowly to the point where Democrats just need to flip a few moderately conservative states (Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) to win back congress. In 2022, they do so and render Trump a lame duck. At this point, I would be "Yeah. People got what they wanted from him and are ready to discard him." I would say if Trump still holds the senate in 2023, he would have proven himself successful to the point that Democrats would have the potential to produce a copy cat.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think you'll get a "socially liberal" Republican; you will get a socially tolerant Republican.  John Kasich is a social conservative through and through ... yet he has tons of issues with Trump's rhetoric (on the record, anyway).  Any "GOP Clinton" will likely be a reaction to Democratic control for an extended period of time, as the Democratic Party exerts its power to enact progressive legislation.  Such a GOP nominee would hold together culturally and socially conservative voters, economic conservatives and regain several moderate areas, most likely in the suburbs.

Everyone stereotypes middle- and upper-middle class voters who have fled the GOP as "socially liberal," but they're not from my experience.  They like stability.  In the right climate, that is as socially conservative as it is socially liberal ... Trump is just giving "social conservatism" a very demagogic and unsavory face, bordering on reactionary appeal.

It's been four years and Atlas still doesn't get that fiscon-soclib barely exists outside the internet.

He literally said it wont be socially liberal, but just socially conservative in a more sophisticated non offensive way

[DC Al Fine]

Yeah, I know. I was just following up on RINO Tom's point.

[Person Man]

I don't think you'll get a "socially liberal" Republican; you will get a socially tolerant Republican.  John Kasich is a social conservative through and through ... yet he has tons of issues with Trump's rhetoric (on the record, anyway).  Any "GOP Clinton" will likely be a reaction to Democratic control for an extended period of time, as the Democratic Party exerts its power to enact progressive legislation.  Such a GOP nominee would hold together culturally and socially conservative voters, economic conservatives and regain several moderate areas, most likely in the suburbs.

Everyone stereotypes middle- and upper-middle class voters who have fled the GOP as "socially liberal," but they're not from my experience.  They like stability.  In the right climate, that is as socially conservative as it is socially liberal ... Trump is just giving "social conservatism" a very demagogic and unsavory face, bordering on reactionary appeal.

It's been four years and Atlas still doesn't get that fiscon-soclib barely exists outside the internet.

He literally said it wont be socially liberal, but just socially conservative in a more sophisticated non offensive way

Kind of like John McCain before he picked Palin? You would have to drop the more extreme views, of course.

I can see someone who is OK with rescheduling marijuana, around where me and Trump are at with guns, wants the current status quo on religious/LGBT issues, wants Roe overruled and to expand the federal late term abortion ban, but doesn’t want to defund PP or want to make abortion illegal on a federal level. Generally a states‘ rights conservative that’s willing to intervene federally for conservative controversies in  only in very extreme circumstances.

[freepcrusher]

I feel people confuse "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" with "fiscally and socially moderate" which is far more common. Think for example Rep Marge Roukema. If the GOP is locked out of the WH - that could be the standard (I hope)

[Frodo]

We will never truly 'depolarize' -we will just polarize on a different set of matrixes. 

[Agonized-Statism]

Revisiting this, it's sort of a philosophical question- how can we find consensus in a heterogenous and post-truth society, where our globalized service and information economy has lost the unifying faith in linear and material progress that industrial societies like China have? I guess it could be America rallying behind government programs addressing an immediate crisis like in the 1930s, maybe a Green New Dealer administration after enough Americans are made uncomfortable by climate change, but I'm not sure we're ready to be that "unironic" yet if ever.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Polarization can’t happen when neither party is dominant. If GOP loses Texas, we will see depolarization.

[wnwnwn]

It could happen if both parties make conseccions on social issues.

[Samof94]

Polarization can’t happen when neither party is dominant. If GOP loses Texas, we will see depolarization.

Not immediately of course

[Person Man]

Revisiting this, it's sort of a philosophical question- how can we find consensus in a heterogenous and post-truth society, where our globalized service and information economy has lost the unifying faith in linear and material progress that industrial societies like China have? I guess it could be America rallying behind government programs addressing an immediate crisis like in the 1930s, maybe a Green New Dealer administration after enough Americans are made uncomfortable by climate change, but I'm not sure we're ready to be that "unironic" yet if ever.

The remainder of the first half of the 21st century will be about testing how uncomfortable we can get without shouting "uncle" to reality.