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

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I think there’ll be a “Clinton” who is socially liberal for a Republican at some point and is more like W on immigration.

If this is to lead to meaningful depolarisation, it will either mean outright outflanking high-profile Democrats on social issues to gain college-educated voters, economic or climate change moderation for a Republican, or a very nasty electoral loss (I don't think it could move that many black voters despite the prognostications of this position's high-profile advocates).

"Socially liberal, economically conservative," is a massively overrepresented demographic within the US political system.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.