Which party would you rather vote for?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

National Liberal Party: pro-tariff, pro-immigration, mildly anti-welfare state, anti-NIMBY, moderate on most social issues, individualistic overall

Conservative Solidarity: anti-tariff, somewhat anti-immigration, pro-welfare state, pro-NIMBY, considerably anti-abortion but distinctly moderate on most other social issues, communitarian overall

[darklordoftech]

National Liberal Party for sure (left-leaning)

[Stuart98]

Both these parties suck.

[😥]

Conservative Solidarity, easily

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Both parties sound pretty moderate actually.

I guess swing voter but more likely to pick CS (left-leaning).

[Ferguson97]

Both parties sound awful, but National Liberal Party.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Conservative Solidarity, easily

[Alben Barkley]

National Liberal Party: pro-tariff, pro-immigration, mildly anti-welfare state, anti-NIMBY, moderate on most social issues, individualistic overall

Conservative Solidarity: anti-tariff, somewhat anti-immigration, pro-welfare state, pro-NIMBY, considerably anti-abortion but distinctly moderate on most other social issues, communitarian overall

I guess I'd go with the former if forced to choose but blech. There really needs to be a third option here because both have too many awful parts.

I find it weird that the supposedly liberal and individualistic party that is pro-immigration and anti-NIMBY would be pro-tariff but the "Conservative Solidarity" party would be anti-tariff though. I'd expect it to be the other way around. Honestly, just flip the tariff and welfare state positions and I'd be all for the NLP.

[President Johnson]

National Liberal Party, easily.

[Yellowhammer]

Neither of these is great but I would lean Conservative Solidarity

[OSR stands with Israel]

Would be a swing voter

[Alcibiades]

Neither is great, but I’d vote NLP as CS seems like it could be a vehicle for authoritarianism and demagoguery.

[President Johnson]

Would be a swing voter

I thought NLB would better reflect your views due to support for tariffs (on China), anti-welfare state, support for (legal) immigration and individualism. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

Would be a swing voter

I thought NLB would better reflect your views due to support for tariffs (on China), anti-welfare state, support for (legal) immigration and individualism. 

 Depends on what pro tarrif means though because if the NLB are pro tarrif on non Chinese nations too and thus anti free trade overall I would not like their position on trade  , and I wouldn’t like them on immigration either if  they are too far left on immigration.


So it would depend on the candidate themselves but generally my position on trade is be pro tarrif with China due to national security nations but be pro free trade elsewhere

[HillGoose]

NLP (right leaning)

[beaver2.0]

CS Gang

[Former President tack50]

CS federally, but would vote NLP downballot

[It’s so Joever]

I would tilt CS, but definitely would be a swing voter. It would be really cool to see an election map between the two.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Lean NLP. Would probably be turned off by the federal CSP’s anti-abortion and pro-NIMBY stances, but can easily see myself as a swing or CSP-leaning voter downballot.

I wonder how the two parties’ voter bases would differ demographically, if at all. I don’t think the racial, religious, educational, and urban-rural divides that characterize today’s Dem vs GOP divide would easily map onto this party system.

[Canis]

depends on the candidate but probably
 lean CS for State and Local elections and lean NLP federally

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Lean NLP since the party would align more closely with my mildly pro-immigration, midlly anti-welfare, and anti-NIMBY views. I would probably be turned off by the federal CSP’s anti-abortion and pro-NIMBY stances, but can easily see myself as a swing or CSP-leaning voter downballot.

I wonder how the two parties’ voter bases would differ demographically, if at all. I don’t think the racial, religious, educational, and urban-rural divides that characterize today’s Dem vs GOP divide would easily map onto this party system.

My guess is that this is what a close election would look like:

CS wins the black vote as well as the evangelical vote but the NLP wins white liberals. Latinos are generally close but are almost always ultimately won by the NLP. The protectionism issue helps the NLP in the Midwest, but their more elite image (which they neither want to nor can shake off) means that CS is competitive in the region. Meanwhile, CS loses most of New England but wins Rhode Island, Connecticut and ME-02 off the backs of populist campaigning and being a good fit for the urban and disconnected rural poor. In the American West, the communitarian image of CS makes it sort of a quasi-permanent minority but it does very well among Mormons, allowing it to regularly win UT and ID. The tariff issue cuts both ways - it gives the NLP a foothold in the MW but also gives TX to CS.
Note that a number of states would be relatively close, and most will be winnable for either party.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Conservative Solidarity, I'm guessing a lot of the Republicrats on this site will be enticed by a party that's anti-welfare yet liberal on social issues. A billionaire's dream. But I would not support CS unless they were the only two choices.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I have no idea, this is actually quite a good conundrum. I guess it would depend on the candidate.

Lean NLP since the party would align more closely with my mildly pro-immigration, midlly anti-welfare, and anti-NIMBY views. I would probably be turned off by the federal CSP’s anti-abortion and pro-NIMBY stances, but can easily see myself as a swing or CSP-leaning voter downballot.

I wonder how the two parties’ voter bases would differ demographically, if at all. I don’t think the racial, religious, educational, and urban-rural divides that characterize today’s Dem vs GOP divide would easily map onto this party system.

My guess is that this is what a close election would look like:

CS wins the black vote as well as the evangelical vote but the NLP wins white liberals. Latinos are generally close but are almost always ultimately won by the NLP. The protectionism issue helps the NLP in the Midwest, but their more elite image (which they neither want to nor can shake off) means that CS is competitive in the region. Meanwhile, CS loses most of New England but wins Rhode Island, Connecticut and ME-02 off the backs of populist campaigning and being a good fit for the urban and disconnected rural poor. In the American West, the communitarian image of CS makes it sort of a quasi-permanent minority but it does very well among Mormons, allowing it to regularly win UT and ID. The tariff issue cuts both ways - it gives the NLP a foothold in the MW but also gives TX to CS.
Note that a number of states would be relatively close, and most will be winnable for either party.

Why do you have Indiana, the most Southern-influenced and conservative Great Lakes state, as voting Liberal but Iowa, Illinois, and Ohio in the Conservative column?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I have no idea, this is actually quite a good conundrum. I guess it would depend on the candidate.

Lean NLP since the party would align more closely with my mildly pro-immigration, midlly anti-welfare, and anti-NIMBY views. I would probably be turned off by the federal CSP’s anti-abortion and pro-NIMBY stances, but can easily see myself as a swing or CSP-leaning voter downballot.

I wonder how the two parties’ voter bases would differ demographically, if at all. I don’t think the racial, religious, educational, and urban-rural divides that characterize today’s Dem vs GOP divide would easily map onto this party system.

My guess is that this is what a close election would look like:

CS wins the black vote as well as the evangelical vote but the NLP wins white liberals. Latinos are generally close but are almost always ultimately won by the NLP. The protectionism issue helps the NLP in the Midwest, but their more elite image (which they neither want to nor can shake off) means that CS is competitive in the region. Meanwhile, CS loses most of New England but wins Rhode Island, Connecticut and ME-02 off the backs of populist campaigning and being a good fit for the urban and disconnected rural poor. In the American West, the communitarian image of CS makes it sort of a quasi-permanent minority but it does very well among Mormons, allowing it to regularly win UT and ID. The tariff issue cuts both ways - it gives the NLP a foothold in the MW but also gives TX to CS.
Note that a number of states would be relatively close, and most will be winnable for either party.

Why do you have Indiana, the most Southern-influenced and conservative Great Lakes state, as voting Liberal but Iowa, Illinois, and Ohio in the Conservative column?

Indiana's protectionist streak+a lot of these would be quite close. The Midwest would be a hard-fought battleground, with some level of randomness in how its marginals go, so it's plausible for Indiana to buck its neighbors. It's also not a simple Southern vs non-Southern divide, so there's that.

[H. Ross Peron]

CS very enthusiastically, though I might vote NLP at a local level.

Neither is great, but I’d vote NLP as CS seems like it could be a vehicle for authoritarianism and demagoguery.

Brazil, Thailand etc. suggest neoliberalism can be a tool for authoritarian and demagogic politics.