Which Party System Would You Prefer

[H. Ross Peron]

If forced to choose between one of the following party systems which would you choose?

[1] Here, Trumpism and indeed the most extreme forms thereof take over the Republican Party completely. National level Republican politicians openly endorse conspiracy theories regarding election fraud, vaccine denialism, opposition to any kind of Covid restrictions etc. Nearly any election won by Democrats are met by cries of fraud and the Republicans attack the legitimacy of most institutions ranging from higher education to the military claiming them to be the tools of the "Deep State" and thoroughly infiltrated by wokeness. The Republican Party becomes ferociously nativist and openly advocates mass deportations/immigration bans for many countries. Note that the Republican Party does not meaningfully become more left-wing economically or opposed to foreign wars since their primary obsession is now with "owning the libs". Indeed, inasmuch Trump is criticized it is for some of his relatively "liberal" stances such as some support for vaccination etc. Conversely, Berniecrats take over the Democratic Party. The Democrats fully embrace a universal welfare state and make single-payer the goal for universal healthcare along with marijuana legalization, free college etc. Concerns regarding the deficit recede to the background as the party advocates for vigourous spending on infrastructure and elsewhere. The Democratic Party retains some divides on cultural issues and "wokeness", despite moving solidly to the left on economic issues.

[2] Here the clock is seemingly turned back to 2000. The Republicans remain broadly pro-life and socially conservative but fully reject conspiracy theories by backing Covid vaccination efforts and no longer claiming election fraud. The Republicans also move slightly to the center on the economy, by advocating for some infrastructure fraud etc. Immigration is another issue where GOP views become liberalized and the party fully rejects nativism in favour of civic nationalism and integrating new immigrants into American life. However, the Democrats move to the right. It's important to note this is not the centre-left politics of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden but rather a modernized throwback to Bill Clinton's presidency of the 1990s. As a result Democrats become much more obsessed with the deficit and reluctant to fund large-scale social spending. Mark Warner, Stephanie Murphy, or Kurt Schrader become the mainstream of the party on bread and butter issues. As with 1, Democrats remain divided somewhat on cultural issues between woke and anti-woke factions. The main difference from 20 years ago is that both parties are somewhat more cautious on foreign policy due to the experience of Iraq.

[Vice President Christian Man]

The first one. The flaws of the second option led to the popularity of the first one.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Obviously the 2nd one and its not even remotely close

[President Johnson]

Obviously the 2nd one and its not even remotely close

This. The less populism on either side, the better.

We need serious center-right and center-left parties battling for the best ideas, sometimes even in polarizing fashion during the heat of an election campaign, but never get personal and be prepared to compromise when necessary.

[Lechasseur]

Trumpist GOP/Berniecrat Democratic Party easily

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trumpist GOP/Berniecrat Democratic Party easily

Even with the fact that the GOP really wouldnt be economically populist in that option

[Ferguson97]

Romney GOP/Clinton Dems, this isn't even close.

[Big Abraham]

The first one. Very easy choice for me considering I have always favored Trump over Romney and obviously massively prefer Sanders over Clinton.

[TDAS04]

Definitely option 2.

[S019]

Option 2 (sane)

[Alcibiades]

The first one. Very easy choice for me considering I have always favored Trump over Romney and obviously massively prefer Sanders over Clinton.

Why the bolded, if I may ask? They are both equally economically plutocratic (Trump actually arguably even more so), but Romney has the advantage of at least showing a modicum of respect for democracy and the rule of law.

[Mr. Smith]

Option 1 and it's not even close.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Option 2 (not arrogant enough to think democracy won't ever fail even after January 6)

[West_Midlander]

Option 1 given the binary but a multiparty system would be even better.

[H. Ross Peron]

The first one. Very easy choice for me considering I have always favored Trump over Romney and obviously massively prefer Sanders over Clinton.

Why the bolded, if I may ask? They are both equally economically plutocratic (Trump actually arguably even more so), but Romney has the advantage of at least showing a modicum of respect for democracy and the rule of law.

More polarizing and less competent, so less likely to do harm.

[Vosem]

Both parties in the second seem superior to both parties in the first, so this is a pretty easy choice.

[Big Abraham]

The first one. Very easy choice for me considering I have always favored Trump over Romney and obviously massively prefer Sanders over Clinton.

Why the bolded, if I may ask? They are both equally economically plutocratic (Trump actually arguably even more so), but Romney has the advantage of at least showing a modicum of respect for democracy and the rule of law.

Trump is much better on trade. He killed TPP. I don't think Romney would have done that.

Besides, I don't care a farthing (and never have) for any of this Lincoln Project "our dear institutions!" nonsense. The institutions in this country are rotten to the core and have been for a long time. Many of them are rotten by constitutional design. So Romney, McCain, Liz Cheney or any other "good guy" Republican who liberal Democrats fawn over as the beloved purveyors of the "edifice of democracy" don't cut it with me. Especially since most of them are nearly identical to Bush Jr. "on the issues," when it comes to foreign policy in particular.

[KaiserDave]

The first one. Very easy choice for me considering I have always favored Trump over Romney and obviously massively prefer Sanders over Clinton.

Why the bolded, if I may ask? They are both equally economically plutocratic (Trump actually arguably even more so), but Romney has the advantage of at least showing a modicum of respect for democracy and the rule of law.

Trump is much better on trade. He killed TPP. I don't think Romney would have done that.

Besides, I don't care a farthing (and never have) for any of this Lincoln Project "our dear institutions!" nonsense. The institutions in this country are rotten to the core and have been for a long time. Many of them are rotten by constitutional design. So Romney, McCain, Liz Cheney or any other "good guy" Republican who liberal Democrats fawn over as the beloved purveyors of the "edifice of democracy" don't cut it with me. Especially since most of them are nearly identical to Bush Jr. "on the issues," when it comes to foreign policy in particular.

Caring about the public trust, the rule of law, and corruption is not a "Lincoln Project" belief.

[Big Abraham]

The first one. Very easy choice for me considering I have always favored Trump over Romney and obviously massively prefer Sanders over Clinton.

Why the bolded, if I may ask? They are both equally economically plutocratic (Trump actually arguably even more so), but Romney has the advantage of at least showing a modicum of respect for democracy and the rule of law.

Trump is much better on trade. He killed TPP. I don't think Romney would have done that.

Besides, I don't care a farthing (and never have) for any of this Lincoln Project "our dear institutions!" nonsense. The institutions in this country are rotten to the core and have been for a long time. Many of them are rotten by constitutional design. So Romney, McCain, Liz Cheney or any other "good guy" Republican who liberal Democrats fawn over as the beloved purveyors of the "edifice of democracy" don't cut it with me. Especially since most of them are nearly identical to Bush Jr. "on the issues," when it comes to foreign policy in particular.

Caring about the public trust, the rule of law, and corruption is not a "Lincoln Project" belief.

If you care about public trust, the rule of law, and corruption, then Senator Mitt Romney is about the last person you should think highly of. Twelve years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly brought about our entire global economic and financial ruin due to their extreme neoliberal greed at private equity firms like the one Romney was heading up.

When Romney was CEO of Bain Capital he did this all to make a handsome profit for himself & his buddies over at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup while the American people were suffering during the worst economic recession of modern times, which was in fact caused by the business activities of Bain Capital & others who pioneered the leveraged model that created the Great Recession. Do you think he earned the "public trust" when he did that?

Romney neither cares for the rule of law, as is obvious when you look at his offshore accounts, fraudulent business practices. And corruption? I remember in 2012 when he was called "King of the Super PACs"...

So Trump, is he corrupt? Yeah, sure. Maybe he got some shady deals to put up a Trump hotel in Moscow or something. That's bad, but quite frankly it doesn't even really register when you just look at the general nature of corruption of all mainstream politicians in this country. Something like that compared to the 30+ years of corrupt careerism of the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys etc., to say nothing of even just your average everyday House legislator.

And then you look at the thoroughly corrupt nature of the entire political system in this country, how every election is bought and paid for by large corporate donors (campaign financing has been shown to be the single most predictive quality for electoral outcomes), each of whom has elaborate business ties to a multinational organization which is responsible the world over for untold miseries such as over-exploitation of natural resources in developing countries, child labor, starvation wages, illegal suppression of unions etc. etc., and you really just kind of care less and less about what this one man (Trump, or Romney) "shady business dealings" they've done. They're all corrupt and evil, so it seems like moot and this point. Any talk of "democracy" or "public trust" when all your elections are bought by corporations is meaningless.

[Utah Neolib]

The second one. Even if I disagree with the very fiscally conservative Ds of yesteryear-having Trumpism not in the national conversation would ensure a longer and more prosperous democracy.

[KaiserDave]

The first one. Very easy choice for me considering I have always favored Trump over Romney and obviously massively prefer Sanders over Clinton.

Why the bolded, if I may ask? They are both equally economically plutocratic (Trump actually arguably even more so), but Romney has the advantage of at least showing a modicum of respect for democracy and the rule of law.

Trump is much better on trade. He killed TPP. I don't think Romney would have done that.

Besides, I don't care a farthing (and never have) for any of this Lincoln Project "our dear institutions!" nonsense. The institutions in this country are rotten to the core and have been for a long time. Many of them are rotten by constitutional design. So Romney, McCain, Liz Cheney or any other "good guy" Republican who liberal Democrats fawn over as the beloved purveyors of the "edifice of democracy" don't cut it with me. Especially since most of them are nearly identical to Bush Jr. "on the issues," when it comes to foreign policy in particular.

Caring about the public trust, the rule of law, and corruption is not a "Lincoln Project" belief.

If you care about public trust, the rule of law, and corruption, then Senator Mitt Romney is about the last person you should think highly of. Twelve years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly brought about our entire global economic and financial ruin due to their extreme neoliberal greed at private equity firms like the one Romney was heading up.

When Romney was CEO of Bain Capital he did this all to make a handsome profit for himself & his buddies over at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup while the American people were suffering during the worst economic recession of modern times, which was in fact caused by the business activities of Bain Capital & others who pioneered the leveraged model that created the Great Recession. Do you think he earned the "public trust" when he did that?

Romney neither cares for the rule of law, as is obvious when you look at his offshore accounts, fraudulent business practices. And corruption? I remember in 2012 when he was called "King of the Super PACs"...

So Trump, is he corrupt? Yeah, sure. Maybe he got some shady deals to put up a Trump hotel in Moscow or something. That's bad, but quite frankly it doesn't even really register when you just look at the general nature of corruption of all mainstream politicians in this country. Something like that compared to the 30+ years of corrupt careerism of the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys etc., to say nothing of even just your average everyday House legislator.

And then you look at the thoroughly corrupt nature of the entire political system in this country, how every election is bought and paid for by large corporate donors (campaign financing has been shown to be the single most predictive quality for electoral outcomes), each of whom has elaborate business ties to a multinational organization which is responsible the world over for untold miseries such as over-exploitation of natural resources in developing countries, child labor, starvation wages, illegal suppression of unions etc. etc., and you really just kind of care less and less about what this one man (Trump, or Romney) "shady business dealings" they've done. They're all corrupt and evil, so it seems like moot and this point. Any talk of "democracy" or "public trust" when all your elections are bought by corporations is meaningless.

I don't think highly of Mitt Romney at all for many of the reasons you listed, it's merely a question of preferring Trump to Romney, which I do not.

[BG-NY]

Option 1 (sane, not rich)

[OSR stands with Israel]

Option 2 (sane, not rich)

Wait you would take the Romney-Clinton one

[BG-NY]

Option 2 (sane, not rich)

Wait you would take the Romney-Clinton one

Whoops no, I copied S019's post but didn't change the number lol

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Option 2