How will the Democratic Party look by 2032?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

Which actually would just be a return to the historical consensus. Conservatism being the more militaristic/interventionist force was a result of the neoconservative ideology of the Cold War, which carried into the War on Terror - and the relative isolationism/pacifism of the left results from the peculiarities of the Vietnam War. But historically, conservatives were the isolationists in American politics, while America's interventionist policies were largely shaped by progressives in both parties (both Roosevelts, Wilson, and Truman probably played the biggest role).

[sting in the rafters]

But if you support more parties, do you also support getting rid of first-past-the-post and replacing it with ranked-choice voting (RCV) and/or runoff elections? Any additional parties beyond the two dominant ones won't gain much traction as long as first-past-the-post exists.

1. Yeah this thread ain’t really the place for that tho
2.>what is a parliamentary system (I get ur point tho)

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

I could see this. Pretty much where they are now on social issues and maybe even fiscal issues, but pushing to the center on immigration, crime, and foreign policy. Especially if they get enough defections of low SES minority voters. The “base” will probably continue to become higher SES voters but they will need some libertarian-ish WWC voters to build as a national party, especially in the senate. In the senate, losing Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Florida, and maybe Pennsylvania (It should be obvious in a month) can’t be made up with Arizona, Georgia, and eventually Texas and North Carolina. In order to stay on the top, they will need to do better in states where people seem to be interested if they listen to them. Those states are Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas and maybe Utah.(and maybe Wyoming if there is some sort of bargain on the climate).

If this sounds unreasonable, These sort of voters are the ones who put Perot on the map in 1992 and who Democrats really targeted in 2006 and 2008. Democrats did not come home empty  handed but they basically lost everything out there after 2010 (Hietkamp survived for a while and Tester is still out there). With the Dobbs v Jackson decision and Democrats not having enough votes in the senate, this is the path of Least Resistance. Which is kind of good, really. This future party would be more in line with my interests at least. Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part.

Interesting how Democrats have pretty consistently neglected the states you mentioned since the Eisenhower era, first because they were obsessed with winning back Dixie for nostalgic reasons and now because they've ultra-focused on winning the suburbs.

I think part of the reason they found strength in 2006 and 08 is because those voters tend to be anti-war and civil libertarian, both of which Democrats were perceived as at the time. Also gun control was not really a national issue. If Democrats become the more hawkish militaristic party (which many here are suggesting) they'll continue to struggle with these voters. I think they might be winnable but that would require coming out much more strongly on being anti-drug war and allowing for a big tent on guns. Abortion on it's own isn't enough.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

More Asian, Latino, mixed-race, and probably also more Mormon than it is today.

Also likely more technocratic and willing to pay lip service to electoral reforms without pushing open primaries.

Why should we have open primaries? Do nonunion members get to vote on a CBA? Do people not at FOX decide their Animation Domination lineup? Do non-coaches decide how long football practice runs? Do people not in French club choose their Cité du Cinéma flick of the month? Then why the phuck should people not registered w/a political party get to vote in their primary? What the phuck’s the whole point of having a party anyway if non-members can vote on leadership?

The solution isn’t open primaries - it’s more parties.

The Democratic party isn’t going to act against its own rational self-interest like that, not even if its rump party/parties would have the upper hand in a multi-party system.

They won't be able to go too far left because of the structural problems they face. In general I have a really hard time envisioning American politics in a decade as I'm not sure how the US gets past the Republicans antidemocratic turn.

Agreed, I also think the Squad and Squad affiliated will continually shift (like Biden did before becoming VP) so they will always be on the leftmost fringe of the federal Dem caucus.

[sting in the rafters]

The Democratic party isn’t going to act against its own rational self-interest like that, not even if its rump party/parties would have the upper hand in a multi-party system.

Would open primaries not also be against the party's rational interest? Forgive me for overpersonalizing, however I myself am a registered Democrat because 1) I desire to vote in their primary and 2) I want their candidates to have to appeal to me to receive the nomination. If you don't need to be a Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary, then why should I (or any similarly progressive-minded voter in my shoes) register as one to begin with?

[Person Man]

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

I could see this. Pretty much where they are now on social issues and maybe even fiscal issues, but pushing to the center on immigration, crime, and foreign policy. Especially if they get enough defections of low SES minority voters. The “base” will probably continue to become higher SES voters but they will need some libertarian-ish WWC voters to build as a national party, especially in the senate. In the senate, losing Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Florida, and maybe Pennsylvania (It should be obvious in a month) can’t be made up with Arizona, Georgia, and eventually Texas and North Carolina. In order to stay on the top, they will need to do better in states where people seem to be interested if they listen to them. Those states are Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas and maybe Utah.(and maybe Wyoming if there is some sort of bargain on the climate).

If this sounds unreasonable, These sort of voters are the ones who put Perot on the map in 1992 and who Democrats really targeted in 2006 and 2008. Democrats did not come home empty  handed but they basically lost everything out there after 2010 (Hietkamp survived for a while and Tester is still out there). With the Dobbs v Jackson decision and Democrats not having enough votes in the senate, this is the path of Least Resistance. Which is kind of good, really. This future party would be more in line with my interests at least. Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part.

Interesting how Democrats have pretty consistently neglected the states you mentioned since the Eisenhower era, first because they were obsessed with winning back Dixie for nostalgic reasons and now because they've ultra-focused on winning the suburbs.

I think part of the reason they found strength in 2006 and 08 is because those voters tend to be anti-war and civil libertarian, both of which Democrats were perceived as at the time. Also gun control was not really a national issue. If Democrats become the more hawkish militaristic party (which many here are suggesting) they'll continue to struggle with these voters. I think they might be winnable but that would require coming out much more strongly on being anti-drug war and allowing for a big tent on guns. Abortion on it's own isn't enough.

 A big tent on guns and trade.

[sg0508]

You will have a lot more socialists in power, especially as the country continues to decline economically, debt explodes and young people who should be improving financially over time, do not.

[Devils30]

Depends what happens in 2024 and 2028. If the GOP wins in either, enacts a national abortion ban and then gets destroyed and Dems have the House and Senate with 55+, expect no mercy whatsoever. You could have a very hardened left wing of the party that doesn't care about making late boomer/early Gen X retirees miserable with significant targeted tax increases.

[Skill and Chance]

You will have a lot more socialists in power, especially as the country continues to decline economically, debt explodes and young people who should be improving financially over time, do not.

Ehhh... youth wages pretty clearly aren't the problem anymore.  This analysis has a very 2012 vibe.

[Person Man]

You will have a lot more socialists in power, especially as the country continues to decline economically, debt explodes and young people who should be improving financially over time, do not.

POV: you are a lawyer, engineer, or small businesswoman pulling in 150k(amazing pay, good but not great amongst your peers) in your 30s or 40s and you still can’t get the time of day from mortgage brokers. Neoliberalism?! Fucc That.

[Person Man]

Depends what happens in 2024 and 2028. If the GOP wins in either, enacts a national abortion ban and then gets destroyed and Dems have the House and Senate with 55+, expect no mercy whatsoever. You could have a very hardened left wing of the party that doesn't care about making late boomer/early Gen X retirees miserable with significant targeted tax increases.

If the abortion lay of the land gets much more dangerous to typical people, and then maybe you add in laws meant to make gay people to want to move out, and then you make all kinds of other frivolous and aggressive laws then you get probably get to the point that social trust in general is shattered (as if the simple fact of people like Masters, Oz, and Walker getting elected wasn’t enough) and people will then do what they have to do to survive up to including making certain struggle for the first time in their lives.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

Which actually would just be a return to the historical consensus. Conservatism being the more militaristic/interventionist force was a result of the neoconservative ideology of the Cold War, which carried into the War on Terror - and the relative isolationism/pacifism of the left results from the peculiarities of the Vietnam War. But historically, conservatives were the isolationists in American politics, while America's interventionist policies were largely shaped by progressives in both parties (both Roosevelts, Wilson, and Truman probably played the biggest role).

Huh? McKinley invented American imperialism.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

Which actually would just be a return to the historical consensus. Conservatism being the more militaristic/interventionist force was a result of the neoconservative ideology of the Cold War, which carried into the War on Terror - and the relative isolationism/pacifism of the left results from the peculiarities of the Vietnam War. But historically, conservatives were the isolationists in American politics, while America's interventionist policies were largely shaped by progressives in both parties (both Roosevelts, Wilson, and Truman probably played the biggest role).

Huh? McKinley invented American imperialism.

Shoot, this post turned into an essay, my bad. To put it concisely, you're right about McKinley, but he's the exception, not the rule, when it comes to conservatives in the first half of the 20th century. Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson did much more to entrench American internationalism, and a paleoconservative backlash to that dominated the GOP and the conservative movement until Pearl Harbor.

He did, and by all accounts he was a conservative republican, so it doesn't always apply. But imperialism was inherited and supercharged by his progressive successor Teddy. Wilson, a progressive democrat, originally supported the Democratic Party's tradition of isolationism, but pulled off a rapid pivot to internationalism. The Republicans famously blocked the League of Nations and by the 1920s, the line between internationalist liberalism and isolationist conservatism was drawn more clearly, with Democrats favouring the former and Republicans favouring the latter (there were some differences of course, like southern Democrats largely being conservative on domestic issues but more in line with their party on the international stage).

So really, I guess 1900-1940 was the heyday of the era I'm describing where progressives became internationalist (one would argue out-and-out imperialist, especially in the case of TR), while conservatives slowly became skeptical of internationalism to the point of being total isolationists by the 1920s and 30s. But even though this era was started by the conservative McKinley, many foundational aspects of American internationalism like the Panama Canal and the League of Nations were advanced by progressives, while conservatives went on to take a more indifferent view of the rest of the world.

By the time of FDR, liberalism had basically won the debate as far as domestic issues went, but conservative isolationism won the foreign policy debate. Even after Hitler's invasion of Poland, public opinion in America remained largely isolationist (it has to be said that there were some high-profile Nazi sympathizers in the states, but they were far from the majority - most isolationist Americans had a "don't care, not our business" attitude). But as the war escalated, American public opinion started to shift. FDR started pivoting to greater activism on the international stage, and even Willkie did the same (much to the displeasure of many paleoconservative Republicans).

Then came December 7, 1941, a date which would live in infamy. In one fell swoop, the isolationist position became untenable, and conservatives slowly made peace with that reality. After the end of the war (and especially after the true extent of the barbarism of the Nazis and the Japanese came to light), a bipartisan consensus on America's role in the world started to emerge, and the Republicans who stuck to their paleoconservatism, like Taft, lost their influence as internationalist Republicans like Ike and Nixon emerged. The Democrats, of course, were full-blown internationalists at this point. Rebuilding Europe, stopping the rise of communism in the third world, and maintaining American hegemony became something both parties embraced.

As the Soviet Union continued to rise in a post-WWII world, the Republican Party (which at this point was the distinctly conservative party in national politics) became even more attracted to hawkishness. The Democrats were no less hawkish. But then came Vietnam, and many liberals (who at this point were mostly in the Democratic Party) started to oppose American imperialism. Humphrey had to delicately pivot away from LBJ's gung-ho interventionism, and McGovern was...well, McGovern. By the time of Carter, there was little doubt that even mainstream, moderate Democrats had become less interventionist than Republicans.

What we could now be beginning to see is a re-emergence of paleoconservatism in the Republican Party, in response to an increasingly internationalist, dare I say "globalist" Democratic Party. Bipartisan consensus is hard to maintain in a two-party system because opponents of one party's policies will gravitate to the other. Trump isn't an intellectually sophisticated ideologue, but he appeals to ideological paleo-cons in a way that Republicans haven't for generations. And neoconservatism has largely been discredited, rightly or wrongly, due to Dubya's foolish handling of Iraq.

[ListMan38]

Florida will be Lean R and right of Georgia

Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are the big swing states

Minnesota will be the big R Reach (where Wisconsin is now), and Texas the big D reach (where Ohio is now)

Senate will tilt R after Tester and Manchin lose, House honestly to hard to tell