How will the Democratic Party look by 2032?

[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.)

So I'll probably never become a Republican.

[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.)

Do Republicans go (relatively) to the left on economics in this scenario?  Like paid maternity leave laws passing in red states?  Maybe some flirting with UBI in declining manufacturing areas?  There are now some elected R's making "the corporations are out to get you" a significant part of their platform, which is new.  A significant factor in this would be that their base demographic is transitioning from peak earning years to retirement, which would make supporting Medicare and Social Security at current benefits levels or higher seem pretty darn important.

That, plus what you are saying about Democrats all seemed likely to me back in 2016-17, but then Republicans strongly took the libertarian position on COVID and Biden ran as more of a traditional New Deal Dem on economics than Clinton and improved pretty dramatically with seniors.  On the other hand, COVID will (God willing) be completely irrelevant in elections held 10 years from now.  Abortion will cut the other way though and could give Dems another chance with libertarians.

Another significant factor will be whether we eventually see a grand bargain on climate change.   Republicans are about to be completely dependent on Florida to win presidential elections after all.

That last thing you said is very interesting and important and generally why people think Dennis is a "moderate", or at least that he was one at first. Climate Change. Whether this comes to past heavily depends on whether practical needs will win out. Sometimes they do very predictably, other times the don't.

But yeah. It will be interesting to see as Democrats try to court more libertarians on social issues and neocons on foreign policy and Republicans keep trying to poach the poor and near poor from the Democrats.

It also feels like economic issues will be much less polarized in another 20 years (especially with the parties coming together on things like heightening the tax base, infrastructure, some industrial regulation/policy, and some sort of welfare state), but social issues and foreign policy could be huge.

[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.

[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.

[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.