Long term drift to the Democrats?

[English]

I agree, there is no similarity whatsoever between US and UK voting preference. In the UK 80% of people's voting preference is based on tax, fiscal policy and the economy. Even socially conservative people will vote Labour if it suits their pocket. Likewise I know many social liberals who vote Tory, simply because it's in their economic interest to do so. This is changing to some extent, but it's still largely the case 'Poor Labour', 'Rich Tory'. Social issues really don't matter a jot at the ballot box in Britain. In the US things like gay rights and abortion are much more contentious. If people in the US voted as Britons do, Connecticut would be the safest GOP state and Mississippi would be a Democrat landslide (80%+ Democrat).

[NorthernDog]

If people in the US voted as Britons do, Connecticut would be the safest GOP state and Mississippi would be a Democrat landslide (80%+ Democrat).

You're assuming that poorer people will believe the Democrats when they claim to be "on their side".  It doesn't ring true when the US Senate is full of liberal Democrats that are millionaires.
One of my state's Senators, Dayton, is from an extrememly wealthy family.  How can he relate to a guy trying to start his own business?

[Ryan]

If people in the US voted as Britons do, Connecticut would be the safest GOP state and Mississippi would be a Democrat landslide (80%+ Democrat).

You're assuming that poorer people will believe the Democrats when they claim to be "on their side".  It doesn't ring true when the US Senate is full of liberal Democrats that are millionaires.
One of my state's Senators, Dayton, is from an extrememly wealthy family.  How can he relate to a guy trying to start his own business?

All fine but in English's defence he did say "IF"

[migrendel]

Senator Dayton may be the heir to the Dayton-Hudson Department Store fortune, but he does seem to understand the needs of the disadvantaged. From what I've seen of him, he seems to be very intelligent and also good-hearted.

[English]

If people in the US voted as Britons do, Connecticut would be the safest GOP state and Mississippi would be a Democrat landslide (80%+ Democrat).

You're assuming that poorer people will believe the Democrats when they claim to be "on their side".  It doesn't ring true when the US Senate is full of liberal Democrats that are millionaires.
One of my state's Senators, Dayton, is from an extrememly wealthy family.  How can he relate to a guy trying to start his own business?

No question Mississippi would be staunch Democrat if US voters voted the same way as British Voters. It's the poorest state in the US. The poorest UK areas tend to vote +70% Labour.
On the other hand a place like Connecticut in the UK would be iron-clad Tory, probably a bit like Surrey.

[Gustaf]

I think there is an important point to be made here, namely that demographical changes and the like tend to bring about policy changes, not electoral ones. In a two-party system the parties adapt to the new landscape and win back voters.

One example: the leftist surge of the late 60s broke the leftist dominance in Sweden with the first right being victory for 44 years (now that's dominance!).

Realpolitik will cut my throat, but the same can be said of the swing to the right in the UK. It has actually marginalised the Tories and paved way for the Labour Party, which has simply adapted by moving to the right.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The same could certainly be said in Canada, with the nation moving to the right but the right parties being marginalized.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

And for that matter, the US seems to be moving to the left... with new entitlement programs and spending galore.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Canada moved to the right during the '90's but seems to be going the other way at the moment.

[English]

It's swings and roundabouts. I agree the UK has shifted to the right (economically) in recent years. However that's simply because the economy is strong. If unemployment rises and things start looking bleak, it will all move leftward. Socially, Britain has moved monumentally to the left since the 80's. Social conservatism in the UK is dead, just like Socialist Fiscal Policy.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

And for that matter, the US seems to be moving to the left... with new entitlement programs and spending galore.

Huh? We have a 'Republican' Congress, so how could that be? Unless the GOP and DEMS have exchanged their Character!

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

And for that matter, the US seems to be moving to the left... with new entitlement programs and spending galore.

Huh? We have a 'Republican' Congress, so how could that be? Unless the GOP and DEMS have exchanged their Character!

I once heard that the only difference between the 2 major parties is Blue and Red.

Blue and Red. Well said!

[Nym90]

Well, perhaps on some issues they have. Fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets used to be a conservative concept, but now that's considered far left.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Well, perhaps on some issues they have. Fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets used to be a conservative concept, but now that's considered far left.

yeah, I am coming to that conclusion myself. Philosophical changes have occured before in the parties haven't they? So, this isn't anything new. It's just that it hasn't happened in what? over 100 years?

[Nym90]

Well it depends on what you consider philosophical changes. I would say one of the biggest was during the 1960's though in which the Democrats became the pro-civil rights party after having been the anti-civil rights party for the most part throughout the previous 100 years. Until Kennedy came along (although the transformation was starting with Roosevelt and Truman already in the 1930's and 1940's, but did not really come to be until Kennedy and Johnson) equal rights for blacks was mostly a cause championed by northern Republicans and opposed vociferously by southern Democrats.

[00tim]

You would think that with more immigrants and minorities than ever that the republican party would cease to exsist being that more of them vote for democrats But instead we have the presidency, the congress and a majority of govenorships now in republican hands. This should actually be a telltale sign that the democratic party has gone too far from mainstream values and beliefs.

[CTguy]

I don't think it tells us that the democrats have gone out of the mainstream, I think it tells us that people who agree with republicans are more likely to vote.  Minorities, immigrants, poor people, People age 18-30 - All groups you could make a case that are represented best by the Democratic party - tend to vote at lower margins than say, white males over 50.

Also I don't know how you could argue that Republicans are more in the mainstream than Democrats by using President Bush as an example.  Considering Gore won 500,000 or so more votes nationally than him and Nader won a couple more million.  

The country is pretty evenly divided, Republican voters tend to just be more reliable I'd say.

[jravnsbo]

but those more votes were concentrated in states such as NY and Cali, 30 states voted for Bush only 20 went for Gore.  Plus GOP now runs everything, House, Presidency, Senate, more legislatures, more Governors.

I don't think it tells us that the democrats have gone out of the mainstream, I think it tells us that people who agree with republicans are more likely to vote.  Minorities, immigrants, poor people, People age 18-30 - All groups you could make a case that are represented best by the Democratic party - tend to vote at lower margins than say, white males over 50.

Also I don't know how you could argue that Republicans are more in the mainstream than Democrats by using President Bush as an example.  Considering Gore won 500,000 or so more votes nationally than him and Nader won a couple more million.  

The country is pretty evenly divided, Republican voters tend to just be more reliable I'd say.

[dazzleman]

Long Term from when? 1860? 1900? 1924? 1936? 1956? 1964? 1972? 1984? 1996? etc?

My guess next election:

GOP gain Hispanic votes, Dems gain in Appalachia.

Nice, safe bets

Well, the first bet was right.

Interesting thread.

I think we've now reached the last stage of a political realignment that began in the 1960s.  First, the Democrats became the party of civil rights for blacks, and in doing so, picked up the loyal support of blacks while alienating some erstwhile white supporters.

Next, the Democrats went further in alienating white working class voters -- the former bulwark of the party -- with their sharp turn to the left in the 1960s, both in domestic and foreign policy.

The next step was a Republican realignment in the mid-to-late 1970s, when conservatives rather than moderates took control of the party.  The nexus of the party shifted from the northeast to the south and the mountain west.

Then the Democrats moderated their economic stances in the 1990s sufficiently to attract the support of many who had declined to vote for them previously.  Clinton was instrumental in making it socially acceptable for people in more mature suburbs who were growing dissatisfied with the Republican nexus shift to the southern/western states to vote Democratic, and this solidified the Democratic hold in the northeast and west coast.

That brings us to where we are today -- an almost even split slightly favoring the Republicans under normal conditions.  Does anybody have an idea what the event will be that will knock the whole thing off dead center?

[Frodo]

Does anybody have an idea what the event will be that will knock the whole thing off dead center?

Republicans (somehow) gaining the life-long allegiance of Latinos and Asians (without alienating their largely white supporters) based on a shared optimism on attaining the American Dream of owning their own homes, running a small business, family values, and a deep attachment to the military.

[dazzleman]

Does anybody have an idea what the event will be that will knock the whole thing off dead center?

Republicans (somehow) gaining the life-long allegiance of Latinos and Asians (without alienating their largely white supporters) based on a shared optimism on attaining the American Dream of owning their own homes, running a small business, family values, and a deep attachment to the military.

Interesting.  I think the immigration issue complicates this, though many latinos are as against illegal immigration as many whites.

I actually don't think it will be that difficult to attract upwardly mobile latinos and asians without alienating whites, in the long run.  It would be much, much harder to do this with blacks, for a number of reasons.  Asians are not considered a 'problem' minority for the most part, and many upwardly mobile latinos tend to join up with, and blend into, the dominant white culture, from which the Republican party draws nearly all its support.

Another possibility is that Republicans lose some of their support, particularly in the south, if people voting for them based on cultural issues become more comfortable with the Democrats' position on economic issues.  This is a possibility, though the racial divide makes it difficult for the Democrats to pull off.

[12th Doctor]

There is not such thing as a "long term trend".  If one party is losing badly enough, they will simply adjust their possitions until they are acceptable to enough of the electorate again.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually the first was right, the second was only partly right

I made the mistake of assuming that the Democrats would actually have a check of which areas had done badly, economically, during W's first term...

Old, old thread though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

First person to make sense of that, wins a prize!

[Frodo]

Does anybody have an idea what the event will be that will knock the whole thing off dead center?

Here's another possible scenario:

President Bush manages to appoint yet another conservative justice to the Supreme Court with the retirement or death of Justice John Paul Stevens, creating a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court (plus the conservative swing Justice Anthony Kennedy).  This new court overturns Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, returning the issue to the states to decide as they see fit, as well as dealing a similar body-blow to gay marriage advocates seeking to have gay marriage legalized on a national level through the Supreme Court.