|
computer parts posted:What are the notable realignments prior to the 1960s? The first party system was the Federalists and anti-Federalists. This was brought down by Jackson into the antebellum second party system. The third party system went from Lincoln through the industrial era until immigration exploded and shifted demographics to the Progressive era and fourth party system. The fifth was the New Deal and the sixth and most recent shifted the South around after the Civil Rights Act. Like Nonsense said, we're overdue for a realignment and people have been trying to explain why. My theory is that both parties have become so good at marketing that they have locked down demographics and people are much less willing to switch parties or split tickets. Slow demographic change makes another realignment an inevitability, but it's been fifty years.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Obama was the beginning, and people refuse to believe Obama will end up on either monuments or money. He's that important, lol at presentists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Firebert posted:I'm curious if Julian Castro being tapped for VP would help or hinder his future political ambitions. A Dem president being elected for 16+ years seems hard to imagine and I can't recall anyone using the VP spot to vault into anything other than the presidency. He might be able to challenge Cruz for his seat in 2018. His twin brother is currently in the House and would be the Castro brother to run for Cruz's seat. Julian is executive, Joaquin is legislative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:The first party system was the Federalists and anti-Federalists. This was brought down by Jackson into the antebellum second party system. The third party system went from Lincoln through the industrial era until immigration exploded and shifted demographics to the Progressive era and fourth party system. The fifth was the New Deal and the sixth and most recent shifted the South around after the Civil Rights Act. Those first two aren't really realignments so much as dissolutions entirely. You'll have to be more specific how the third and fourth party (and fifth) systems were significantly different. For example, the Progressive Era was highlighted by Republicans initially but the most pro-business people in the 1920s were themselves Republicans as well. It's not nearly to the same degree as what we see today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Those first two aren't really realignments so much as dissolutions entirely. You'll have to be more specific how the third and fourth party (and fifth) systems were significantly different. For example, the Progressive Era was highlighted by Republicans initially but the most pro-business people in the 1920s were themselves Republicans as well. It's not nearly to the same degree as what we see today. You think that Radical Republicans and New Deal Democrats were part of the same party system? 1861-1964 is probably the most tumultuous century in the history of the country. This period was characterized by the shift of the black vote and the emergence of the non-British immigrant bloc. vvv so you're saying that a party realignment happened. k i say swears online fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:You think that Radical Republicans and New Deal Democrats were part of the same party system? 1861-1964 is probably the most tumultuous century in the history of the country. No, but I do think the Radical Republicans ended around the time Reconstruction did and didn't continue "through the industrial era".
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Firebert posted:I'm curious if Julian Castro being tapped for VP would help or hinder his future political ambitions. A Dem president being elected for 16+ years seems hard to imagine and I can't recall anyone using the VP spot to vault into anything other than the presidency. He might be able to challenge Cruz for his seat in 2018. Normally in these circumstances, losing the White House 4 times in a row would lead a party to reform, break up, or re-align. We saw the Republicans do basically that under Nixon (Southern Strategy) and the Democrats do that under Bill Clinton (Third Way). In a way, it would be the reverse of 1968 - 1992 when Democrats regularly held Congress but only got Carter elected in the aftermath of Watergate until Bill Clinton led the party towards the center or helped it better relate to everyday people or whatever (depending on your politics you'll have a different view of that era). So in theory it's possible that with efforts to mimic the Nixon/Reagan reforms having failed 2-3 times in a row, some Republican will run in 2024 as their Clinton-equivalent: a charismatic figure who drops the edgy stuff popular with the base but not the general public (abortion bans), and suggests something like small steps to ameliorate income inequality (vs the Dem's larger steps, or perceived larger steps). Another major factor that cuts against parties holding the Presidency for a while is blame. At this stage, it's tougher and tougher for Barack Obama to say "well that was Bush's fault" or "it was like that when I got here" (even when it was blatantly Bush's fault), and Hillary won't be able to do that at all. So by the time 2024 rolls around, anything people are unhappy about in the government or economy or whatever will probably be seen as the Democrats' fault. Hillary could hit that this cycle if there's a 2016 recession or something. That said, to me the difference with 2024 to me would be the Tea Party Congress. If Republicans win the off-year elections and keep holding Congress and Governorships, then (a) there will be less impetus within the party for dramatic reform, and (b) there's a way for Obama/Hillary to keep blaming Republicans for stuff (not sure how effective that is though). If Ted Cruz is the 2024 Republican nominee and the economy is decent at the moment, Castro wouldn't be in a bad spot in 2024 - not a prohibitive favorite or even a favorite, but still having a decent shot at winning. If some sort of mythical moderate Republican with charisma is the opponent and the economy is lackluster, then Castro would be in real trouble. Of course, it's worth pointing out that a Dem isn't going to stand a chance in a state-wide race in Texas for a few years yet. Like if he's not the VP, it's not like there are really attractive races for him in Texas - it'll be 2024 before a Democrat has a real good shot at running Statewide in Texas anyhow. Someone like a Deval Patrick or Cory Booker would be giving up running for Senate or Governor in a blue state to be VP, but Castro wouldn't be. In that sense, it can't really hurt his career because he's already at his realistic ceiling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What are the notable realignments prior to the 1960s? 1896 McKinley 1860 Lincoln 1828 Jackson 1968 Nixon/Reagan Southern Strategy 2006/08 Obama Coalition
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
2006 Joementum 2008 Ron Paul ReLOVEution 2010 2nd Contract with America 2012 Duck Dynasty Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:So what is general consensus in this thread on who will be the GOP nominee (granted a lot could happen prior to nomination) Jeb is loving up so much, I almost believe he will be the nominee, failing upwards, and all that. I'm still big on dark-dimwitted horse Scott Walker Nonsense fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
So what is general consensus in this thread on who will be the GOP nominee (granted a lot could happen prior to nomination) I believe it will be Jeb Bush as nominee
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:This is one of those things that confuses me. A lot of people are talking about how Bernie running and not getting the nomination is still good because it pushes Hilary left, but how does it actually do that? It might make Hillary's rhetoric more left, but how in any way does it force her actual policy and implementation leftward? We've already seen that a candidate can have plenty of good rhetoric about abolishing the corrupt status quo of Wall Street and single payer for all and not even pretend to attempt those things when they actually get into office (Obama). What actually makes Hilary do it? Certainly not promises she made on the campaign trail just to secure the nomination. It's pure fantasy that Hillary's rhetoric is any indication of future intent. Lots of very gullible or very stupid democrats all put their Hillary-tinted glasses on hoping or believing otherwise. The partisans know it's bullshit but are too invested in Party Uber Alles to give a poo poo. It's worth noting that the sets of partisan, gullible and stupid democrats have an intersection that is not the empty set. All the talk about the Overton Window is partially correct, but it didn't seem to last long after Obama was sworn in, so I'm not sure it would take hold this time, either. Feather fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:So what is general consensus in this thread on who will be the GOP nominee (granted a lot could happen prior to nomination) Only the classiest, most successful candidate ever will emerge victorious. Uranium Phoenix posted:This is one of those things that confuses me. A lot of people are talking about how Bernie running and not getting the nomination is still good because it pushes Hilary left, but how does it actually do that? It might make Hillary's rhetoric more left, but how in any way does it force her actual policy and implementation leftward? We've already seen that a candidate can have plenty of good rhetoric about abolishing the corrupt status quo of Wall Street and single payer for all and not even pretend to attempt those things when they actually get into office (Obama). What actually makes Hilary do it? Certainly not promises she made on the campaign trail just to secure the nomination. Ostensibly the idea is that people engaged by Sanders will maintain their interest in the election and pressure Clinton to adopt some of his platform, but that's a laughably naive view. Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:So what is general consensus in this thread on who will be the GOP nominee (granted a lot could happen prior to nomination) I've noticed the left seems terrified of Rubio so I'm going with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Normally in these circumstances, losing the White House 4 times in a row would lead a party to reform, break up, or re-align. We saw the Republicans do basically that under Nixon (Southern Strategy) and the Democrats do that under Bill Clinton (Third Way).
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I've noticed the left seems terrified of Rubio so I'm going with that. The left doesn't view Rubio as a credible electoral threat. They're "terrified" of his far-right demi-facist radical ideology (same for all the other clowns in that car). Probably Jeb is the only credible electoral threat in that poo poo show this cycle, and since he's as dumb and incompetent as his big brother (or more so), from my perspective this presidential election is the democrats' to lose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The weird thing is that the Republicans haven't even started the process of trying to figure out why they keep losing Presidential election. Because it doesn't really matter since they're institutionally all but guaranteed the House for several more cycles and can still take the Senate in midterms, plus governorships and state legislatures. quote:There's no equivalent to the DLC or magazines like The New Republic or any efforts to change policy in any way What are you talking about? There's an entire media industry built around pushing the GOP further to the right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Feather posted:It's pure fantasy that Hillary's rhetoric is any indication of future intent. Lots of very gullible or very stupid democrats all put their Hillary-tinted glasses on hoping or believing otherwise. The partisans know it's bullshit but are too invested in Party Uber Alles to give a poo poo. All the talk about the Overton Window is partially correct, but it didn't seem to last long after Obama was sworn in, so I'm not sure it would take hold this time, either. To be fair, you seem like the dictionary definition of a Jilted Democrat. (Is that still a thing people use?) Again, I'm just being  here, but jaded idealism is no way to vote or run a diverse country. I and the adults in my life (including my parents who voted for Mondale fer chrissakes) have moved consistently to the left over the last decade. How Obama handled his divided base of support in 08 is pure opinion, the outcome was largely what was possible given the circumstances. People keep calling Obamacare a Republican plan (it wasn't) but even though it's insurance-company-friendly it includes protections that only a left-leaning party was ever going to put in place. The insurance industry was never going away at that moment in time. What we have now is worlds better than what we had before. I was calling members of congress to protect the Public Option and I'm angry it was removed but it was traded for another feature. Plus it will have its day in the sun again. Stop fighting the old fight, gear up for the next fight, and give cover to the only candidate that can start with the premise you most favor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Another major factor that cuts against parties holding the Presidency for a while is blame. At this stage, it's tougher and tougher for Barack Obama to say "well that was Bush's fault" or "it was like that when I got here" (even when it was blatantly Bush's fault), and Hillary won't be able to do that at all. So by the time 2024 rolls around, anything people are unhappy about in the government or economy or whatever will probably be seen as the Democrats' fault. But that's not true, because of the exact thing you cite: quote:That said, to me the difference with 2024 to me would be the Tea Party Congress. We have spent the last eight years hearing, yes, about The Evil Black Man In The White House, but we've also heard nothing but a long, continuous string of Congress being utterly incapable. That the folks in there now are historically the least effective, most childish people to ever hold the office. Blame it on Bush? Probably won't work. Blame it on Congress? Piece of cake, and reinforced on a daily basis by the continued inability for a party that holds both houses to pass basic legislation. Going into the next election, the Dems can get out of a huge amount of disssatisfaction simply by pointing out that 1) the GOP controls both houses of Congress and 2) Congress has been laughably dysfunctional for years. They're super easy to blame for everything. "We wanted to fix INSERT ISSUE HERE but Congress decided instead to try to repeal Obamacare more than fifty times."
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:If she does co-opt their economic positions, then Bernie will have accomplished exactly what I wanted him to--push Hillary left. http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/bernie-sanders-a-man-with-a-cause
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I've noticed the left seems terrified of Rubio so I'm going with that. I'd say the popular perception is being scared of Bush (because historical precedent), Walker (because on paper he seems like the next Ronald Reagan), Rubio (because he ticks the "young, Hispanic *and* Republican" checkmarks), and then the other grab bag of candidates. This doesn't mean they're an actual threat, it's just who people see as a threat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Though yeah, VP seems to be a dead end for anything except the Presidency. The last one to go back into office afterwards was Hubert Humphrey. Well there haven't really been that many examples in modern times either way, and I think a big factor is that a lot of the prior VPs were older. If you're coming out of the VP-ship at 50 you have time to move laterally (if you think you can't win Presidency), but if you're 60+ coming out of the VP-ship it's a now-or-never type of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'd say the popular perception is being scared of Bush (because historical precedent), Walker (because on paper he seems like the next Ronald Reagan), Rubio (because he ticks the "young, Hispanic *and* Republican" checkmarks), and then the other grab bag of candidates. The young minority ideologue vs crusty old white Senator. I'm sure Dems will be sleeping well at night.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Pretty sure the only time anyone on the "left" thinks of Rubio is as the punchline to a joke involving drinking from a tiny water bottle, usually while forwarding Andy Borowitz articles to each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:
I cover that in the following sentence: "there's a way for Obama/Hillary to keep blaming Republicans for stuff (not sure how effective that is though)". I'm somewhat skeptical that it'll be effective - it's easy to craft a message but does that message resonate?. I think the average voter (and for that matter many journalists) tend to assume that the President has more influence and control than he actually does. Sure, in the case of the shutdown, Obama was able to momentarily make Republicans slightly less popular, but it's not clear to me that blaming Republicans will be an electoral winner in 2024. FMguru posted:The weird thing is that the Republicans haven't even started the process of trying to figure out why they keep losing Presidential election. There's no equivalent to the DLC or magazines like The New Republic or any efforts to change policy in any way - at every level, the party is convinced that the 1980 Reagan playbook is still effective and that any losses they've suffered can be traced to combination of evil opponents (George Soros, ACORN, the crooked mainstream media, massive voter fraud, skewed polls, etc.) and insufficient dedication to True 1980-style Conservatism. Their sprawling 2016 candidate list is made up of people who are 100% doctrinaire Reaganauts (cut taxes, loosen regulation, cut social spending, etc.). The way I see it, they kind of have. The difference is that whereas you and I think that they either need their own Bill Clinton (to move them to a more palatable center) or another Nixon (to find a wedge-issue to realign them demographically), they've come to the conclusion that they need a new Reagan - someone who is a fierce advocate of their existing values in their most extreme form and who triumphs by selling their existing values to the public. The true believers on both sides routinely overestimate the public's level of support for their values - just as many of us here are convinced that America either supports our issues or would support them if packaged decently, hardcore Republicans believe that the only thing stopping Americans from embracing conservatism for all time is a failure to message it properly (or a conspiracy theory). In a sense, both sides are correct - when you distill either platform down to just basic core value stuff it's all Motherhood-and-Apple-Pie and relatively unobjectionable. Like nobody is going to say that "economic freedom" or "a moral society" are bad, but they object to policies like "abolish the FDA" and "give Christians the right to discriminate" that grow out of those core values. TheDisreputableDog posted:The young minority ideologue vs crusty old white Senator. Not really. Sooner or later the Republican candidate will open their mouth and it won't matter what the rest of him looks like. Either he'll stick to party line stuff that doesn't sell well in the general electorate or he'll moderate himself and the base won't turn up nearly as strong. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
quote:As the campaign progresses, it will be fascinating to see how far this effort succeeds. Already, Clinton has shifted her stance on immigration reform and the criminal-justice system. In two recent speeches, she pledged to extend President Obama’s initiatives aimed at undocumented workers and their families, and called for an end to mass incarceration. Good article. Bolded areas echo my own thoughts on the matter. I'll remain hopeful for now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I've noticed the left seems terrified of Rubio so I'm going with that. The left is not terrified by Rubio, you're just seeing what you want to see, possibly due to a debilitating brain injury earlier in life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:The young minority ideologue vs crusty old white Senator. If you assume that all non-whites are equal and only care if the candidate is non-white (note: not even of their race, just not white), then yeah I can see why that might be troubling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
 Is this how Clinton's gonna use Abedin?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
So apparently there's an economic summit going on in Florida for the candidates: http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/wftv-live-event-1/v7PNh/
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Going into the next election, the Dems can get out of a huge amount of disssatisfaction simply by pointing out that 1) the GOP controls both houses of Congress and 2) Congress has been laughably dysfunctional for years. They're super easy to blame for everything. "We wanted to fix INSERT ISSUE HERE but Congress decided instead to try to repeal Obamacare more than fifty times." We're just going to co-opt the left's tactic and blame everything on the "obstructionist" Executive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If you assume that all non-whites are equal and only care if the candidate is non-white (note: not even of their race, just not white), then yeah I can see why that might be troubling. I mean all we really need is a small percentage of non-white likely voters to sit out and we're golden. So not necessarily like "cool, I'll vote for Rubio" but "ugh both choices seem gross I'm going to get my car detailed on my lunch break instead".
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I mean all we really need is a small percentage of non-white likely voters to sit out and we're golden. So Hispanics disgust non-white voters now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The weird thing is that the Republicans haven't even started the process of trying to figure out why they keep losing Presidential election. There's no equivalent to the DLC or magazines like The New Republic or any efforts to change policy in any way - at every level, the party is convinced that the 1980 Reagan playbook is still effective and that any losses they've suffered can be traced to combination of evil opponents (George Soros, ACORN, the crooked mainstream media, massive voter fraud, skewed polls, etc.) and insufficient dedication to True 1980-style Conservatism. Their sprawling 2016 candidate list is made up of people who are 100% doctrinaire Reaganauts (cut taxes, loosen regulation, cut social spending, etc.). They created that "autopsy report" after the election loss in 2012 that actually had some decent suggestions, they just never made even the slightest attempt to implement them. I think they have some idea what they would need to do, they just don't want to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I've noticed the left seems terrified of Rubio so I'm going with that. The "left" isn't terrified, but yes, I think you're correct that the democrats are concerned regarding that particular demographic/geographic combination. It basically locks down Florida for the republicans and has the potential to secure some number of latino voters. On the other hand, Rubio does have plenty of weaknesses to exploit (inexperience, dependency on a benefactor, looks too young, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Woah, slow down Scotty. Between this and the circus peanuts I'm not sure I can handle the thrills of your campaign. Classic winner material, the Instagram-style food shot on Twitter. That will REALLY get the electorate's blood going!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:2006 Joementum
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:The way I see it, they kind of have. The difference is that whereas you and I think that they either need their own Bill Clinton (to move them to a more palatable center) or another Nixon (to find a wedge-issue to realign them demographically), they've come to the conclusion that they need a new Reagan - someone who is a fierce advocate of their existing values in their most extreme form and who triumphs by selling their existing values to the public. The true believers on both sides routinely overestimate the public's level of support for their values - just as many of us here are convinced that America either supports our issues or would support them if packaged decently, hardcore Republicans believe that the only thing stopping Americans from embracing conservatism for all time is a failure to message it properly (or a conspiracy theory). In a sense, both sides are correct - when you distill either platform down to just basic core value stuff it's all Motherhood-and-Apple-Pie and relatively unobjectionable. Like nobody is going to say that "economic freedom" or "a moral society" are bad, but they object to policies like "abolish the FDA" and "give Christians the right to discriminate" that grow out of those core values.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Their sprawling 2016 candidate list is made up of people who are 100% doctrinaire Reaganauts (cut taxes, loosen regulation, cut social spending, etc.). It's funny because even Rand Paul, the most "out there" of the candidates, is doctrinaire Reagan in that sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
The Reagan movement was basically built on "no, gently caress adapting to change god damnit this is AMERICA and change would be admitting we're wrong" so it would follow that the party would be incredibly resistant to admitting flaws, let alone fixing them. It's all just poo poo about messaging, which is literally "LET ME PUT IT IN TERMS YOU (BLACKS/WOMEN/ETC) CAN UNDEESTAND..." on a party platform level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:They created that "autopsy report" after the election loss in 2012 that actually had some decent suggestions, they just never made even the slightest attempt to implement them. I think they have some idea what they would need to do, they just don't want to do it. The thing that gets me is how much since 2008 the GOP has focused in on its messaging, rather than the message itself. Time and again we hear GOP figures going on about how they need to retool how they communicate their vision to the parts of the electorate that don't vote for them, rather than spending much, if any, time examining if that vision actually holds any real appeal for those outside their eroding base. Vox Nihili posted:The "left" isn't terrified, but yes, I think you're correct that the democrats are concerned regarding that particular demographic/geographic combination. It basically locks down Florida for the republicans and has the potential to secure some number of latino voters. On the other hand, Rubio does have plenty of weaknesses to exploit (inexperience, dependency on a benefactor, looks too young, etc.) I'm not convinced Rubio actually is likely to move a significant percentage of the latino vote, both as he reeks of tokenism only somewhat less than figures like Carson and Fiona, and also as the son of Cuban ex-pats I don't know how closely anyone other than the Cuban ex-pat subset will identify with him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:21
|
|