Talk Elections

The GOP is more libertarian, heavily pro-Latino, somewhat traditionalist

The Dems. are more populist, interventionist, and moderately progressive.

()

Random Republican landslide one year:

()

A 67% D state going blue? When is this, 2040?

Very bleak for Republicans until they educate the public about what we really believe.  Here's my map:
()

If the GOP goes the direction it should go, you will see them become more Libertarian, and more socially moderate while maintaining fiscal conservatism.

The Democrats will stay close to where they are now, and perhaps become more interventionist and progressive.

Romney/Ryan has educated the public. The public doesn't like it.[/hack]

Yeah, but they haven't done the type of comprehensive education that we need.  Republicans have to get people to reconsider some of their liberal views and prioritize economic issues.  Romney and Ryan may have educated the public, but they haven't fundamentally changed the system or the electoral map in the way that Clinton did for the Democrats and Republicans need to do now.

My predictions for 20-30 years from now:

The Democrats will continue moving rightward.  Politicians now who are moderate Republicans but would definitely not be Democrat by today's standards, those with the same views at that time will be the norm in the Democratic Party.  They'll still have progressive Kucinich/Sanders types, but they'll remain more few and far between.  The more right leaning wing of the party will be even more conservative, but not to the degree of the "moral majority" Rick Santorum types.

The Republicans - one of two things will happen.  Either they will have continued to split between more libertarian types and social conservatives, leading the party weakened as both sides make concessions, with the wishy-washiness of the party in general pushing independents toward the Democrats.  Or - a third party wealthy Ross Perot type who is both a social libertarian and economic conservative (but not to the degree of Gary Johnson or Ron Paul) will run, leading the Republican party fragmenting in different directions (like my first example, but far more severe) to try and prevent the movement behind that candidate from taking away potential Republican voters - effectively crushing the Republican party for a decade or so, if not more.

Either way - the Democrats, as a party, will fare far better.  However, liberals and progressives will certainly lose... really, the only winners being people who are currently moderate Republicans.  And the only way for true liberals and progressives to prevent this is start voting third party to force the Democrats to actually have to earn their vote rather than take it for granted.  But I seriously doubt that will happen on any meaningful level.

(Can someone give me the link to where to make maps?  I'd like to post one here.)

In a way, that's always kind of been the general direction of the country. More civil rights and liberties, but more relative deprivation.

  Think of how society is diferrent between 1967 and 2012.
In 1967, the economy was a lot less cut-throat. It was easier to get reliable insurance and a job that gave you at least an even return on your investment. Hard work was enough back then. Now, those who provide you a livelyhood can just walk away. The only way to be as sure of your welfare as 50% of the population was in 1967,  is to be in that top 10% of people who have enough savings and credit to cover emergencies and put out their own shingle. Else, your life becomes a 5 or 10 year cycle of having a normal life and a $40000/year existence  and living like they do on Trailer Park Boys until you are too old for the hard knock life or you become big enough to retire or become your own guy.  

On the other hand, being gay was almost like being a drug user and having or providing abortion care was like be a drug dealer.  If you went out for the night and were a victim of a violent crime as a gay person, you would be on your own. Back then, someone accusing someone of responsibility of being gay wasn't a joke, it was a semi-serious thing. Heck, even just a couple of years ago it was a serious allegation if you were a service member. As a young person, if you made the mistake of having sex and there were any consequences that arose from it, you would more or less be alone or you would lose a lot of your freedom unless your family had the resources and you were  willing to take the risks to make a "shortcut" to get your life back on track.

So in say... 2057, I'd imagine that it will be even harder to make a living, but you will be more likely to be accepted as a person if it does not interfere with your ability to your own weight.

By the time I am an old man, I expect that the use of marijuana and some PEDs will become an accepted part of the way one gets through life..or at least grudgingly tolerated. Further, I think that people will have the means and acceptance to become whatever they want to become as long as becoming that, whatever it is, doesn't damage someone else's health or property. On the other hand, I do believe that the average person must always expect to be mobile and always live from gig to gig unless they have all that they need to survive without having any liability whatsoever.

I'm honestly a bit more optimistic. Though it may take a moderate like Cuomo losing an election, the Democratic Party will eventually shift towards social democracy. The era of conservatism and deregulation really didn't start until 1980, and like the Gilded Age, it may eventually end.

Why is Mississippi Democrat-held in this scenario?

The demographics are moving it towards minority-majority.

Based on the idea that the Democrats will move further rightward while Republicans become less neo-con (with the neo-con movement not being much of a factor in either party) and more libertarian, my best guess is the following for around the year 2030 (tossup states obviously in gray):

()

()

A Neo-'Rockefeller'-ish brand of Republicans based in the powder blue states lead the party. 
The Green States face Bankruptcy/Bond default/Austerity. 

The dems faced with perpetual defeat turn to A powerful southern based Bush-Clinton-esque political family to break up the southern block. 

()

The NE will always be in opposition to the Deep south and thus eventually realigns.
This re-balances the parties 269-269 

Scenario A:  Romney wins, balances the budget with significant cuts to social services, entitlements, etc.  Republicans win back the libertarian suburbs for good.  Democrats have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unite the urban and rural poor in opposition to Romney's cuts.  Abortion and gay marriage cease to be major issues in campaigns.  Polarization declines and there are many more potential swing states:

()

Scenario B:  Obama wins and gets credit for balancing the budget and the blame for the cuts necessary to achieve this.  Democrats now control the suburbs but their urban margins decline and rural areas (outside of New England) gradually become as R as urban areas are D today.  Polarization continues to increase.  Most elections are fought exclusively in four large states:

()
 

Well, scenario A depends on a lot. Scenario B is a known value.

If October Romney is the Romney we elect, Scenario A will probably be true. If we elect March or April Romney, the next 4 to 8 years will be a repeat of the last 12.

 I think something like B is likely, even with a Romney win.

All of these threads are usually started by Republicans because they're embarrassed by the current state of their party and want it to change.

I honestly don't see significant changes in party platforms over the next 20 years though. If Romney loses, Republicans will blame the messenger rather than the message. If he wins, the far right message will have prevailed. Either way they have no reason to become more moderate or libertarian.

The Clintonian Dems are clearly positioning themselves for one last bite at the apple in 2016 with H. Clinton, Warner, Schweitzer, etc.  Whether they actually get the realignment or just ride off into the sunset depends on the tolerance of rural areas for Republican budgets.  This also has congressional implications because a lot of the 2010 gerrymanders would implode with any significant rural shift.   

Yeah, but if Romney loses, then it has no choice but to become more Libertarian.  Republicans can't afford to have anymore war mongers or social conservatives deluting the party's grass roots.

Something like this, the elections slowly realigns back to pre 1924 Calvin Coolidge election.

()

If the south flips to the Dems, I assume that the social conservatives are voting for the Dems as well. Who would you have going to the GOP? Soccer moms, Middle Class minorities, who?

Libertarian is very much in opposition to traditionalist and pro-Latino, Simfan.

Most Republican voters viewed Romney as a Massachusetts moderate and were initially unsatisfied with his nomination. A majority never supported him in the primary. His staunch conservative opponents just sucked as candidates and were too fractured. So no, they won't necessarily become more libertarian/moderate if/when Romney loses. They'll likely dig in even more.

Do you really think Republican voters will blame themselves and their ideology for their loss? That goes against the #1 rule of conservatives - never accept responsibility for anything and always play the victim and blame everything else. They'll say their candidate wasn't a true conservative like always.

The bigots and lunatics in your party aren't going away for awhile. Deal with it.

Assuming that Obama is re-elected, for the Republicans to move to the center they probably need to lose election after election for things to change significantly.

Taking a guess:

Rand Paul manages to get nominated in 2016/2020 and goes down in flames while changing the conservative movement in a Goldwateresque fashion. This starts a realignment in the 2020's with lower income, more religious, blacks, and low income Hispanic vote Democrat while the wealthier, secular types vote Republican. Asians in this situation are hardcore Republicans

Most Asians are leaning democratic.  They come from a background where authoritarianism is the norm.  Most Asians are also socially liberal or open to liberal ideas.  They also gravitate towards democrats for immigration issues.  For Democrats is perceived as the parties of the immigrants.  So I don't see Asians flocking to Republicans in the foreseeable future.

With the Republicans turning into Democrate-lite, with no true fiscal conservatives, and no true social conservatives, all that's left in the Republicans are the so called "neo-cons" interventionists and RINOs, I think it will go the way of the Whig party and another new party can rise up to take it's place.

If the fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and non-interventionist and libertarians can form an alliance, it can be a great force to be reckoned with and definitely challenge the progressive-social liberal-statists dominance.

Some tea partiers, so-cons, anti-war democrats, and Ron Paul type would not be even remotely big enough to make a winning coalition. I say this as someone who would love for that to happen... it ain't.

Plus you'd have the issue of this group being so fractious. How do you get Dennis Kucinich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul to agree on a cohesive platform?