Talk Elections

After checking my crystal ball, some pigeon entrails, my ouija  board, and my tarot cards, channeling both The Amazing Criswell and Orson Wells, and speaking to the Delphic Oracle, John Titor, the time traveler, and Trixie, who wears a halter top in January and stands at the corner of Broad and Poplar Streets in North Philadelphia, I'm prepared to make to vague, completely irrational predictions that will take months and years to be proven correct, if in fact they are:

1.  In 2008, a Republican will be elected President of the United States.

2.  By 2016, the US will be beginning or in the midst of, a political re-alignment.

You read it here first (or did you?).

What sort of re-alignment?

Political.   I was hungry and ate the pigeon before I got all the details.

Bah J.J. Bah.

It's a roundabout way of saying, I have a gut feeling that politics will change dramatically in the next decade, that the 2010's will look like the 1980's or 1930's, but not this year.

Interesting.

So we will finally have three parties in the US:
The Greens
The Democrats
The Social Democrats

Good call    ;)

I think it will be something dramatic, but I don't know what.  A few possibilities:

1.  An end to "racial" politics. (Good)
2.  A more authoritarian culture.  (Probably bad)
3.  Less religion in politics. (Good)
4.  More religion in politics. (Bad)
5.  A consensus on environmental issues. (Probably good)
6.  An end to "class warfare" politics. (Good)
7.  Division into class politics.  (Bad)

I don't know, but these are options.

I have a advantage over most posters here; I'm old.  It gives me only a slight advantage, but I was around for the Reagan Re-alignment and was interested in politics then.

In July 1984, at the end of junior year in college, I had a class on American presidential elections; my class was assigned for the midterm to write a paper on if there was a political re-alignment.  After turning it in, our professor announced that he did not think there was a re-alignment.  In November 1984, after the election, he announced that he now believed that there was a re-alignment.


On July 22, 1984, I submitted a paper entitled Conservative Re-Alignment In America.

I concluded that we were completing a re-alignment and made four predictions:

1.  The re-alignment will take American politics in a conservative, though not necessarily Republican direction. (I would argue that WJC was more conservative than any president from 1961 to 1980.)

2.  The Yuppie will emerge as an important political group.

3.  Policy, especially economic policy, will be conservative.

4.  The parties will continue to lose influence.

I would argue that all four conclusions were correct (though you could argue that the parties didn't get too much weaker) and that those things pretty much explained American politics from 1980 until today. 

I'm suggesting that this pattern will be changing, perhaps as early as the next presidential election cycle (2012), probably no later than the cycle after that (2016).  I may not like it, but I think it is coming.

Well... I think that's not mind-boggling.

It's about time for another re-alignment anyway.

Reasonable.  I would agree that the parties have not become stronger, rather the country has become more polarized, and that polarization has fallen along party lines, not necessarily strengthening the parties (or something like that).

When are you going to know for sure, so I can plan ahead.

If it's anything like like the last two, start looking at the off year elections.  My theory of a re-alignment period is that it takes 6 years.  In 1978, the Republicans scored some solid gains, and the newly elected Democrats elected were much more conservative.  That's the first sign. 

The second will be a radically different president and usually an electoral blowout.  Think 1932 or 1980.

I don't disagree, but I am curious as to why 2016, as opposed to 2012. Both McCain and Clinton could fit the role as the tail end of the current cycle of politics. Both Hoover and Carter were 1-term presidents before the respective realignments.

A second hypothesis would consider your former professor's view of current reality; he didn't see a realignment while it was happening. What if Obama is the nominee and sweeps in with an unusually large electoral vote this fall? Reagan was not expected to achieve the margin he did get in 1980. And 2006 can be looked at as a significant switch in Congress. Obama certainly has the big picture rhetoric one associates with a new political alignment, though it is premature to say if he would govern in a way that matches the words.

I think the House is less Democratic today than it was even after the 1978-84 re-alignment, so I'm not seeing a major change.

Another point is policy.  The Republicans, and the old bole weevil Democrats, made some massive changes, including a real reduction in tax rates and indexing.  Some of these, Kemp-Roth for example, were proposed in the 1979-81 period.  We've seen no real proposals from the Democrats in Congress; they seem to be adrift.


I need not remind you that Reagan lost in 1976, the first time he put forth the "big picture rhetoric."

I've got admit, some of this is gut reaction, but I think Clinton will be the nominee.  This isn't Obama's year, but he will have one, or two.

Keep in mind that I see re-alignments as being something other than a "short sharp shock," but as a period of change lasting about six years; I don't think we've yet started that period, but we are getting closer by the minute.  2016 is "in the midst of a re-alignment," which means it could begin as early 2010.  I just don't think it's starting in 2008.

Wasn't there also a period of transition before each realignment?  Though 1984 may have been the election marking a realignment in which conservatism became a dominant philosophy and socio-political force, it can be argued that the preceding sixteen years from 1968 to 1984 was a period of transition as the old New Deal coalition disintegrated and liberalism became discredited. 

Similarly, 2008 could be serving the same negative role that 1968 did, marking the beginning of the end of the Reagan coalition and the discrediting of conservatism as a political philosophy, and the beginning of another period of transition before another political philosophy (whatever it may be, and whatever it may be called) arises as the dominant socio-political force in this country. 

In 1976 Carter, barely, re-assembled the New Deal coalition.  There was also no real change in  Congress, though two temporary blips in 1946 and 1952, which were reversed two years later.  It was marked by the influx of new voters, African Americans, which by 1984 were the most solidly Democratic component.

I would also note that many of the ideologies of New Deal realignment were incorporated from the Progressives and the Socialists.  IIRC, the Socialists said that they were no longer needed,  because Roosevelt had done what they wanted.

I would argue that every POTUS from FD Roosevelt to Carter (yes, even Nixon) was more liberal than every POTUS from Reagan through GW Bush (yes, even WJ Clinton).

You certainly raise an interesting point about realignments; it's more about the culture and the views of the two parties themselves rather than one party becoming dominant. We may be seeing the beginnings of a progressive realignment with the Republicans nominating McCain, who it could be argued is the most liberal Republican nominee since Ford. Realignments result in both parties moving in one direction, such that the partisan balance doesn't necessarily change, but yet one side's arguments pretty much become accepted as true and both sides evolve to the new climate.

Other evidence of a progressive realignment could be the emerging consensus on the acceptance of global warming/climate change and for the need for alternative energy sources to replace petroleum, growing favorability towards national health care and increased taxes for the wealthy, increasing skepticism towards unrestricted free trade, etc. Also one could cite increasing acceptance/tolerance of homosexuals and a trend towards more support for gay marriage and/or civil unions, though that's a more long term trend.

I do think it is cultural, absolutely.  I would argue that, mainstream, homosexuality and drug use were more accepted in the 1970's than in the 1980's and possibly even today.  I can give you one example.  Johnny Carson in the late 1970's very early 1980's would often make jobes about the band smoking pot.  After the mid-1980's he didn't and on reruns the jokes were censored.  That's just a small detail, but it is indicative.

As to McCain being more liberal, I would call him as conservative as RJ Dole or GHW Bush, but clearly, he's more than a few steps to the right of Nixon or Ford. 


I think a lot of things are probably not going to go in that direction, but the environment is one where there may be an emerging consensus.  A broader acceptance of personal relationships may be one.

I don't know what will happen, but I expect changes (including some I probably will not like).  I actually think that we could go into a much more restrictive society or a more divided one.

I am suggesting that we watch for these changes.  I don't think we'll being to see them in this cycle, but in the next one, we might.  Muon might be right, it could have started and even the nomination of Obama, on the ticket, may be a sign.  I don't think that will happen, this time.  That part of my guess we'll be able to see by November.

The two ideas you gave us seems to me, at least, that there are two real possibilities-

- A new progressive era of class politics and victorian culture

-A return to the Great Society era of the 50s and 60s

I sincerely doubt THAT is ever going to happen.  :P

What is being hinted at when "authoritarian culture" is spoken of?

Nothing is being "hinted at."  I'm saying that it is a possibility to see an erosion of individual rights and a more pervasive federal government.

...such as...

It's too early to tell, but it is possible.

So, just "big government" in general....with the uncertainities being on social issues. Heck, social issues might not change at all... just economic ones.

AW, I listed a series of "might be" options.  You asked about one.  I'm saying, watch for major changes.  I can see something coming, but I don't know what.

Sounds reasonable. But if the country pushes further right, would that count as a realignment?

Countries don't necessarily just move in a left-right fashion.  The country may move right in some areas and left in some others, with consensus being reached on certain issues at the same time.  Complicated stuff.

Well then.... What do you see personally? You can just defer to J.J. on this....eating his sacrifices....shameful.

Do we even know what to look for?

For example, 2008 could be this country's new progressive emergence in the dems win or the final triumph of militarism/neo-conservatism with the final election of John McCain. Basically, the entire 2002-2008 realignment could just be towards expansionism.

In general, a re-alignment produces changes in:

1.  Electoral behavior (who votes for whom).

2.  Electioneering tactics (how a campaign is run). 

3.  Candidate recruitment (who runs).

4.  Elite coalition behavior (who sides with whom).

5.  Formulation of public policy (after the election, what difference does it make).

Now, I would argue that there were changes in all of these after the 1978-84 realignment.

How these changes will work after the next re-alignment, I don't know.

Even in 1984, I did not expect everything that we saw in the post 1984 political world.

1.  Yes.

2.  No.

3.  No.

4.  No.

5.  Somewhat, but also in terms of policy.

Ah, but think of the clothes!  I'm really looking forward to my monacle and mutton chops.

And the music!  "I am the Captain of the Pinafore..."

Bow, Bow, ye lower middle classes.  Bow, bow, ye tradesman, bow ye masses.

Every heart and every hand ... welcomes thee to fairyland. I did so enjoy designing lights back in '79 for the Peer and the Peri.

I would be completely fine with a political reallingment of some sort. I think these past 30 years or so have done much to hurt and weaken America, its time we enact some real reforms and stop thinking about the present and instead focus on the future.

could you elaborate,then?

I did.

The re-alignment will not take place in this cycle.

Well, JJ seems to be predicting even more of the right wing policies that have hurt and weakened america (or to be more precisely the vast majority of americans) over the last 30 years... not less.

I think it is true that the nonsense ideologies of the right, such as individual responsibility and the Horatio Alger myth, remain just as embedded in the upcoming generations.  On the 'social' side I'm not quite so sure that the hateful intolerance is increasing, but it is true that it is too optimistic to say it is going away.

One wonders, however, just how far a realignment can go against reason and evidence - most americans been getting poorer for 30 years.. will they continue to embrace the policies that made this occur for another 30?  It is possible.

Ultimately people are almost unbelievably controlled by their programming. 

Poor Opebo, the syphilis has finally affected his brain.

I've posted that I don't know what the changes will look like, only that I think there is a likelihood that there will be major changes.  Left, right, some entirely different direction, I don't know.

BTW, we no longer need Horatio Alger.  We have Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama.  :)

Is a further right-wing strengthening even a realignment? Perhaps it is just continuation of the current one.

Yes, and the changes may not fit the traditional left-wing/right-wing mold.  The McKinley re-alignment was not a party change, but there were difference.

If I can use an analogy:

I'm standing on a straight dirt road on a dry, relatively level, plain.  I look up the road, miles away and see a dust cloud, moving own the road.  It's probably not a dust devil, but what is it?

1.  A group of people walking and kicking up dust?

2.  A horse?  A horse with a rider? 

3. A vehicle?  A moped? A Segway?  An ATV?  A car?  A pickup truck?  A tractor trailer?  A motercycle?  A tank?  A horse and buggy?

4.  How many?  One?  Two dozen?

5.  How far?  Probably not within one or two miles, but maybe 5 or 10.

I can see that something is coming, but I don't know what.  I may like what is coming , but I may not either.

Just for the record, you might want to look at the works of V. O. Key regarding re-alignments.

Also, I probably won't be one after the next one. :)

V.O. Keys? Gotcha.

No, "Key," no "s" on the end.  Here is some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.O._Key,_Jr.

Race and class will become less important, but economic wellbeing will be critical and religion will be a major factor. Expect a huge tug-of-war between the reliious right and the secularist left. It'll be messy.

It could be, or, conversely, we could see a reduction in the importance of moral issues.  The collapse of Huckabee could be a harbinger of that.

....yeah. That's what I am thinking. Our coming generation of voters don't really care, either way, about abortion, gays or the choice of herbs you inhale. Things could go back to class warring (some indications are very clear this will be the case, some indications show that JJ's agrued point of a classless society are coming to fruition and the fact that people LOVE voting against their economic interest on both sides). Yes, Huckabee is collapsing...the fact that there is something the matter with Mississippi AND California...leaves race and maybe source of income as the next source of culture war. 

I don't know which way the country will be going, only that there will a massive change.  I don't expect it this year.

Didn't this already happen in 1988-1996?

No.

In 1988, a Republican was elected, and by 1996, there was a sea change in elite behavior and political coalitions in the parties. The New Deal coalition was finally dead below the Presidential level, and the GOP broke through in the South.

Arguably, that happened in 1978-84.

Yeah. Though, one could argue that 1988-1996 was the final death blow. What we will see here, between 2006 and say 2020 is whether the democratic party can reinvent itself or if we are heading to a Right-wing One-Party America, like antebellum America.

No.  The Democratic party was basically out of power from 1860 until 1930  (though there were  8 years of a Democratic President).  Long term, there will be a two party system.

You mean the Gilded Age. Though circumstances were much different than they were today. There was a Civil War and the Dems always had a place where they could get almost uniamious support. Those sort of circumstances simply don't exist. They have been out of power 40 years since 1968, with only 12 years of a democratic president and there hasn't been a civil war to alienate themselves from the majority of the American people or an overwhelingly strong democratic base that always allows them to take half a dozen state by 3:1 in a 20 point rout on presidential election days. You are right, we will have a two-party system. Whether its democrat and republic is an entirely different issue. For exampe, 1904. The dems won like 5 or 6 states by 65% or more of the vote yet were down by 20 nationally. If that were to happen today, you would only win D.C. and the only real battle ground would be M.A....I just don't see how the Democratic Party could survive with no die-hard base through 50 years of opposition.

a 35-65 race today

()

a 35-65 race 90 years ago.

()

Federalism just won't isolate a Democratic power out of power for 50-80 years like it used to from extinction causing political futility.

I think the Republican Party of today is very different than the GOP of 1976.  I would say the same thing of the Democratic Party.  I've looked what Ted Kennedy was advocating in 1980, and it was far to the left of the current Russian government, more to the left than any UK Labor Government.

And yes, the Republican Party of 1896 was very different than the Republican Party of 1904, as was the Democratic Party.

But that means that the Democrats can't run candidates that unacceptable.

All this means is that the Democrats can't justify themselves as a minority, regardless of the positions they advocate, though that is an interesting idea you have about parties moving. Perhaps that could
support my theory that the democratic party will become obsolete as the Republican Party can expand to quinch the thirst of change, giving the dems no platform.

I keep on saying, I do not know the changes only that I see the change coming.

So, anything could happen from here on out?

I can't tell at this point.  I'm saying it is something we should be looking for.

So IT COULD be anything.....at this point.

I have no idea what direction it is going to go.  We could see a liberal elected, and a huge reaction against him/her.  We could see a conservative elected and a new right wing pathway opened up.  The center could shift left or right.

Though a further shift to the right could be seen as simply the strengthening of the Reagan revolution, unless of course there is a more secular conservatism or a more compassionate conservatism.

I shall begin with a number of premises:

1. No policy foundation is perfect. No matter how perfect it may seem in theory, it won't work perfectly in practice and will always give rise to undesirable consequences.
2. Opposition to a policy foundation will form. This may be immediate, or it may be subsequent to the aforementioned undesirable consequences arising.
3. Those who oppose a particular policy foundation will always focus on the undesirable consequences in an attempt to sway public opinion to their way of thinking.
4. Eventually those who oppose the policy foundation will garner enough public support that there will be a strong shift away from the policy foundation to a new policy foundation that has been built upon by those who opposed the previous.
5. Just before the strong shift occurs, there may be a strong result in the opposite direction. This is because the opposition to the current policy foundation almost reaches the tipping point and those put forward a candidate who focuses on their alternative foundation. Because the opposition does not yet have enough support, they don't win, however the public that is completely satisfied with the status quo responds strongly to the opposition canddiate.

At the point where the public shifts from one policy foundation to another is the realignment. Because of the nature of elections, there will be a point at which the scales tip, but it may take a few years for them to tip completely (maybe three midterms?).

When this occurs, the party that dominated the previous policy foundation will do some soul searching and will be forced to re-invent itself with new candidates predominantly holding positions closer to where the lines are drawn with the realignment (for example, more conservative democrats or more liberal republicans).

I don't know if I have put that particularly clearly - I'm trying to say that opposition to a fundamental idea (not a single policy, but the foundation that links many policies) gradually rises. This might be military intervention (as opposed to the War in Iraq, which is a single policy only). It might be christian conservatism (as opposed to individual issues of abortion or gay marriage).

For this reason, I think any realignment would be more likely to be to the left rather than the right - although as JJ says, it could be leftish in some aspects and rightish in others.

Like JJ, I think a realignment is forming. When people are calling for change, and not just a new ideas, but a change in how things are actually done, it looks like people are ready to shift from one foundation to another. Also like JJ, I'm not sure what it's going to end up looking like, but I think it would probably typically be considered a shift to the left with more liberal democrats and more moderate republicans.

I'm not sure exactly what policies will be affected or what foundation specifically will be shifted, but my guess is that it's happening more in response to the War in Iraq being a crystalising issue showing perceived failures in a policy platform of overseas military intervention. I think that it will result in the US becoming somewhat more isolationist, a decrease in military spending, and a greater focus on US domestic issues such as health and education.

I think that this issue is the one that's most going to change, because the timing feels about right. Reagan increased military spending and there has been US intervention in Somalia and the Balkans before Iraq, Iraq is the tipping point where it hasn't been an immediate success in the eyes of the public and has been the issue that opponents of military intervention have been able to focus on (point 3 of my initial premises). As the 2006 mid-terms swung heavily against the Republicans as a backlash against the War in Iraq, I think that's the direction public opinion is heading.

Now... this is a long call to make, but I think that if this is the case, Indiana going to be a surprise state in November. It has over 100 casualties in Iraq (see http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/states/ ) and had seats changing hands in 2006. I'm still doing some analysis on swings in the state there over the past few elections, but I think that it's going to either be quite close - and maybe even go dem for the first time in goodness knows how long.

In 2004, Bush received 60% of the vote to Kerry's 39% (I haven't looked at Congress figures yet). In 2006, Republican Congressional candidates received 49.90% of the vote to the Democrat Congressional candidates' 48.74%. I know that I've compared two different races, but I will do the 2004 Congressional figures shortly and update those figures.

Uh, Indiana just does that from time to time.  Please pick another state for your comparison.

I wasn't offering Indiana as a proof of my theory, I was suggesting that at this election Indiana could yield a surprising result. Then again, it might not... I was just making the suggestion.

It would not necessarily be an extension, but more dramatic swing to the right.

Only on this point do I disagree.  I wouldn't call 1976 a strong shift to the left, when going back to 1936.  Same with the elections between 1868-1892.  I see that as almost a continuation with a break, in presidential elections, beginning with the first presidential elections of the re-alignment period.

I'm seeing parallels between 1976 and 2008, whomever eventually wins, even if they win by a landslide.  I think either Michelle, Bill, or Cindy should lean over to their respective spouses and say, "After us, the deluge," on election night.

I'm having a harder and harder time seeing dramatic shifts happening. I'm increasingly beginning to think that there is going to be an exhaustion or backlash against 'change' and against political participation in general. Political interest has been rising since 2000, based on three events: the 2000 election, 9/11, and the Iraq war.

Alongside the rise in political interest has been a concurrent rise in idealism. Barack Obama's candidacy is highly idealistic, and can only be seen as some sort of pinnacle. It is hard to see something more idealistic than Obama's campaign this spring yet at the same time still in touch with reality. Therefore, idealism has nowhere to go but down, and therefore political interest nowhere to go but down.

That does not mean a decrease in civic participation, but right now the zeitgeist is with being involved in politics, and when the zeitgeist is with you, that is when you beware.

This is an uprising. It will be put down or it will succed.

I actually added that point in about halfway through my post. I'm not as firm on that one as some of the other parts - which is why I put in the word "may" in the first sentence of that point.

I'm afraid I can't compare and contrast the mood today with the mood in 76/80 - I was born in 1980.

That is also a legitimate way to put it. :)

Look, all I am saying is that there seems to be a demand for 'change' and a rising time of participation and idealism. These periods of rising tide come in two types: a large substantive shift, or a false dawn.

The 1960s was a perfect example of false dawn. A generation that seemed to be so politically motivated ended up wasting itself on drugs and taking consumerism and cynicism to new heights, and voter participation to new lows. That was because the basis of the supposed shifts was weak.

The 1830s were a perfect example of a real substantive shift. Voter participation surged in 1828, and then continued to rise all the way through 1840, and it stayed high until the Civil War. During this time a new party system existed and a more democratic process occurred. There was something more substantive happening in 1828 that was not happening in 1960. And the way to see if an 'uprising' will succeed is look for that substance and see whether or not it is there.

I suppose it's a bit like comparing apples to spark plugs to speak of such radically different eras together, but what do you see in 1828 that is more substantive than in 1960?

That depends on what your standard of comparison is.


That would get into the causes and reasons behind the the rise and endurance of the second party system. We all know what there was in 1960: an inspiring new President, soaring rhetoric, surging youth interest in politics, though not necessarily through participation by traditional means. In the 1820s and 1830s there was an expanded franchise, growing literacy, and the first efforts to organize parties a sense approaching the modern.

That's a great way of putting it...but our nation is so much more different than it was in 1960 and 1828. There has to be a real dawn here. I mean, what could happen with two false dawns in a row. We are still reeling from Kent State, Vietnam and the collapse of the labor movement. What else could happen? - I will ask this-


WHAT'S THE WORST THAT CAN HAPPEN?

In the book, Freedomnomics, Dr John Lott writes on page 173:


By "costly" and "easy" regulations, he is referring to regulations that make it easier or harder to cast a vote (for example, requiring voters to provide ID before voting).

It may be that the thirst for change in the 1960s dried up with the election of Richard Nixon. Rather than motivating young liberals to vote, it may in fact have reinforced a perception that their vote didn't count. Perhaps people were discouraged by the electoral loss of the Democrat candidate.

If this is the case, claims of voter fraud in Florida and Ohio in the past two presidential elections may actually harm the cause of the Democrats, because it is telling people that their vote doesn't count - that it doesn't matter whether or not they vote because the 'establishment' will ensure that a particular candidate will win regardless. It is typically those on the losing side that are discouraged from voting.

This message, I think, would be particularly re-inforced if McCain wins against Obama in November. A Republican win would probably discourage young people from participating in elections over the next few years, maybe even the next decade. It would particularly discourage them if a Republican win was coupled with further allegations of vote fraud. Indeed, it's probably best to tighten voting controls outside of the electoral cycle so that it isn't necessarily linked to one candidate's victory or the other. 

...and if things get worse, could that lead to people acting "out of the system"?  i.e. Left-Wing Militias popping up?

Possibly, but I think it would be more likely to lead to apathy.

What could be the policy changes? Although, what it could possibly leave to is mass emmigration. It wouldn't be the only time this happened. Ever heard of the "lost generation"? Well, after Bryant's and Wilson's false dawns, people just started to leave. Many Americans settled in London and Paris....and some in the Soviet Union.

Democrat policy changes? Or voting reforms?

I think the Democrats might need to move slightly to the right on some economic issues. In Australia, people receive a tax deduction for having private health insurance - valued at 1/3rd of their premium. This makes health insurance more affordable. On top of this, there is public hospitals as well, for those who can't afford private.

Ideologically, Democrats might not like that because it's not fully public and Republicans might not like it because it's government spending, but I think it's probably a sensible middle ground that might be acceptable to many Americans. Likewise our university education system...

The university education system is subsidised to a certain extent but students still have to pay a certain amount to attend. Students can pay up-front if they wish, in which case they receive a further discounted rate. If they don't pay up-front, they incur a debt to the Government, which then must be declared when they find employment. In addition to deducting taxes from their wages, the employer also deducts a certain amount for their education debt (HECS) - which is paid back at a rate proportionate to their income (I'm not sure how much, but it's a certain percentage of their income. I could pull out my pay slip and work it out, but that's too much effort). You only pay it back if you earn over a certain amount and it's indexed at CPI - rather than at a particular interest rate.

Again, it's probably too much market intervention to appeal to the Republican Party, not sure what the Democrats would think of it... It certainly would help parents paying off education expenses for their kids, or students who might otherwise need to take out a student loan. Anyway, I think it's probably still a sensible middle ground that's not too extreme to scare off voters with threats of escalating tax bills, but still making things a bit easier on some people. Don't know what you think of those ideas, but could be something you can think about.

I could see, long term (2016-), a substantially more authoritarian government, with security as being the base.

In addition, groups of voters may simply not be in the habit of voting. Newly enfranchised groups in history have traditionally started out with lower turnout rates that only increased over time. This is a constant problem for younger voters, because younger voters are always "newly enfranchised" at age 18. This suggests that young people need to be "pushed" in the time before they become eligible to become interested in politics. The visit of a Presidential candidate to a high school, for example, or mock debates and elections; and finding other ways for teens to be involved instead of voting.

What I do like about the increased interest of today's younger people in politics and government- and not just from Obama but since 2000- is that there is essentially none of the radicalism and 'intellectual pilgrimmage' toward bankrupt totalitarian regimes that characterized and discredited the 60's movements.

But there are other low turnout groups too. Groups with lower than average turnout-- single people, poorer people, people with less knowledge about politics, new citizens, people in the south, people who haven't lived in one place for a long time-- tend to be the same types with a lesser stake in society, or who feel they have a lesser stake in society.

Undoubtedly, also, many voters may feel that politicians don't speak to them truthfully or with a straight attitude, or that politicians are only concerned about the wealthy and those with money.

The closest the US ever can to that was in the late 1960's and 1970's.

I know.....and it could happen again.

That was the product of a very liberal period; I don't know if this would lead to a very leberal period.

Though, there was conservative violence in that area, too....and it only died down as a result of conservative political power.

Time to bump.

One thing I would want to talk about in this thread are the risks of catacalysms in this time of change.

By 2025,
- Will WMDs be used?
- Will there be another war?
- Will there be a reccesion?
- Will there be a depression?
- Will life-saving science be abandonned?
- Will any other potentially world-changing sciences be abandonned?
- Will there be a large disaster that is much bigger than Katrina on the United States?

Another thing to consider-

What will society be by 2080-2150?

I mean, in today's understanding of political ideas-

Will America evolve into a far-left dystopia, like "Brave New World", will we have taken a center-left track, as seen on "Star-Trek". Or will we take a center-right approach that is found in "Starship Troopers" or a far-right approach found in "A Hand Maiden's Tale".

You could see two situations:

1.  Obama wins and is the next Jimmy Carter, only worse.  Within 5 years of today there is Christian conservative Congress abnd President.

2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

I think that sounds about right.

By 2025,
- Will WMDs be used?

Depends on the WMD.  Chemical warfare was used extensively in the Iran-Iraq War and I wouldn't be surprised to see it again.  Biological warfare is less likely.  I don't see the return of nuclear warfare on the horizon.

- Will there be another war?

Another American war or another war in general?  If the former, probably yes.  If the latter, definitely yes.

- Will there be a reccesion?

Of course.

- Will there be a depression?

A year ago I'd have said "certainly not."  Today, it's more like, "no, unless a lot of things go very wrong at the same time."

- Will life-saving science be abandoned?

No.

- Will any other potentially world-changing sciences be abandoned?

Don't know what you're referring to, but ideas are abandoned all the time.

- Will there be a large disaster that is much bigger than Katrina on the United States?

God forbid.

- Will WMDs be used?

Probambly at chemical weapons in a terrorist attack.

- Will there be another war?

Yes.

- Will there be a reccesion?

Yes.

- Will there be a depression?

Not like 1929, but I could see a return to the late 1970's type economy.

- Will life-saving science be abandoned?

No.

- Will any other potentially world-changing sciences be abandoned?

Ask Tesla.

- Will there be a large disaster that is much bigger than Katrina on the United States?

Yes, with number one being a possibility.

Ummmmmmmm I hate to be an asshole but lots of your predictions seem to be pretty shaky/partisan to me. Then again mine are too, hope/bias is on all sides, just saying.

By 2025,
- Will WMDs be used?
Nope, our security systems have evolved to the point where this is pretty possible. Terrorism is mostly on the run and its days are numbered especially if the American government becomes even a little popular in the Middle East
- Will there be another war?
More likely but I would see another war in the future being more of a humanitarian war and less of a war for other reasons. Also chances are it would be small.
- Will there be a reccesion?
Yes, almost for sure.
- Will there be a depression?
Possibly, I doubt it though.
- Will life-saving science be abandonned?
No, I see the world as a whole becoming more scientific.
- Will any other potentially world-changing sciences be abandonned?
No way, except possibly cloning and other "immoral" forms of science that could be applied to agriculture and end many food shortages.
- Will there be a large disaster that is much bigger than Katrina on the United States?
I think most definatley this will happen, though it will be a multi-pronged disaster.

Another thing to consider-

What will society be by 2080-2150?
Oh boy this is hard to predict. I think American society has two paths, one that is much more White, more nationalistic, and that leads to the downfall of American society with possible chaos erupting. It depends on events though but this is very possible.
Another possibility is that we become much more multicultural, liberal, a la European society and essentially become an extention of what I like to call the modern first world society, aka very secularist, very free market based but with cradle to grave benefits, high technology, but the main difference is we would very possibly be competing with them.

I'm not sure "partisan" would apply to my most recent answers.

I do think that if Republicans are elected that are seen as being outside of the "religious right," that will weaken the influence of the religious right.

I'd say the same about Black voters and the Democratic Party. 

No I meant with terrorism. I should have clarified, also I thought your assesment of Obama was a little partisan. I don't think it would be a great presidency but worse than Carter...

First, I don't see a terrorist attack as being based on what party is control.

Second, I'm looking at the House seat change from 1974-6 and 1980.  I think it was a high 40's shift, without redistricting and the GOP base was lower (about 144-7 seats).  In 2010, there will be redistricting, and probably an upswing in the opposition party control of the state legislatures.  If it's Obama, he'll have to overcome that.  In short, evens could make it much worse than Carter.

Now, Obama's job performance is unknowable, but I have to look at a candidate who made the "God and guns" comment and his lack of experience (Carter was more experienced as an administrator).  Unable to relate to the population and inexperienced are not promising.

A bad presidency by Obama could lead to many disillusioned Democrats switching to the GOP - particularly in the south.

Worse than Jimmy Carter? How is that possible?

If anything, the Dobsonites will support primary challenges in 2010 that will further bifurcate the GOP between the economic folks (default secularists) and the evangelicals.

That's probably right.

I am also thinking that if Obama does SOMETHING different and things don't get any worse, I think we could be on the way to a more progressive country. Basically, no one knows what will happen after or before November 5, 2008. I mean, if McCain wins, that could have the same effect of a bad Obama administration- people could simply become more dissillusioned with progressive politics and there could be massive reprocussions on the Left. Maybe the democratic party will go the way of the whigs. I mean, do you see a future for the Democratic Party if their platform is discredited?

I think this question is really based on how America will react to Fareed Zakaria's globalized world where all of the peoples of the Earth might more or less be equal by the second half of the twenty-first century. There are really two ways we can deal with-

- Join the world that we created and bask in the glory of a 500 year old project coming to fruition. This will mean a world a lot like the center-left countries of Britian, Japan and Germany (more or less), Czech Republic and the Netherlands. Basically, the United States joining a world based around a democratized free market society.

-Continue our current policies of trying to bask in the glory of the state of nature, by seeing the sole role of Government as to protect the state of nature. With this cycle in place, we will continue to place loyalty ahead of responsibility and basically become what the Soviet Union was in the 1980s or what the Roman Empire was in the early 400s. We will essentially be a relic of history trying to rule over a dying Empire based on glory, rather than the needs of whom it serves. We will become the Empire of Discontents and an Empire that is solely the creation and property of its various masters. The United States will simply be a collection of warlords vying for the most amount of territory and eventually, the forces of the outside world, feeling ever threatened by a large, aging empire, will come to feast on a dying carcass that has been weakened by corruption, war and demagoguery. By 2075, a time in which many of us may be still living our last days, the United States could simply be what the Soviet Union was by 1995, a semi-failed state that was hemmoraging and being dragging into the modern world through a wood chipper. Or it could be like the Roman Empire in the year 500 AD, basically a failed state in which much of its territory is now governed by non-state colonial interests from outside. I can see half the country being partitioned between various local governments, businesses and ethic minorities that have succeded the nation.

The odds on an Obama failure (due to lack of experience) are high.

There is also another problem.  Having a black president breaks down barriers, but it also removes a very powerful argument that that the country discriminates.  You could see a dismantling of race based affirmative action.  You could see a total end to affirmative action and, in future elections, the black electorate being totally taken for granted or candidates from both parties using the urban black electorate as scapegoats.  That is at least partly true with a successful Obama presidency.

Maybe if this was a different period, maybe you would be right. I think the entire black issue will depend on how his presidency goes or whether he even wins. I mean, if he loses, it will because most Americans are so pissed off at him that they are willing to live in Bush's America for four more years. Obama will have to  up royally to lose this election, and if he does, Black America could be blamed for creating a politician that was so close to the White House, yet so destructive to America. This would basically cause a "black lash" that could cause a total end to affirmative action AND possible re-segragation (I mean, black nationalists want it and the Supreme Court seems willing to grant it). I mean, if Barack Obama, the first black candidate, is so hated by the American People and so attached with this ethic identity, some of that hatred is going to fall to the black people, themselves.

However, if there is an Obama presidency, it may help with the integration of the black culture into American society. Sure, Obama is inexpierenced, but will this simply mean that he is more opened to be influenced by an age of which we even avoid speculating about?

No, for this reason.  The nomination of Obama will drive people that vote principally on race out of the Democratic Party.  For it to have the full effect that I've described, Obama will have to be elected and discredited.   


No, first, he has to understand the different culture.  He's failed at that (and if he loses, he'll have four years to understand it).

...and they haven't already. Economically, you are 20 years ahead, but socially, you are 40 years behind. ...and you don't think someone will be blamed for making the Republican Party invincible in the White House? ...and are you sure that Obama will ever want a re-match if he loses and you are even more sure that he understands American culture any less than any other president in modern American history, with the exception of Clinton or maybe Ford? I mean, you make all of these generalisations that create more questions than answers and have predicted Obama's downfall for two or three times now. Maybe the fourth (him losing) or fifth (him being discredited) will be the charm, right? ::)

Most likely not. Even countries hostile to the United States know that if they are implicated in helping terrorists release these weapons they basically cease to exist. Terrorists know that this is probably the one act that will turn most of the world, including the Muslim world, against them.


There are always wars.


Yeah, probably a three year economic downturn akin to the late 80s/early 90s recession or the late 70s.


No, unless a large section of the world financial community, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, World Bank, and the President screw up royally which is highly unlikely.


Uh...no. Especially with the growing baby boomer population, anything that delays aging, keeps people alive longer, and can make a huge profit from that will be researched vigorously.


No, when have we ever abandoned a science? When? I can't think of a single example since the Dark Ages where some sort of science has been abandoned. Some interesting projects have been abandoned, the XB-70 Mach 3 strategic bomber anyone?, but that was usually because there was no longer a need for those projects because better technologies became available.


My money would be on no but you can never tell with mother nature.

So, the world will keep rolling, but will probably go through a shift like it did in the 70s.

Yeah pretty much. The world is too interconnected now for a major war to start, it's financial system is too secure to fail as it did during the Great Depression, and there is no major catalist for any sort of revolutionary change on the horizon. There will be a slump, I'd say more late 80s than 70s but it's really just a matter of semantics, and then growth. I think you're to quick to assume that the future is all doom and gloom. I'm not saying its bright and cheery either, just that it will keep on moving along. The world will grow more multipolar, of course, but the US wont go all "rogue nation" on everybody, it's played the multipolar game before and will learn to do so again. It's status isn't going anywhere, it'll stay a major power, barring any incredibly crippling scenarios, for at least the next century or two. The international "club", so to speak, will grow larger but the basic structure will remain.

That's probably the way things will naturally work. Life sort of moves through the path of least resistance. The one thing I am concerned about is the idea that socially conservative policies may make the United States less competitive. No business or individual will want to live or stay in the United States if ; the healthcare system is inefficient, the infrastructure is bad, dangerous and unreliable, the police are oppressive and biomedical research, or any other research with metaphysical significance is over-regulated. Then again, no one will want to move here or stay here if it's too expensive, too hard to make a profit or there is too many people on the street making the average person uncomfortable. In our globalized world, individual countries may be assessed like individual states are today.

For example, one may want to live or do business in Texas because taxes, labor and housing are cheap. However, they may choose to live or work in New York if the conservative culture in Texas overregulates their business, makes the roads, insurance providers and schools unreliable and makes them uncomfortable. Then again, there could be countries that are a lot like Nevada, where it is uncomfortable to live, but a good place to do business or enjoy yourself or like Florida or Georgia, where the opposite might be true.

I don't think Obama, losing, will make the GOP "invincible," by a long shot. 

No, I've said that Obama doesn't understand working class white culture, not "American" culture.  I do think Bill Clinton has a better understanding of it than possibly most of the recent US presidents, possibly excepting Ronald Reagan.

I'm talking largely about trends over the next 8-12 years.  Of course I won't have details. 

Another issue that makes your prognostics weak is the idea that you expect the early 21st century to be like the late 20th.

No, I expect it potentially to be much different than the mid-20th Century.  But you seen not to have read Santayana.

I haven't. Is it like Ortega? Tell me about it. To tell you the truth, one should look at small, fast growing-trends than large and old trends.

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Actually, you are looking at fads, the political equivalent of Hula Hoops, Pet Rocks and Cabbage Patch Kids.

I'm not actually making too many predictions, except that a change is coming.  Obama, this time, is not the change.  Some examples are his sudden shift on positions to a more moderate stance.  The "new politics" isn't here as of yet.  I think we will see something very new, and very different, politically, between now and 2016.  I don't know what that change will look like, but it could end up taking the country in a more right wing direction (even to a point where I would, not changing any beliefs, be considered on the left of the GOP). 

In 1978-79, when I began forming my political views, I was considered far right.  I supported a fairly right wing candidate, George H. W. Bush.  By 1982-3, I was not right wing; I was moderate.  I hadn't changed, the country did.

On a more macro scale, in 1976, the person who would become arguably the most successful president of the second half of the 20th Century could not get his party's nomination, on the second try.

In 1928, the country rejected Al Smith, soundly, as the more liberal/progressive candidate.  In 1936 and 1940, he became a leader of the forces who opposed FDR for being too liberal.

There are shifts, but how they will go is beyond me at this point.

Well, besides the fact of what you think about the candidates in question, what could be farther right than what we have now? Have we ever been farther to the right in say- the past 70 or 80 years?


I mean, I am guessing we will probably return to the 60s and 70s if Obama or some succesor who takes up his cause is succesful and pushes the country back to the center-left....but what would happen if this country went any further right? Would that even be considered "change"?

I would say yes, prior to FDR.  You actually had citizens deported in the red scare.

[/quote]
I mean, I am guessing we will probably return to the 60s and 70s if Obama or some succesor who takes up his cause is succesful and pushes the country back to the center-left....but what would happen if this country went any further right? Would that even be considered "change"?

[/quote]

Believe me, the county could move substantially to the right.  It could have moved much further left even after the 1936 realignment.  Ted Kennedy was considered "main stream" and he was talking about nationalizing the oil companies in the 1970's. 

I think we could very easily see a rightward shift.  I'm actually hoping for a more libertarian shift.

Can you provide more examples of what you want and what could happen? I just don't see how this country could go further to the right. I mean, I guess a reasonable "liberal" like myself could get deported as well as most of the people on this forum...but seriously...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare

I would argue that this was far worse than anything we have today.

I know about the 1919-21 scare, but what kind of policies could we see today? You seem to be stating that the 2010s could be the 1920s, complete with eugenics, prohibition, mass deportations, scandals, and basically proto-fascism.

First, I'm not calling Democrat Woodrow Wilson a fascist.

I think we could see much limited personal rights, a willingness of the federal government to enter into Terri Schiavo type situations, greater police powers.  It isn't fascism, because we would have pluralism, but I wouldn't be too overjoyed about it either.

We could see something along the lines of genetic screening used in employment and criminal classification.

So, Gattica could become an issue, then?

What about other issues- are we just talking about creating a domestic vice version of the PATRIOT Act and handing over of social services to businesses?

...would this interference be also found in the establishment of Single-Payer Health Care and Higher Taxes?

I know of what you are talking about, but will there be a difference in all issues, some issues, specific issues and how much of a difference will it make? Perhaps you are talking about the fact the relative political balence of power will remain the same, but the Republican party's primary issues will be War, Race and Religion, instead of Taxes and Business.

Look, you are asking me for a reading of my crystal ball for a trend I expect to be 8-10 years away.  I think that this is one possibility.  I think the odds on it go up on it if McCain loses.

What's the other most likely possibility you see besides this?

The converse.  McCain wins and, in terms of the GOP, the more "theocratic" elements are discredited.  The role of government decreases.

What would this look like in detail? I've got a clear picture of the more statism scenario but not the other one.

I am thinking that he, a socially moderate (marginally in favor of secularism, civil liberties and civil rights) conservative, thinks that if McCain is a succesful politician and administrator, that the religious right's influence will decline and that the American political climate will shift to that of which is seen in the non-mormon west. This means that the country will probably continue its current conservative consensus, but probably deal with issues like "killing babies", cloning, public religious instruction, racial issues,  "homos" and "dope" in a more matter-of-fact, open to comprimise and objective manner. Basically, he thinks that the Post-McCain America will be one of a centrist social consensus that rests on top of our conservative economic consensus.

However, if McCain fu cks up, and becomes the next George H. W. Bush, we could see the unraveling of the current conservative consensus. What this could mean is that the U.S. becomes more like what Britian and Germany is today....socially and economically pragmatic.

I don't know where people are getting this idea of the US going social democratic from. Leftism is dying in the west and America was merely the first place the social democratic conensus broke. When it comes apart in Europe it'll be a far worse backlash than here in the United States. We merely got 2-3 decades of reaganite asshattery but Europe could at worst see fascist and theocratic revivalism but more realistically see current statist/internal security/PC-enforcing measures used to suppress liberals/seculars/leftists. This has deeper consequences besides a change in who holds the whip hand. America will be a different place but Europe will be VERY different.

What's causing these trends across the Euro-Atlantic world? Simple demographics. The native europeans are decreasingly tolerant of multiculturalism, Islam and their elites. We already see increasing paranoid backlashes from them. for the US it's simple, the aging of the most idealistic/utopian/leftist(I say leftist as in wannabe social dem) part of the population combined with largescale latin immigration changing the US from being a white protestant nation.

IMO, Europe will see far more political change than the US will. In the US we'll probably see more federalism/less government intervention in social issues from either left/right(catholic conservatives believe in traditional values but not in social engineering and the left is dying off) but more on economic issues(catholics(actual catholics not the current crop of white ethnic de facto liberal protestant) hold... differing beliefs on welfare than protestants combined with an increasing populist trend in the evangelical sections of the nation). Europe on the other hand changes much more socially and becomes much more authoritarian socially. Think J.J.'s far right scenario for the likely changes to happen in Europe combined with Boss Tweed's observation in the thread on american culture of mild white nationalism popping up.

So, the United States will basically become like Wyoming or Colorado...maybe with UHC. Social issues will probably be dealt wth pragmatically and taxes will be low.

While Europe will become a mixture of Utah and Gattica. ::)

Does this mean that our civilization is dying, changing or what? ...and if we are dying, will there be a reanasance?

No, you've missed it.

For probably the last 28 years, these statements have arguably been true.

Democrats:  We can only achieve national office with the solid support of urban Black voters.

Republicans:  We can only achieve national office with the solid support of the religious right.

In 2008, there is the possibly that the Democratic candidate will get that solid support and not win and the possibility that the Republican will win without that solid support.  If that happens, in 2012, any Democratic can say to urban Black voters, "You cannot deliver."  The Republican can say to the religious right, "I don't need you."  It forces both parties to move away from the extremes and move toward the center.  It ends both coalitions.

It really doesn't make a difference with the type of job McCain would do if elected.  He could be the next Reagan, and this change will still occur. 

Okay, now you are being more specific. What would these two new parties look like? Without you going into detail, I can see somewhere between Mark Pryor's and Bill Clinton's Democratic Party and Alan Simpson's and Bob Dole's Republican Party...or simply that the culture war will end in an uneasy truce.

You want what I see as likely coalitions in the long run after the transition completes in the next few decades?

Democrats become the party of the good government types-perotistas-gypsy moths-suburban fiscal cons/semilibertarians-centrists-blue dogs. Basically we have a mostly secular center-right democratic party. Socially it tends to be secular/states-rights/security conservative with a large amount of federalism on social issues. The culture of the party's base is quite plutocratic/elite/yuppie.

The GOP, as the final stage of it's evolution ends up a populist lefty christian democratic party. Think an economic agenda that's a mix of catholic corporatism/populism/pro-labor reforms. The social agenda is reformist, lefty social justice christianity. Think the unitarian, other liberal denominations and more liber. It's got liberal social policies but culturally this party is the party of the working class/populists.

I'm simply talking about what effect a McCain win might have on the two parties, i.e. the ending of the old coalitions.  What the new ones will look like requires a crystal ball.

So J.J. Any comments on the potential coalitions I see forming?

Only that it hasn't started yet.  I do not know what direction it will take, one that there is the very real possibility that both parties will no longer have the same coalition.

The fact that Huckabee was even considered shows the GOP's move towards populism plus the increasing power of blue dogs in the dems are IMO signs of it.

Actually, Huckabee would show precisely the opposite.  And the Blue dogs are all but dead in the Democratic Caucus.  They were much more powerful in the late '70's and early '80.

Though, if the urban vote doesn't work for the dems, I do see a shift of the democrats to suburban seculars and mainline protestants in the West and Midwest. Hell, I could see the GOP going after that vote, too if the fundies can be forgotten. This would mean that an economically conservative, socially center-left consensus could be met by both parties. Think of the politics of the 1950s.

I don't agree that this is what will result, but you could see the collapse of the extremist wings of both parties.

I wouldn't quite see that as a real change out of the Age of Reagan, though. I mean, just because social democrats had more power than day-by-day pragmatists by the 60s, didn't mean that the New Deal was over yet.

Perhaps the decline of the Blue Dogs within the Democrats could see their exodus to the Republicans, leading to a more populist Republican party. This increase in dominance of social conservatives could see the more socially moderate Republicans shifting to the Democrats - leading to a populist Republican party facing off against a more libertarian Democratic party?

That's a possibility....a bit generic though. We will see. Perhaps if Roe was finally done-in?

Democrats have been lurching to the right hence my predictions of them eventually ending up a secular moderate conservative party with a libertarian wing. Also, Roe V. Wade will never be done in and serious restrictions on abortion will never be enacted. The right isn't stupid and won't do anything to endanger it's ability to get out the vote.

I guessing we will know within a year from now, if McCain wins, whether the right will make irrelevant or stop the enforcement of Roe v. Wade. The republicans are only one vote away vote doing just this. That vote that is preventing this is 89 yeas old. I believe that he will retire next year due to a widened senate majority that in theory, will not allow the allowance of abortion bans. However, McCain's and the Sen. Leahy's behavior will give us a clue to what will happen. Will McCain yeild to the senate or will Leahy yield to the 40 year republican "mandate"? ...and even after that, will Kennedy finally be pursuaded by Roberts to let Roe go and how will the new nominee REALLY vote?   

Why would the right kill one of their get out the vote causes by banning/seriously restricting abortion?

Eliminating Roe v. Wade

1) Would be done by justices who have legitimate concerns about the Constitution and limited concerns about GOTV efforts.
2) Would be done by justices who oppose Roe v. Wade as a public litmus test against them so that Republicans appear effective.  McCain often promises to appoint justices in line with this thinking.
3) Would cause the issue to bombshell as every state legislature and maybe Congress considers to what extent to limit abortion.  It's not like overturning Roe v. Wade makes abortion illegal, it just makes it legislatively debatable.

Yes, but that will bring 5, 10 or even 20 years of political chaos to this country and only lord knows whether it will end in a bang or a whimper.

Eliminating Roe V. Wade would cause a social liberal backlash to the point where I'd be considered far right(as in how we'd see someone like Tancredo/Peroutka)..

I could actually see that, if McCain looses.

I think that a Obama loss is a victory for the center of both parties, very long term.

What would it mean if he wins...

Let's play the hand out

Scenario 1: McCain wins

Let's presume McCain wins and gets in his 2 justices plus a compliant dem congress. We're talking repeal of Roe V. Wade, continued strong FCC, etc. Removing Roe V. Wade removes the conservative base's single rallying point and energizes the left. We're talking a move to the left on social matters not seen since the 60s/progressive era with the trend against neoliberal/washington consensus economics still going on but not being spurred by this. Basically, things change to the point where in 2012 I have a bit of a hard time deciding who to vote for and in 2016 I vote down the line republican because the democrats were too socially left for me.

Scenario 2: Obama Wins

Obama wins and manages to move things slightly more in a moderate direction but his incompetence drives things off the rails leading to a backlash. The end result is a deadlock on social issues on the federal level, de-emphasizing morals/nanny state controls in favor of focusing on security concerns. We're talking 20s red scare level purges against muslims, mormons(the whole xenophobia plus percieved polygamy bit), elements of the far left(the blame america crowd, anarchists), greens, minority ethnic nationalists and some of the more strange lifestyle movements(the transgender movement is crushed to the point where it doesn't recover for a generation, the more outre elements of gay culture are repressed, hippies are repressed, goths/emos get repressed). Identity politics is savagely repressed.

Really?

So anybody who doesn't "Get with the fu cking program" get's deported or jailed? :P Oooohh...will there be eugenics? Look at my Olympics thread... if you are right, I'm going to save up on my money and get all of the advantages I can get lest I get jailed, deported, go unemployed or lose every thing. :P Gee...I need to go to bed.

I think it's the opposite.  McCain is elected, but with lesser support of the religious right.  He can pay less attention to them.


The Democratic party becomes the Black Person's and Liberal's Party, meaning that the Black Congressional Caucus is in control.  It becomes clear that to seek power in the Democratic party, you must appease these these groups.  It pulls the Democrats to the left, probably dooming it for the next realignment. 

So will McCain reverse Roe? and what if he does?

I doubt if McCain will be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Not quite. Think more the eisenhower administration minus jim crow and with significantly less sexism/homophobia/prudery with elements of Reagan's morning in america(more poppy/edgy pop culture) and the 20s red scare.

Regarding eugenics it gets complex. Incidently, the US already bans genetic discrimination and negative eugenics is seen as quite unPC these days. However, positive eugenics (as in paying people woh are smart/healthy/rich to have kids/giving them tax breaks) is coming in both scenarios.

I guess so...that doesn't seem too bad, except the Gattica thing.

I'm sure you Gamma types will find a productive place in society.

likewise, Mr. Delta Minus.

Me, definitely an Alpha.

Maybe an Alpha Minus Minus. :P Listen, I'm not worried about being marginalized, ok.

You spent a whole thread complaining about it.  ::)

It does, as someone with a congenital birth defect, offer some interesting possibilities.  I've realized in the future that some problems like mine might never exist.

I hope for that, too. I just hope they spend trying to fix people who already live instead of trying to replace them who come "fixed". Though, I do hope that any future children (and eventually grandchildren) will be born into a world that has already ensured them health.

I actually am more than a little worried about that.

Depends on how they do it. I mean, I could see people feeling that they are being forced to conform against their will, then again, it could offer a lot of hard-working people more oppurtunities.

No, at least some of my accomplishments are influenced by me being disabled.  Now an equal playing field is one thing, but you do lose your individuality, and a different outlook on life, if a disability just gets corrected.

Wouldn't that simply create a new expierence altogether?

Just time for a bump. 

Given all that has happened, do you stand strong to your earlier statements about the next election being a "deluge"?

Next two, yes.  I will say to whomever wins "After you, the deluge."

...and you still say that the main change will revolve around the change in fortunes of the religious right. You say that if Obama wins, the Religious Right may develop a national consensus around them and if McCain wins, they may lose much of their political power....perhaps even giving up their dominionistic/imperial ambitions.

No I didn't.  I looked at about 8 different possibilities and that was one.

Here is what I've really said:


The other thing I indicated would be that a McCain win would diminish the evangelical wing of the GOP.  It still will.  A loss, and in all probability, Palin becomes head (which is still better than Huckabee).

The more this election cycle goes on, the more I'm starting to see option #1.  Though not necessarily a "Christian conservative" Congress/President, but a sharp trend towards social authoritarianism and stronger economic controls being dicated by government.  You could kind of see it start after 9/11, frankly.

I could see a more libertarian bent.

Though, I do not share your optimism about Palin...maybe if Palin is forced to run in 2012 and loses...

Some of her things have been more consensual.  Now, I'm not saying anything about the direction of the re-alignment, just that we'll see it in the next two elections.  I already predicted that GOP would win, at a time when I wasn't sure I'd be voting for the GOP nominee or who either party nominee would be.

I don't mean to make this sound "braggadocio", but that's probably impossible.  :)

I've always had an excellent feel for the pulse of the country at-large and a pulse for places that I live in.  If I'm saying something is more likely than not to be occurring, it probably is.

I've made mistakes before, specifically about Hillary Clinton, but if the *caucus process* had not existed, something which I admittedly don't get, my prediction would have been accurate.

The only thing that makes me pause before being anywhere near 100% behind the prediction above is the concern that the longer the undecideds stay undecided, the more likely they are to break to the white candidate.  Or at least, that's what has happened historically, and those still undecided seem to fit the pattern of this type of voter more than not.

But whatever, even if McCain gets elected, this is probably where we're headed.

You make an assumption, if McCain is elected, a Republican will be elected in 2012.  I'm not too sure about that.

I never made that assumption.  In fact, I thought my statement implied the opposite.  But the result in terms the trend towards authoritarianism and stronger control will be the same.

No, but we might see a break between social libertarians and security libertarians.

...whatever that means.

Simple:   Conduct will be tolerated, but actions will be monitored.

That seems to be a bit broad...but are you trying to say that the theo-cons will lose ground to the neo-cons, at least on law enforcement policy?

I wouldn't use those titles.

Answer the question.

Come up with a different classification; those don't apply.

Ok. So, in a certain situation, probably if McCain wins and no matter what happesn to him, the Rudy Guiliani (socially moderate anti-terror) wing of the party will gain more influence at the expense of the Mike Huckabee( socially conservative/ security moderate)wing of the party on  law and order issues?

That is one possibility.

This post, made the second day of the "crisis" still nails it.

Though, really, there are three options for the Obama presidency...

It depends.  I'm not convinced there will be an Obama presidency, this time.  We can only speculate what would have happened if Ford won in 1976.

My initial prediction was that the GOP wins.  At the time, I didn't predict that it would be McCain versus Obama.

So you think that McCain still will be miracled into the White House and then you will tell him that after him, there will be a deluge....what will happen then? Will there be breasts?

No, I will tell that that.  The only the president can hope to do is redirect the waters.

I'll refine this prediction.  If Obama wins, the realignment begins in 2010. 

Are you talking about the final destruction of liberalism and start of the age of eugenics, preemptive "limited" nuclear war, fuedalization of the economy, theocracy, the mass forced repatriatriation of the remaining liberals and swarthy foreigners and the general birth of the Fourth Reich? :P

It's a political realignment.  I'm taking about voting patterns, candidate selection, policy changes.

Oh. Sorry. I think I am just talking about the policy changes, then. :P

No, those are unintended consequences.

semantics....

I was debating part of this point with a Green Party candidate last night. His view was one of little difference between established parties, thus the need for a third (or beyond) party. I contended that the American system lent itself to the periodic regrouping of coalitions under the banner of the major parties.

In some sense American parties form their coalitions before the elections as opposed to creating a governing coalition afterward. We could well be due for a shuffling of those coalitions.

Quite right.

Keep this in mind.  When I first posted this in January, I, a fairly solid Republican, was undecided and very possibly would be voting for Obama over most of the candidates (and for Clinton over McCain).

Also consider that I would consider voting for Obama in 2012, if he loses this time.

November 2010, 2 years and about 15 days.

What if Obama is doing alright? I know the fact that you may be wrong might be a tough pill...but...

Like I said about two years and 14 days, now.

I would say that the probability is, whomever wins will have a problem. 

Evin if Obama is doing alright, there are still too many problems.  Obama has some specific that have all ready come out.

Missed the first one, but the second prediction still holds.  The congressional shift has not been enough to establish a re-alignment.  The state margins, in flipped states, was far too low to signal any permanent shifting.

Dude!  This is the second time since FDR that a democrat got this percentage of votes. The last time was LBJ in 1964. The fastest growing groups trended overwhelmingly for Obama. Obama won states that I though 2 years ago that a democrat would not win in 50 years.

Dud!  If you think this is anything like 1932, you are sadly mistaken.  You could make a much better argument that Carter was leading a Democratic realignment in 1976. 

This one isn't the realignment. 

Alright let's see-- 1. He won by 50% and Obama won by 53%. 2. Carter simply was able to cobble up the last of the New Deal coalition for one final swoop and hurrah, Obama cobbled up an entirely new coalition. He won Hispanics by 30 points. He won 20-somethings by 30 points. This is big. The only reason McCain did so well was because he scored so high in the Sothern Highlands and Lower Mississippi.

Reagan only won his first  victory by 9 points. Obama won by 6 points. ...and Richard Nixon won by like 1 or 2 points, yet that was the beginning of the Republican Era of the late 20th century that may have just ended.

I don't see a new coalition here.  Obama was able to pull all of the Kerry states and add a few Bush states.  The credit crisis and subsequent market losses drove the national electorate away from the incumbent party, and the light-Bush states went to Obama.  Carter, on the other hand, was able to win something like twenty Nixon states in '76.

Umm, no candidate won the Presidency and gained as many seats in the House and Senate since Reagan in 1980.  Before that it was LBJ in 1964.  In the so called "1968 realignment", Richard Nixon only won 43% of the popular vote and picked up just four House seats for his party and just five in the Senate. 

Obama would have probably won without the market losses.  It would just have been very, very narrow(likely Kerry state plus Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada). 

George H. W. Bush won by a wider margin than Obama, but no realignment.


No, Nixon's was not a realignment in 1968.  The beginning was 1980 when the GOP took the Senate and the presidency.  The difference was that Reagan not only one by just under 10% but flipped ten or twelve states.

Then again, remember Nixon against Humphery. He won by an even less of a margin....and Obama won 9 states away from Bush/McCain. These are only sematical differences. ...and perhaps nearly a half-dozen more were on the brink of going blue. Montana, The Dakotas, Missouri and Georgia. Also, there is not an excuse for Texas to go 45% for a democrat... and some of the light Bush states are very heavily Obama. New Mexico and Nevada and nearly Colorado went as blue as California did in 2004. If this wasn't a realignment, I would like to see it. 

Try 1980, where Reagan, in a three man race, go a majority of the votes cast, defeated his nearest opponent by 9.7% and the GOP captured the Senate for the first time in more than 20 years.

Arguably, from 1988 onward, neither party candidate was to the left of either Carter or Ford.

It was clearly a continuence of the realignment that started in 1980. 

Arguably, this is the most progressive government in Washington in 44 years. There are only 2 truly center-right democrats in the Senate (Nelson and Casey) and only 20 in the house.

I meant that 1988 was a continuence of the 1980 realignment. 

It shouldn't be.  Realignments, in theory are, at the longest 4-6 year affairs.  You can argue that the FDR re-alignment started in 1930, when the House shifted.  Some argue that there is a single "critical election" (1932) or a critical election and a "confirming election" (1936).

In Reagan's case, the critical election was 1980 and the confirming election was 1984.  The House/Senate shift, rather large gains was 1978.  To put this into perspective, even if the GOP would lose all House and Senate seats still outstanding, they would still have higher numbers than they did going into 1978.

Yes, but you would have to go back 30 years to see those type of numbers...and this is the second most dems in the senate per Congress since the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party is stronger today than anyother time after the fall of Saigon. We may be short a couple of dozen in the house, but when you subtract the PUMAs and DINOs, we are in a superior position.

Also, look at this map- This is the map of the 20-somethings- People don't change that much politically- it is possible that this map could be here by 2012, if not 2016 or 2020.

()

We will probably need a reaffirming election to show that this is not an abberation....like what 1992 was....but 1992 was simply the cobbling of an old coalition that was brought back to together by external events.

I thought 20-somethings always go to the Democrat, and then tend to vote Republican as they get older.

Actually, that is not correct; the Democratic numbers in the House are lower today than in 1989-93.  It might be lower than 1993-95, after everything is counted. 

They will likely be 259-176, which was the same margin they had from 1988 to 1990. 

They now hold 3 more than that.

Actually, the highest number that Democrats have had after the 1980 election was 260.  The lowest the GOP number was 167 (1991-93).  The numbers are still off the lows.  I could only get numbers on four races still out.  GOP leads in 3.

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

And the Republicans are free of 40 or so RINO's or "Gypsy Moths" as they were then known.  We are still within the post re-alignment range.

The lead they have in OH-15 is likely to be overturned.  Its only 146 votes and this is before the heavily Democratic provisional ballots are counted. 

There were never many Republican "Gypsy Moths". 

They were enough to block many of the budget cuts Reagan proposed.  I would argue that there never were that many Bole Weevils either.

There were more Boll Weevils than Gypsy Moths.  I would argue that there still are about a dozen boll weevils in the South. 

A lot of Moths were in the Senate, that made up for the numbers. 

Still though, the dems now have a commanding lead without the conservative coalition. This is unprecedented.

They don't in the Senate and the numbers are still up from 1978 (and I think 1991-3).

Definately not the senate. There really are only like 2 boll weavils left on the D side in the senate and only 3 moths on the R side in the senate.

Compared to the 1979-85 period, there were a lot.  The absolute Senate numbers were higher for the D's before that.  House numbers are slightly better than the late 1980's-early 1990's.

In most of that period, there were more conservative dems in the house and the Rs were in control of the senate between 1981 and 1987.

Also, the fact that you have to go back until the time just before my birth should tell you that this time is only comparable to times nearly a quarter century ago and is only truly comparable to the situation nearly 40 years ago.

It might be time to mention this again, maybe.

Good reading, especially the comparisons of Obama and Carter.

It is too early to tell, but there have been two indication:

1.  Not just Christie's win, but his larger than expected win, in NJ.

2.  What looks like the closeness of the MA race.

Signs and Portents?  Maybe.

Your first prediction was proven wrong.

He made another one, if you read the entire thread.

I didn't. BTW, are you feeling better?

You might end up seeing that was hoping the county would not take a strong swing to the right.  It may, at this point.

A bit. I'll try to get an update tonight.

Good. I'm glad you're starting to recover from your sickness. BTW, I'm looking forward to reading the update.

I didn't know you were sick.  Sorry to hear it.

Brown wins in MA taking a seat that has been in Democratic hands since 1/3/1953 (excluding vacancies).  Signs and Portents?  Maybe, but maybe not.

One thing can be said.  It was suggested that maybe the election of Obama would be the realignment; after today, it clearly was not.

You may well be right JJ, as I've said for over a year now.

That being said, this does not mean that an Obama realignment is out of the cards completely; rather, its likelihood has diminished substantially.

You were not one of the people really pointing to an Obama re-alignment.

One aspect of a re-alignment is the congressional balance, however.

Generally, a party out of power will gain in one house for 3 consecutive elections and will go from minority to majority party status in one house at least.  I think Brown killed the most likely possibility of that.  :)

I think that means that there isn't an Obama realignment, but it doesn't mean that Obama won't be re-elected.

The recent SCOTUS decision is also an indication; campaigns tend to fought differently.  I really should do a list of what a realignment looks like, its characteristics.

It is also next to impossible to see until you are in the last stages of it.

This is the thread for this observation...

You know, since I started revisiting my long-term cyclical analysis in late 2008 (with the stock markets' action), I must say that it has consistently pointed to one of two outcomes to occur fairly soon (probably within the next ten/fifteen years or so):

1) Democrats' power falls below that of 1994 and Republicans' power eclipses 2002. (I consider 1994 to be the modern nadir of the Democratic party, and 2002 the modern height of the Republican party).
2) Democrats' power falls below that of 1994, Republicans' power falls below the 1974 level and some new 3rd party arises, which will eventually take the place of the Republican party.

The first option does align with a lot of what you've posted here. FWIW (which may be nil).

In the second case, and to extents in 1932 and 1980, the minority party can change radically when it goes into the majority.

That's very true J.J. Another thing to remember is that people often vote the party opposite of the president into the house and senate for balance. That's been the trend since 1980. I still think people are trending to the Republicans right now because they are unhappy with Obama and not because they're interested in the Republicans' ideas. Usually Republicans are trusted more on foreign issues and Democrats on domestic issues. The economy depends on how the economy is doing and which party is in control of the white house.

Oddly, not so in the early 2000's.  Until 2006, the GOP gained seats.  In 2008, the D's gained seats.

I'm looking at the current anger at the government and I can see that being part of it.

Very odd indeed. I wonder what in the world could have happenned in the early 2000s to make people rally around the president's party ::)

I don't know.  What was it in 2004?

What was it in 1998, or 1976, 1980, 1984 and even in the Senate, 1982?

1. Obviously not

2. I could see Middle America basically trending Republican (plus ME and NH), and Dems winning in the South due to the influx of now-liberal Iraq veterans. The West Coast could very possibly trend Republican due to rich retirees, and Dems will be winning in the Southwest more often due to the Hispanic vote.

I see the south continuing to go Republican as well as the suburbs. The democrats will make gains in the urban areas and the country continues to become more divided. The southwest will trend democrat due to illegal immigration.

I think we going to see a conservative-populist or libertarian re-alignment, though I don't know which.

Conservative-populist. Libertarians have too big a reputation of being paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Bumping in honor of Christine O'Donnell.

I said that I was expecting a re-alignment, not that I'd necessarily like it.

()

^sophisticated art joke, you probably won't get it

()



Nor you this one. ;)

A re-alignment election doesn't necessarily mean a landslide. The new "bases" of the party may not be apparent until many years later. For example, even though 1984 did shake up the map, the bases of each party and the real battleground states weren't really clear until 2000. Clinton was still doing pretty well in the south. So I don't think we'll know if a re-alignment election is a re-alignment election until quite some time afterwards.

You could also argue that re-alignments are gradual in nature and not generally apparent after one election.  Nixon swept the South in 1972, winning every county in a couple of states, but the region mostly flipped back to the Democrats in 1976, but with smaller margins than before.

I generally treat a re-alignments as running through 2 "off year" elections and two presidential elections.  I wound argue 1930-36 and 1978-84 elections were the realigning elections.

Normally, a landslide in one or both of the presidential elections is seen, but not necessarily a period of landslides.

One characteristic is new types of candidates coming into the arena.  You may be seeing that with O'Donnell defeating Castle.

The deluge approaches?

Any suggestion that there was a Democratic re-alignment have ended today.

The signs of a re-alignment are:

1.  More than a 35 seat gain in the House.

2.  More than a 5 seat gain in the Senate.

3.  A shift of control in at least one house.

Those are just the first signs, however.

One thing about this election cycle.  It was much less about cultural issues and more about economic ones.

Therefore, we are experiencing a realignment to the right (Republicans gained 60+ House seats and therefore the majority, and took 8 seats in the Senate).

Well, there were two elections, 1946 and 1994, where that was not a precursor of a realignment.  This, in many ways, looks like a Republican version of 1930, which was.

In 1930, the Democrats gained 8 Senate and 52 House seats.

In 2010, the Republicans gained 6 Senate and 60+ House seats.

I would say that, if it is occurring, one element of the re-alignment is fiscal conservatism.

I tend to see a "realignment period" of four congressional elections.

1.  The Precursor Election (non-presidential).  The realignment party makes substantial gains in Congress. (1858, 1894, 1930, 1980 (the weakest)).

2.  The Grand Realignment Election  (presidential).  Incumbent president either loses re-election (1932, 1980) or is not renominated (1860, 1896).  The president's party gains at least one House by this point (it marks a party change).

3.  The Middle Election (non-presidential).  The president's party holds one house and generally (1898, 1934, 1982) will gain seats.  There is no "repudiation" of the president's party.

4.  The Confirming Election (presidential).  The president (or his successor) is re-elected; his party continues to hold at least one house (1864, 1900, 1936, 1984).

That is the metrics of it, but the causes also have to be present (which is why 1910-1916 is not a realignment).

I would be more inclined to say that these are the signs of a shift towards one party, not an over-all re-alignment.

Coupled with the fact that that both the enthusiasm gap and the decline in young voters hurt the Democrats incredibly, I'd say we're more seeing a shift against Obama, not a shift for the Republicans.

Keep in mind that this is the quantification of what would be expected if 2010 was the "Precursor Election."

I also started talking about this before we knew Obama would be the nominee, much less the president.

I obviously wrote this earlier.  There have been changes in numbers 2, 3 and 4.  I can't say that electoral behavior has changed.

The possibility of a realignment was the first topic on The McLaughlin Group this morning, "Issue One."  Most didn't think so.

And, with the debt ceiling vote, we have just seen number 5.  Some initial polling seems to be showing number 1, but I'm going to withhold judgment on that one.

Have you figured out what kind of policies, issues and voting blocs that will materialize afterwards?

Well, my guess now is a more fiscally conservative government.  The "litmus test" might be, how fiscally conservative is a candidate as opposed to a socially conservative.  I would not have said that in February of 2008.

I think there is about a 50/50 chance to see the end of racial politics.

I think this very much is likely to be the result... people may even look back on Clinton as being conservative, since budgets under his presidency were in surplus.

I've already made the point, on this thread (I think), that possibly excepting Obama, all major party presidential nominees since 1988 (inclusive) were more conservative that the nominees in 1976.

That could be a reasonable assement. Support for abortion rights have more or less stabilzed with a small majority favoring the status quo after a brief anti-abortion resurgence. Gay rights have become increasingly popular and there is a fair chance that racial politics might be ending as well though Hispanics are increasingly maligned against the conservatives. However, it is becoming impossible to raise taxes and any and all spending is being increasingly scrutinized.  Maybe instead of a populist conservatism, there might be a populist libertarianism. 

I think you are going to see Hispanics increasingly integrated into both parts and, if there is a realignment, probably moving toward the GOP.

Social issues might be in retreat.  Even my arguments against same sex marriages are actuarial, not societal or social.  I'm saying, it costs too much, not it destroys the moral fiber of society or is anti-family.

So, could the model for the remaining part of the first third of the 21st century US's national polity be like Wyoming's state politics until recently. By this, I mean that it could be a reverse of the US's polity in the mid 20th century.

In the 1940s-1970s, the party of the State was the Democratic Party. They generally possesed 60% of congress and the Presidency for about half of the time and were built around a coalition of blue collar workers seeking more protection in the work place and from greedy employers as well as basic protections against poverty in unforeseen dire circumstances. However, half of that coalition was against civil rights and liberties and were generally Southern and the other half were big city constitutents that favored them. The anti-establishment Republican party was eventually established as the anti-civil rights conservative party and were eventually able to get back to power by absorbing the more conservative part of the Democratic Party through social issues.

Coming into the 2010s-2030s, the Republican Party will probably be the Government Party based on protecting the rights of citizens and companies from a large Government that can no longer be justified as we enter a time where America is declining as an Empire. America will basically look more like Wyoming in that it will mirror a rural place where people "leave and let live" and just try to work on their own lives and rejecting anything else as the childhood fantasy of a time where the country was powerful and the government function. There will be the rich people part of the party which would be socially liberal and fiscally the most conservative and the rural part of th pary which would be very socially conservative and only somewhat fiscally conservative. The minority Democratic Party's path to power would simply be on socially liberal Libertarian policies and politicians.

It is actually a very good analogy that the US in 2025 will be more like Wyoming in 2005 as the US in 1955 was more like Pennsylvania of 1990.

I'm not sure of your analogies.  I would expect it to be the antithesis of a Bob Casey, Senior, who was big on antiabortion policies.  The driving force is not "social issues" with what we just saw happen with the debt ceiling.

I could see a more libertarian government coming.

I think you might be seeing the answer to your question in fool in a few months, though it is more apparent today.

Well, that's what I am trying to say. The average "moderate" democrat will be more like Dave Fruedenthal than Bob Casey. Democrats, to have a voice, will have to ally with libertarian Republcians, not fiscally moderate pro-lifers.

Well, I think the social issue candidates will be in retreat.  A DINO, or conservative Democrat, like Casey, Sr., will be judged on economic issues.  Casey, Jr., as he now stands, will be seen less as a DINO.

I don't think I ever mentioned it, but on July 22, 1984, for a course, I wrote a paper on if there was a realignment going on in America.  I took the position, yes, we were.

After the assignment was completed, the professor finally answered the question we all wanted to know, did he think there was a realignment.  He said no.  I got an A on the paper anyhow. 

I had another class with the professor that fall, and after the election, I asked if he thought we had a realignment.  He said yes.

It is extremely difficult to predict one, even while it is happening, though generally they occur at 30-50 year periods.

Some of the indicators are present, for 2010 being the precursor election, but they have present at other times, and no realignment occurred.  Just a loss for Obama would not alone signal a realignment.

Here is a lecture from Walter Dean Burnham, Professor Emeritus in Government, University of Texas, one the realignment academics.  It is from 2006.

One of his predictions was wrong, but the last few minutes are quite telling.

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/la_lecture_archive/vid1/index.html

I don't understand. The last realignment was in 1980, for Republicans, and now you're heralding another one in 2012, also for Republicans? How can something get "re-aligned" for a party that it is already "aligned" for? If there is ever going to be such a thing, it'll happen for the Democrats.

Tis been growing thinking that there is not so much an alignment at this point of time and that there hasn't really been one since the late 60s. (Republicans becoming the party of the white south and conservatives while the Democrats becoming the party of everyone else in the south and liberals) And since then the shifts in voting patterns has not so much been a snap to a new alignment but a lethargic drain of natural constituencies to their respective parties and the evolution of the electorate on the demographic level. This has lead to high polarization as the first of these has come nearly to completion but also elections be determined by who shows up more and more as opposed to campaigning to convince everyone of all demographic groups. (Hence why I think threads about 'so and so should try to win <demographic/geographic X> are silly at this point)

Messaging and enthusiasm are the rule of the day. Getting a demographic on board with your party is incredibly difficult as they're almost always very solidly with the other party already and have been taught to distrust the messages coming from the other side. So the drain from one party to the other is either very slow or non-existant, and the shifts that are there are so slow and happening in different groups at the same time that having a solid election cycle or period of time where its clear to everyone in a demographic to shift to the other party is just not going to happen fast enough for a classical realignment.

We've gone from avalanches of people in one direction to people sloshing like liquid overall.

A realignment deals with a change in a number of factors not necessarily party.  Both 1860 and 1896 were Republican realignments.

Go back and read page 1, and then look at the last line of what you quoted.  I'm looking at two things in 2012, has the realignment started, and who wins in 2012.  The answer could be "no" and the "Republicans."

Well, it certainly was for Marin County, California. Ford, Reagan, Mondale, enough said.

One fairly major change might be a reduction in the size of the military and military spending.

Could this be a general incorporation of a theme surrounding the end of the Cold War? As in, with the loss of the risks associated with constant major threats, the role of the Government isn't going down some sort of new path of delegating itself out of existence but that the Government is simply going back to what was like before there were constant internal threats against America's prevailing economic microcracy and national security. And that this will generally continue until there is a country that is finally strong enough to go toe-to-toe with the US militarily and economically and/or there is a credible alternative created inside the United States by those who are losing out in the current corporately-controlled economic model. 

However, you do say that there is going to be some re-emphasis on economic issues and perhaps if Obama's entitlement and insurance reform laws are quickly repealed or judicially overruled, it would create a situation where the striking down of Health Care Reform becomes the Liberal version of what Roe v. Wade was with Conservatives. What that would mean is it would become this big huge impossible issue to amend the constitution or restack the Court with "Strict Constructionists" and that all candidates and judicial nominees would have to contend with this new litmus test. Essentially, everything else would go out the window. The only other way social issues could come to the forefront again is that Republicans or Republican judges actually do choose the next few very Republican years to implement the Religious Right's agenda. That could have tough reprocussions for a party that simply favors a "Majority of a Majority" approach on social issues in a country where there is a dwindling majority.

Basically, maybe JJs right, but it would depend on what the Republicans actually do with the next several years they are given. If they do something like cut the military, introduce a flat tax or privatize social security, they could be very succesful. However, if they do something like overturn Health Care Reform through SCOTUS or simply repeal it without enacting a more business-based way of getting Universal Coverage (94-95% + coverage rate) which doesn't create a system of effective tort immunity for medical professionals or if they do something else that simply makes the last few years totally meaningless, they will probably keep their position as America's "Default" Party, but the Democrats will probably get a huge window to win a couple of elections and pass through legislation or even constitutional amendments. (This is what happened with, among other things, the Income Tax) ..And if they overturn Roe (or make it irrelevant somehow), rescind funding to or openly oppose  important scientific inquiries that cannot be reconciled with their theology on which people have started to come to rely on, block DADT or somehow cause a new "Brown Scare" or in any other way use Big Government as a tool to "Keep America Pure", this realignment could be short-lived.

I think, once translated in American English, this might be a correct point.  The threat, and means for dealing with the threat, are now much different.


Something like Obamacare has been Democratic policy since about 1948, so you may be right.  I have enough difficulty projecting out into the early 2010's, so I'm not looking at the longer term as of yet.

One thing that we did see in NH that supports a change within the Republicans was a move away from the social conservatives, who, even collectively, did terribly.

The three leading candidates were Romney, Paul, and Huntsman, not known known as being hard right socially.  Paul, arguably, has a left wing stance on the military.

We have seen a new development.

With Ryan on the ticket there is a very clear difference in philosophy between the Republican and Democratic Parties.  It is the role of government in the economy, and there is a polar contrast.

That will be a central macro-theme of the election.

Could we simply be going back to the way things were between 1896, 1932 and 1964, where the big buzzwords were Unions, Crosses of Gold, Taxes, Social Security and Medicare? Is there a place with civil rights and cultural issues anymore or will the time where there will be electable Republicans from Boulder or Montpelier that are more culturally liberal than very electable Democrats from Macon or Boise? and will that mean that if these issues are less significant, that there will be less change based on them..or simply that these issues will have movement that are not among party lines?

And the reaction to the Akin thing about rape and abortion (with the conservative establishment squirming) contrasted to the reaction to some of De Mint comments about the homosexual community in 2004 (when he turned a tight race into one he ran away with) could show that the Republican Party is perhaps slowly and akwardly leaving the Religious Right's awakening tent when the preacher gets out the snakes,  jumping back in their 750s and GranTurimos, lighting their $80 cigars and getting back on the greens.


Would this be a map that would "seal" a realignment of this nature?

()

...and would this be the way back for any new Democrat?

()

The selection of Ryan seems to back up your earlier thoughts on fiscal conservatism becoming the most important attribute in Republican candidates.

I would not call the Democratic map a realignment map.  Here would be an example of one:

()

A Republican realignment map would look more like this:

()

Neither map is, of course, a prediction.  I basically think that, for a realignment, you'd basically need the loser to be below 150 EV's, though I'd feel more comfortable if its below 125 EV's.

In addition, there would have to changes in Congress, though 2010 might qualify.  If this is a Republican realignment, I think they'll have to hold the House and probably take the Senate, as well as winning the presidency.

...and about the Democratic map, I am just saying what a Democrat would probably have to do to win in the future if we are reverting back to old school political patterns of executive versus workers as oppose to stoners versus hicks-style cultural battle.

...and I would say in this climate, a Democrtaic realignment would be more like-

()

...but beyond this, what about the original question?

There is some evidence that we are in a re-alignment, but we really won't know until 2016.  We might be able to rule it out in the meantime.

...and this election could have simply meant that either Obama was competent or incompetent depending on whether or not he gets reelected.

Well, I've made the argument that a realignment is basically seen over a series of elections:

1. The Precursor Election

The change party increase in the congressional midterms dramatically.  1858, 1894, 1930, 1978.

2. The Grand Realignment

The change party holds at least one house and the president is elected in a landslide of Electoral Votes, defeating the incumbent party candidate.  1860, 1896, 1932, 1980.

3.  The Holding Election

The change party may lose seats, but still holds at least one house, usually gaining seats in the house the hold.  1862, 1898, 1934, 1982.

4.  The Confirming Election

Change party wins the presidency by a larger margin of Electoral Votes, still holds one house and gains seats.  1864, 1900, 1936, 1984.

At the time, 1946, 1950, 1966, 1974, 1994 and 2006 all could have been Precursor Elections.  It is very clear that none of them were.  2010 has that potential.

If Romney loses or wins, but not by a large margin (e.g. 335 to 203), it probably is not a realignment.  We could rule out one ending in 2016.

Though, the next opportunity or a realignment would be in 2014, if under the logic that it takes a precursor mid term. With 1976 being a reactionary election?

Perhaps if there was no WWII, 1940 or 1944 could have been a single reactionary year, but instead, we got two in 1952 and 1956 due to Ike being moderate and competent.

In a way 1912 and 1916 could be seen as reactionary years, too.

A revived NDC map would look something like this.

()

California is THE swing state.

The original prediction was that by 2016, we'd be in a realignment (inclusive of just ending one).  So yes, 2014 would be a possibility for the precursor.

I think as you can tell, this is a macro view.

I actually thought that we could have seen a McCain victory over Clinton in 2008, and we'd be seeing the Obama realignment this year.

Could have 1968 been an idealogical realignment and 1980 beomg a policy realignment?

Not really.  In many ways, Nixon was ideologically close to LBJ, and vice versa.

What about the rhetoric and the maps?

What about it?

Wasn't 1968 the year that the South stopped voting for losing Democrats and when the entire idea of "law and order" and "silent majority" started to be talked about? ...and in 1972, there was the 3A meme. Maybe policy didn't change yet, but ideology was changing and in 1968 was the year a Democrat lost the South since all the Southern states could vote after the Civil War.

Well, no.  Nixon didn't get a majority in any Southern State in 1968, despite his VP being from one.  Excepting the border states, Goldwater got a hired percentage in 1964.  Nixon didn't give his "silent majority" speech until 1969.  "Law and order" was associated as much, if not more, with Wallace.

Further, in 1976, you had the return of the "New Deal coalition."

...and look at how Nixon did in 1972. You can also see that the states where McGovern came closest were the Great Lakes and Northeast.

but wasn't that more of a short-lived reactionary election, perhaps in the same mold that 2008 could of proved to be? 

1972 was not 1968.  A blowout election, 1964, 1912, even 1988, does not make a realignment in and of itself.  There have to be a number of factors, including changes in the composition of Congress.  That didn't happen in 1966-72.

But did anything that happened with Nixon foreshadow what would happen with Reagan? 

Probably not too much.  You could argue that the "Hard Hat" rioters were, in some ways, precursors of the Reagan Democrats, but they represented union leadership (and one union only).  They were also a reaction to the hippies in many ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot

I don't think you could have looked at Nixon in 1968 or 1972, and seen the Reagan presidency in the 1980's, in terms of policy.  I think you could have policy-wise, looked at Nixon, and seen a Carter or Ford.

 

What about the rise of cultural conservatism? The main thing with Reagan seemed to be the huge tax cuts, his spending was pretty similiar or even more Keynesian than the 3 before him.

That was supply side economics, which wasn't Keynesian.

You really didn't see cultural conservatives coming to prominence until the late 1970's.  I would argue that, really, every presidential nominee, from either party, from 1992 umtil today, was to the right of both candidates in 1976.

How so? and can you be a big Government spender and be supply side?

The entire "where is the center" issue is a great paradox. On one hand, abortion is legal and homosexuality is no somewhere between tolerated and accepted. Marijuana would be tolerated if it wasn't for the corrupting influences of our lobbying system. Universal Healthcare has been realized.

On the other hand, taxes have been cut in half for the most privileged and they continue to gain more legal and economic license while those of modest privilege continue to face more obstacles to collective bargaining and recieving a good education. Its even worse for the unprivileged as its harder and harder to go on welfare and harder to come up for an excuse for being insolvent.  Further,  there are more loopholes to convict the accused against their due process and to allow those with property to harm others with impunity. 

Where does that leave us?

I mean, things are somewhat less fair than they are, but are still somewhat more fair than they were just before things started to become more fair...but law and society are getting more tolerant overall.

Easily.  The concept is that if you cut taxes, you raise revenue.



It deals with opportunity and the role of government.

I mean, is that just in terms of revenues or spending? They're different yet related. I mean, even if you did move up the Lauffer curve, would you be spending more than you have brought in revenue? I mean, wasn't it Ross Perot who believed in lower taxes meant more revenue and then spend that extra reveune on health care reform and overall better services?   And what kind of  "opportunity" and "roles"? 

They are not related.  Supply side economics says the deficits don't matter.

Why are Republicans campaigning on deficits then? Its probably just a ploy but none of the less, the political environment and shifts within it are more complicated than they appear.

Because, they are not supply siders.  This is a difference in policy, even complex economic policy.

Supply siders are not necessarily opposed to big government, or big government deficits.  They may oppose some regulations, as a hidden tax.

So, you think this could be a shift in spending?

Yes, and that would be big.

Would this mean more foreign policy isolationism and perhaps a return to the Gold Standard? Perhaps an end to the war on drugs?

Probably not.

How would we finance government if there is a substantial decrease in spending? Could there be an increase turn to the private sector?

First, you do have revenue enhancement, which might involve removing deductions.  Second, budget cuts.  Third, restructuring taxes to reward activities that create jobs, and taxable income.

So, tax levels would be the same, but spending would be greatly reduced? Perhaps in the short run, this will lead to looser credit (because whose going to take out a mortgage when there is no inflation?), but when that dries up and the market forces pushing down interest rates become less and less relevant as the market begins to distort under the growing cartel power of the banks, we will probably see 2007-2008 all over again on a bigger scale.

People who want to buy houses.  That would increase housing prices.

I also would not worry about "cartel power."

Will they lower interest rates then or will demand prop it up? If the latter, then there might be another debt crisis.

Well, interest rates won't make a huge difference if the actual value of the property declines.  That has been the problem.

and how will reduced spending prop up underwater home owners?

Because those homes won't stay underwater.  It would make more money available and increase investment.

We could see a different approach to economic problems.

One thing I have seen is a de-emphasis on the religious right in the GOP.  A Mormon and a Catholic are not Evangelicals, or even mainline Protestants.

So, how will decreased spending cause reinflation?  Unless lower spending somehow automatically raises speculation and then we could be heading into a new economic system which requires a higher degree of sophistication at the individual level.

Lower government spending would ease the crowding out of funds for private investment.  That really is not the point of the last post, however.

I thought only taxes and price control redirect funds and create deadweight losses.

But I could definitely see lower inflation making it easier to get a loan, but it would make loans harder to pay off.

What could be some new programs from this approach?

and it does seem a little less likely now that this alignment is coming true.

So, J.J., now that it looks as President Obama will win re-election with Democrats retaining the Senate and Republicans retaining the House, how does this fit into your realignment predictions?

I think it is way too early to say that for either.  We could see a Romney victory amd it not be a realignment.

So, it would make it even less likely than a Romney victory. Albeit, they are both still possible.

An Obama victory would not be an indication of a realignment.  A Romney victory of 338 to 200 EV would also not indicate a realignment.  These things tend to be big.

Basically, it will have to be something, such that, in this hyperpartisan environment, and with the Democrats not being able to fall back on the South or the House or some other redoubt in times of weakness, would at least somewhat challenge their relevance/justification. (where many Democrats start reregistering as Republicans because they see a higher CB trying to nominate and therefore elect a Moderate Republican than trying to get any Democrat elected..just as many do already in places where the Democratic Party is already irrelevant).

I'm not sure what you are saying in this post.

I think you would have to see both houses going Republican and Romney winning with 378 EV's to constitute a realignment.  Alternately, maybe a 10 point popular vote lead might indicate it as well.

I think there is one important point that you may have overlooked in this analysis, regarding the Reagan realignment.  Southern Democrats are a complicated breed, but there is a general consensus that conservatives won a majority in the House in 1980 and then lost it in 1982.  That didn't make Reagan's reforms any less influential.

You also had the gypsy moths, northern Republicans that were hostile to part of the Reagan agenda. 

In 1932, you did have a few Bull Moose Republicans that supported FDR.

In 1980, the last realignment, the polls moved in the final fortnight.  Because we don't have solid polling of prior realignments, we can't tell that this is the sign of a realignment.

Basically, what I am saying is that if there was a true "realignment", there would be massive structural changes to the American party system.

Structural changes in the parties, no.  Financing, and how campaigns are conducted, yes.  The are happening.

And how will that affect the issues? Basically, you are saying that this will be a more libertarian change than a conservative one? and by structural, I mean that there will be one main legitimate party with one party being more of a protest vote.

Could what I have been talking about finally happen in the Democratic party where the Democrats actually start messaging to people who will actually vote and vote for them? (focus more on independents and women instead of the disadvantaged).

I think I said that it could be more libertarian, not that it would.  This one is of fiscal conservatism.

No, I don't think there will be one party.


It might be a different focus, less bureaucratic, on the disadvantage.

What kind of different focus? What states do you think they might start focusing on? Will this push the Dems out west, back south or...

Perhaps Democrats will be the party of  "Third Way" economics (public funding and private implementation)  and White Collar social policy?

I was writing regarding the disadvantaged.  I'll make another bold prediction.  In the election of 2032, one half of the black voters will be voting Republican, if not sooner.


Possibly.

I could actually see that. If minorities start voting R, who will vote D?

You could see an income divide, or a regional divide.

Regional divide? That could be interesting. Any maps?

Left Coast/Right Coast, the Center.

I would not be too surprised to see IL become a swing state.

So, basically the entire midwest where Republicans won big in 2010 will become reliably Republican and Democrats will have to look to the South Atlantic and push inland from the Left Coast to make up the gains but many voters there will onlly vote for them under a certain level of duress.

This could be the future patterns:

()

That is not a prediction, but I think the patterns might start forming like this.  Contrast with 1976 and 1980.