What happens to the Democratic Party if Trump wins?

[Person Man]

I don't see them changing policy proposals much at all. They will become a Trump-opposition party because his endless flaws and weaknesses make him an exceptionally attractive target. 4 years of Trump doing and saying things like he has this past year will be hell on Earth for Republicans, especially when any sort of recession hits and when Trump supporters begin to realize he can't fix anything.

It's easy to run as a candidate and point to problems and say you can fix it all, but when you're in office, you are actually expected to do things and when bad things happen, voters will hold him accountable, just like they have with previous presidents. Unfortunately for him, most of America doesn't like him and he can't charm his way out of the blame.

Wasn't Reagan good at that? But he never fully controlled Congress.
The point is that there will be uncertainty over whether to campaign for independents or whether to campaign for  the base if both parts caused the loss. A 2006-2008 strategy could be a good strategy where you run some libertarian-leaning (pro 2-A) , some socon (pro-life), and even some Big Oil/Coal Dems in 2018 but you try to get everyone to tow the line on a $11 minimal wage, at least the core of Obamacare (no patient dumping or cherry-picking by insurers), Anti-War in Iran/Syria, and Civil Rights/Justice Reform. Maybe try to get a consensus on immigration or stem-cell research if Trump pushes to the right and upends it. And run someone from the base in 2020.

[Person Man]

I'd imagine there'd be a shift away from the Democratic Party that fought for Liberal ideas, and into an Anti-Trump Party for a short period. In a way I could see if become more of a safe haven for Republican refugees who don't like Trump.

Talks would be more focused on what Trump's been doing poorly, less about the ways they plan to fix it, and they'd pick more moderate candidates to draw more republicans into voting booths. With Trump in office, they don't have to worry too much about securing the democrat vote.

If the 'moderate republican outreach' strategy failed this year in the first place, why would they bother to continue with it, esp. when those guys don't vote reliably for the dems downballot?

It's more likely that they would minimize identity politics, and become a more focused economically left party taking more of Bernie's ideas, which ironically would boost their prospects electorally, esp. at the local levels. Even if the Dems win this year, you will start to see a slow shift in that direction, if they lose, it will be a fast shift, similar to what happened to the GOP between 2008 and 2010.

Basically, you see being thrown in the wilderness from near absolute power as what cause the GOP to evolve from a pro-business religious party into a right-wing populist party. You think if the same happens to the Democrats that they will have a similar transformation from a party of modernity to a party of left-wing populism? (by populism, I mean where no one really talks about guns or religion or even economic orthodoxy but it is always in the background and racial issues and industrial policies go front and center)

A lot of people think that seeking compromise might be a response the same way Democrats did in the 80s. After a moderate D incumbent got slaughtered, they ran a liberal in 1984 and 1988 and got slaughtered both times but at least they won back the Senate. However, it took someone willing to triangulate to win after three terms.

 It might not work now because I don't think any of those voters that put Bill over the top are ever going to come home again. A Joe Machin or Mark Pryor or even a Bob Casey would just assure that the base "forgets to vote" and Bubba will vote for the "real thing" instead.  Running a socon might actually cause some suburbanites in Denver or Arlington to vote Republican.

So "caving" might not work.

The alternative would be Left-Trumpism but I don't think there are enough crazy Democrats...yet.. that would tolerate that and that sort of thing might not even be something the Democrats can put up there based on who they can get. (That sort of person might not exist as a successful candidate or D primary voters won't ever go for it.) I am guessing this is just as likely as pushing to the center.

My guess is that Ds will steadily drift to the left and stay unpopular until Trump (or Pence, very much doubt it would take that long) causes us to lose a major war or gives us UE levels that are 11%+ and they just talk when people are ready to listen.

[Person Man]

Move far left, become the triggly puff/ blm party that will face of with what will become the breitbart party

You're quite the optimist.

The young left seems to be occupied by sjws and BLM idiots, the young right is filled with the alt right and hardcore libertarians. The next 20 years of politics will be fun

Libertarians seems more like a young center, really....or are you talking more paleocon?

[Person Man]

Move far left, become the triggly puff/ blm party that will face of with what will become the breitbart party

You're quite the optimist.

The young left seems to be occupied by sjws and BLM idiots, the young right is filled with the alt right and hardcore libertarians. The next 20 years of politics will be fun

Libertarians seems more like a young center, really....or are you talking more paleocon?

I use the term libertarian but paleocon is probably more correct to describe the rand/cruz bots I know

How do you think the map will look like in the future if both these sides take over?

What major things get pushed through? Will this create a clear Incumbent party/Insurgent party or a 50/50 country?

[Person Man]

Even Republicans are now assuming we can't just back to the center. The likes of Michael Barone are hoping that's the parh to a permanent Republican majority but we can always run an Anti Trump midterm and can always find a way to change the party to counter the way Trump has changed his.

[Person Man]

Even Republicans are now assuming we can't just back to the center. The likes of Michael Barone are hoping that's the parh to a permanent Republican majority but we can always run an Anti Trump midterm and can always find a way to change the party to counter the way Trump has changed his.

Attacking one person is ridiculous, you need to sell yourself on something, that is what Bernie represents. Same effect Ron Paul had on increasing turnout with the Tea Party movement that followed him, a more progressive proper center-left Dem party would attract higher turnout.

The Dems gained in 2006 and 2008, not simply due to attacking Bush, but by slamming republicans in general on SS, iraq, etc.

Attacking one person is a start but yeah I agree that something else needs to happen.

[Person Man]

I can only hope that they become more progressive and don't nominate people like Hillary or Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is way too liberal . They need people like post 94 bill or webb

Basically a libertarian-leaning "neo-liberal liberal"? I don't really think the Democrats are going to a socon populist though maybe.

[Person Man]

It does what the GOP did after Ford lost, sheds its center and doubles down on ideology...that's on the backburner to being anti-Trump just as the GOP was mostly anti-Carter.

Come 2020 they nominate an outspoken and unapologetic progressive and likely manage to defeat trump.

Basically, we can beg for bubba's votes back or wait until Trump screws up.

[Person Man]

Democrats didn't help matters by jamming ObamaCare down our throats.

Maybe, but it's not Obama's fault for what the GOP in Congress has become. They mobilized to obstruct as soon as he got into office, despite America clearly and overwhelmingly rejecting their party. Since then, we've seen a never-ending escalation of extremely reckless and ethically bankrupt behavior from Republicans in Congress that is essentially a mix of do-whatever-to-win-elections and "my way or the highway"-train of thought.

With Trump on top, we should probably do the same.

[Person Man]

Under Obama the Dems lost 64 US House Seats in 2010 in part because of ObamaCare. Obviously in 2010 the American people rejected the Democrats the way people rejected Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

Yes ObamaCare is the on the Democrats because they voted for the bill and Obama signed it into law. The Republicans didn't vote for it because its a bad bill.

hopper, this isn't about Obamacare. Obstruction over obamacare is not even what I'm talking about. It's one thing to obstruct a bill like that, but GOP actions have gone way, way, way past that. Are you content/fine with the Republican Party's behavior/tactics in Congress? If you are, then I don't even know what to say.

I'm not thrilled the way Congress works right now(too polarized as you said before) but I wasn't thrilled with the Dems controlling Congress either during Obama's 2 years(2009 and 2010.) The Republicans could barely stop anything from passing for those 2 years.

I do feel the Dems played a part in polarizing the electorate by passing ObamaCare which has never been popular.

I still think the question is whether there would be any incentive to cooperate after the last 8 years.

[Person Man]

John Fetterman would be a great candidate to appeal to working class whites.

...while still inspiring the new base.

[Person Man]

Under Obama the Dems lost 64 US House Seats in 2010 in part because of ObamaCare. Obviously in 2010 the American people rejected the Democrats the way people rejected Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

Yes ObamaCare is the on the Democrats because they voted for the bill and Obama signed it into law. The Republicans didn't vote for it because its a bad bill.

hopper, this isn't about Obamacare. Obstruction over obamacare is not even what I'm talking about. It's one thing to obstruct a bill like that, but GOP actions have gone way, way, way past that. Are you content/fine with the Republican Party's behavior/tactics in Congress? If you are, then I don't even know what to say.

Why does he have to agree with you.  Let's be tolerant and open minded of conservatives who have different views. You support tolerance right?

And what I am saying is that this isn't about freedom, equality or other liberal ideas, this is about incentive. Why should  Da work with someone who has no interests in working with them? That's "giving up"

[Person Man]

Depends.  If Trump wins big, like by an Obama 2008 margin nationally, then I see Democrats running to the center on economics and trying to pick up as many libertarian Johnson/reluctant Trump types as possible for 2018-20.  If Trump wins very narrowly, especially if it is an EV/PV split, I expect a full on Sanders/left wing Trump push to burn all the institutions down to cleanse American society.  The 2020 nominee could be an outsider populist who repeatedly makes "go back into your cave and shove your racist, unamerican filth where the sun don't shine!" style statements during the primary.

If Trump has a decisive but narrow win like Obama 2012, I could see either strategy being tried.

At either rate, the map will look very interesting if Ohio and Iowa are being Missorified. The Democrats will have to find a way to win without states dominated by old mill towns. Hard Hat Harry is going the way of Bubba. They either have to get rich angry women (or more pro-choice pro-pot Republicans) to vote for them or college students to vote. Simple as that.

[Person Man]

Depends.  If Trump wins big, like by an Obama 2008 margin nationally, then I see Democrats running to the center on economics and trying to pick up as many libertarian Johnson/reluctant Trump types as possible for 2018-20.  If Trump wins very narrowly, especially if it is an EV/PV split, I expect a full on Sanders/left wing Trump push to burn all the institutions down to cleanse American society.  The 2020 nominee could be an outsider populist who repeatedly makes "go back into your cave and shove your racist, unamerican filth where the sun don't shine!" style statements during the primary.

If Trump has a decisive but narrow win like Obama 2012, I could see either strategy being tried.

At either rate, the map will look very interesting if Ohio and Iowa are being Missorified. The Democrats will have to find a way to win without states dominated by old mill towns. Hard Hat Harry is going the way of Bubba. They either have to get rich angry women (or more pro-choice pro-pot Republicans) to vote for them or college students to vote. Simple as that.

Iowa can be Missouri-ified if you will but Ohio I don't think so.

If Clinton wins despite it this year, I think Ohio is being Southernized or if it becomes like EV 300+ for Ds.