The future of the two parties

[barfbag]

I think both parties will splinter off into third parties which will hurt them evenly. In another decade or two it maybe hard for either candidate to get 50% of the popular vote. Socialists like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, and Howard Dean will splinter off into socialists. The tea party movement may very well splinter off into the Libertarian Party. Tea Partiers such as Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachmann will pose a serious threat to our party. Independents like Michael Bloomberg will still be insignificant because they're copouts and don't really matter.

[barfbag]

I see the Republicans becoming the party of the common man with the way Democrats abandoned seniors on social security and Medicare in order to concoct Obamacare. They're also becoming more and more the party of minorities and the youth which is a turn off to the elderly. It would be a reverse effect of the great depression.

[barfbag]

I see the Republicans becoming the party of the common man with the way Democrats abandoned seniors on social security and Medicare in order to concoct Obamacare. They're also becoming more and more the party of minorities and the youth which is a turn off to the elderly. It would be a reverse effect of the great depression.

Umm..

Yes?

[barfbag]

Both parties will be fine and will win more elections. They both will find new issuers to fight over and to divide the nation on. There will not be any thrid party come up and take over any other either party, that's a pipe dream.

This.

The Republican Party is not dead.  The Democrats were not dead in 1920, the Republicans were not dead in 1936, and there is no way that a party that currently controls the House is dead today.  The two-party system will always revive itself.  The Republicans will eventually figure out how to avoid alienating youth and minorities as much as they have been. 

Yes finally

[barfbag]

I don't see the Republican party lasting too much longer in its current form (super-religious, super white, etc.).

Therefore, I think the two party system will have to split along different lines (i.e. gay marriage will be legalized and become a non-issue... other social issues will move in that direction too)...

Republican Party = Libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially libertarian live and let live.

Democratic Party = Fiscally liberal, not socialist but moving in that direction, socially still more liberal and using the government to solve social problems.

I could actually see Republicans becoming competitive in states like New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa again... and Democrats becoming competitive in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, etc.

And what happens to the social conservatives? Do they form their own party? Or do you intend to purge them?

I see them becoming more of a faction of the Republican party; not all "true" Republicans will have to oppose ssm in 10-20 years for instance. The population is becoming more and more socially liberal; the Republican Party could get hypothetically get away with it.

That said, by all means the evangelical wing could break off. It's not unprecedented; the Bull Moose Progressives split off from the Republicans because they truly hated the business wing, and the Greenback Labor Party split off from the Democrats for more complex reasons; but mainly because there were increasing tensions with city democrats in the late 19th century. A breakoff would be unlikely, but could definitely happen.

My opinion on the future parties:

Republicans-Largely the same as today, but with a slightly broader tent. They will find a way to change their messaging to appeal to minorities.
Democrats-Largely the same as today, but more minority dominated. Liberals complain about disagreements within their own party; well, it is only likely to get worse as America gets more diverse (hey, that rhymes).

I think Republicans for the next ten years will continue to become more extreme, culminating in a McGovernesque loss. Then, they will probably move toward the center on social issues, and POSSIBLY a little bit on economic issues.

They said the same thing in the 60's about becoming more socially liberal. Then in the 80's and 90's things were better. It could go back and forth as it's been doing for our whole lives. To suggest otherwise would contradict what we've seen. The only exception is gay marriage which wasn't an issue until recently.

[barfbag]

If not, the Democrats will probably narrowly keep the senate and the white house in 2014 and 2016 but by 2020, the Republicans will probably take full control when they convince enough young rural people and moderate minorities to bring back the Bush coalition the way Clinton did with the New Dealers in the 90s.

Bush didn't have a coalition. He had a few Tea Party whack-a-doodles who he got to stamp the floor.

Bush had a coalition of every congressman from both parties who voted for the war in Iraq. We had several countries behind us when the war started.

[barfbag]

I think Republicans for the next ten years will continue to become more extreme, culminating in a McGovernesque loss. Then, they will probably move toward the center on social issues, and POSSIBLY a little bit on economic issues.

Pipe dream, the modern democratic party is almost as extreme.

The Dems are left-wing while the Republicans are on the hard-right.  The Moderates are extinct. Its like if you are a Moderate what party should you vote for.

Right, moderate voters unfortunately have to choose between the lesser of two evils in most situations. This extreme polarization is also why many registered democrats in the south vote now vote republican, and why so many independents and republicans in New England now vote democrat. Its the older generation that lived through the 60's and saw how (in New England) extreme the republican party has gotten and (in the South) how extreme the democratic party has gotten since then. Younger generations are likely to think the same, and the states that have gone much to the right and left will likely stay that way until the next electoral alignment.

The two parties have been pretty similar since Nixon (late 60's once the civil rights movement cooled down a bit) But when it comes down to elections, its not even so much extremism. Its what I call stiff voters, voters who can't be convinced, voters who will always stick with one party. There's so many of these voters for each party now that I feel like its very hard for any party to pull off any massive landslide like Reagan or Nixon did. And of course, Barack Obama is one of our most polarizing presidents.

It's always about the lesser of two evils.

[barfbag]

socialism when it comes to government and economics, socialism almost never does much good at all.

Utter nonsense.

Socialist countries have economic hardships not seen in countries where the market has more freedom.

[barfbag]

socialism when it comes to government and economics, socialism almost never does much good at all.

Utter nonsense.

Socialist countries have economic hardships not seen in countries where the market has more freedom.

Define "socialism" and "where the market has more freedom".

and if we want to "go there", capitalism can have at least as negative long term outcomes as socialism.

No one wants to wait  two years to buy a car or pay five bucks for a cup of black coffee. I understand that. Then again, if people had the choice, they wouldn't want to pay  several day's pay to be seen for a cold or a toothache or have to but their kid's clothes at the thrift shop so they can afford to send them to school. Morning in America/TEA Party Liberalism  and  50+% GDP Socialism are great ideas on paper, but people just can't live like that.

Capitalism is an extension of freedom and freedom doesn't guarantee equal results. In the real world not everyone makes it. Safety nets in combination with the free market of free trade, low taxes, and lower corporate taxes creates the moderation needed for success. We really do have a pretty good economic system here. Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

[barfbag]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

[barfbag]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

Anti-trust laws are strangling our economy.  Whether or not monopolies are bad for the economy or a reflection of supply and demand is a chicken and egg debate and there may not be an answer. I don't think the tax payers should be responsible for supplying everyone with basic needs.

[barfbag]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

Anti-trust laws are strangling our economy.  Whether or not monopolies are bad for the economy or a reflection of supply and demand is a chicken and egg debate and there may not be an answer. I don't think the tax payers should be responsible for supplying everyone with basic needs.

I am not convinced of that and any stranglehold that it is has is worth it.

But as I said, the most likely scenario in the next few cycles is that the Democrats either mess up, campaign poorly or cede their share of control of "the national debate" and the Republicans find a way to win with their current platform by getting enough votes elsewhere without youngs or minorities or things go more or less the same way as they do now and the next successful Republican wins by being less conservative (modest tax simplification, social security reform and action on religious and ethnic issues) and cobbling up enough of the old coalition for a win the same way Clinton and Carter did.

Whether or not Republican nominees need to be more or less conservative is another can of worms. Moderates don't win national elections, but if we look at the years moderates have run; 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012, we find very reasonable reasons for their losses. In 1976 Americans were still washing themselves of Watergate. Michael Dukakis was a complete putts in 1988. When Bush lost re-election in 1992 we'd just had 12 years of the same party in office. Clinton was very popular and things were going well for our nation in 1996. There was no way a Republican could've won in 2008. Really 2012 is the only year we could've won out of our moderate years.

[barfbag]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

Anti-trust laws are strangling our economy.  Whether or not monopolies are bad for the economy or a reflection of supply and demand is a chicken and egg debate and there may not be an answer. I don't think the tax payers should be responsible for supplying everyone with basic needs.

how are antitrust laws strangling the economy?  and which laws are you referring to?

I think he is referring to the Sherman Law and later amendments. Perhaps he is of the opinion that the only thing that matters is the maximization of the amount of goods produced, not the health of the market or consumer choice or any other combination of variable meant to optimize supply sensitivity to demand.

I'm not sure if you mean me? A lot of things matter in our economy. The atmosphere needed to thrive internally is motivation and innovation within the individual. Externally, low taxes, infrastructure, and education are fundamental. Once you get past the fundamentals, the private sector is where jobs should be created unless a sector is struggling enough that other sectors are hurting. In this case we need to help out. For example, we should place tariffs on imported goods from companies which send jobs overseas and against products from countries that manipulate currency. Honestly, we should eliminate the corporate tax or at least cut it in half to create a better atmosphere for businesses to stay. We're chasing companies overseas right now. Subsidies aren't the answer but sometimes necessary in a recession economy in order to keep manufacturing jobs from suffering due to a loss of hours. People having money in their pockets benefits other sectors of the economy. The perfect economy is balanced. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm picking favorites with the manufacturing sector.

Lower Taxes:

Pros- People have more of their own money in their pockets to help consumer spending.
Cons- Welfare services must be reduced.

Education:

Pros- More people are qualified for higher paying jobs regardless of background.
Cons- People have more debt and not everyone will be able to have higher paying jobs.

Infrastructure:

Pros- Jobs are created which puts people to work.
Cons- Debt is created and the jobs are temporary.

[barfbag]

I think there is hope for the Republican Party for the future. If they would take those Ron Paulites into the fold, and support candidates with his views to run, they can attract the young voters, the future of this country.

Those on the left who keep on saying the Republican Party is heading for extinction really dont remember that back in 2004, people were saying the same thing about the Democrats. The democrats are over confident in their abilities to keep minorites in the party.

Overall, its really a tossup, and of course, i could be wrong.

The map will either continue to evolve, with the sunbelt moving D and the rustbelt and moving R or will revert back to where the Bible Belt gives Democrats a second chance and the mountains gives Republicans a second chance and we get something like a 1990s or 2000s map. 

Possibly, but I think New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado will eventually be light blue. Actually New Mexico might be light blue from here on out. The only reason I have it in the barely Democratic column is because of 2000 and 2004.

[barfbag]

I think there is hope for the Republican Party for the future. If they would take those Ron Paulites into the fold, and support candidates with his views to run, they can attract the young voters, the future of this country.

Those on the left who keep on saying the Republican Party is heading for extinction really dont remember that back in 2004, people were saying the same thing about the Democrats. The democrats are over confident in their abilities to keep minorites in the party.

Overall, its really a tossup, and of course, i could be wrong.

The map will either continue to evolve, with the sunbelt moving D and the rustbelt and moving R or will revert back to where the Bible Belt gives Democrats a second chance and the mountains gives Republicans a second chance and we get something like a 1990s or 2000s map. 

Possibly, but I think New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado will eventually be light blue. Actually New Mexico might be light blue from here on out. The only reason I have it in the barely Democratic column is because of 2000 and 2004.

It was because Bush appeared very moderate on race relations though it was probably all part of Rove's idea to push hard right with groups they were winning and push to the center on groups they are not. He though that if he could get from 38% to 42% of the vote in New York or from 66% to 69% in Wyoming, it directly would help him get from 49% to 51% of the vote in Florida and Ohio. He was correct.

With the electoral map advantage gained between 2000 and 2004 all Bush had to do was add to or keep his majorities in states he won. Actually, all he needed to do was keep Ohio with and without hindsight. The only other close Bush state from 2000 was Nevada which matched the national average.

[barfbag]

And Rove engineered that.

Yes he did and I have a statue of him in my room.

[barfbag]

We're off topic. Again I see the Republicans continuing to nominate moderate populists like McCain, Romney, Christie, and my kind of guys. Democrats seem like they'll be taking more chances. Despite a terrific performance, early on his ideology was scary.

[barfbag]

We're off topic. Again I see the Republicans continuing to nominate moderate populists like McCain, Romney, Christie, and my kind of guys. Democrats seem like they'll be taking more chances. Despite a terrific performance, early on his ideology was scary.

Christie is rated as a "Moderate Populist" by ontheissues.org yes. McCain is rated as a "Hard-Core Conservative" and Romney was rated as a Populist-leaning Conservative by on theissues.org. Yes Romney was only rated as 60% conservative on economic issues(moderate, right of center) but was rated only 8% liberal on social issues(pretty conservative.)

The Democrats are getting old I mean who do they have to run for Prez after Hillary? Duval Patrick or Corey Booker? I could see Booker running but not Duval. I know demography wise the electorate is going their way but their future presidential candidates don't  look as good as the Republicans. I actually said something positive about the R's for once!

I'm not sure I'd go completely by ontheissues.org as much as from following their careers. I've noticed they're very selective with the statements and bills included in their information. As for future Democrats, the only person I can think of besides Clinton who would help the Democrats win the White House is Andrew Cuomo.