Republican Wave?

[Person Man]

If there is a Republican wave this year and next(2016), will any pundits talk about any fundamental change in our country that caused it? Will they cite demographics, economic changes or the credibility of candidates/ideology or party?

[Person Man]

No, it will be attributed to the failure/bad luck of the Democrats more than anything else (though this might include economic change, if there's a turn for the worse and it benefits Republicans).  Credibility of the candidates might be stated as a reason, if the Republican nominee in 2016 is very good and the Democratic one very bad.   

I personally think that GOP good luck would be that worsening race relations and the oil boom is softening Obama's coalition, pulling away younger folks and lighter-skinned minorities. Of course, this is just the Republican way of countering the declining Evangelical. An offshoot of this might be a growing neoconservatism replacing weakening social conservatism.

[Person Man]

Any takers?

[Person Man]

Has the "Coalition of the Ascendant" been replaced with a narrative about the aging of America?

[Person Man]

Basically the hierarchy going forward should be

Emily  (Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina)
Sara (New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado)
Jim  (Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin)
Danny (give up on places like Arkansas and Kentucky, North Carolina)

[Person Man]

Yes, I agree with that order:

1. It seems that Republicans have a higher floor with minority voters and Democrats have a higher floor with white voters than the CW anticipated.  So the whole "turn Texas/Arizona blue!" line of thinking needs to go out the window with the focus instead on the Bush-Obama states.  I also think the GOP will give up on NH soon.

2. Hillary has a path to a large (> or = 2008) national victory, but it doesn't rest on the Clinton Coalition states, it rests on wiping the floor 3:1 with Emily and Sara.  And there's the added benefit that her strongest supporters won't be stuck in a small number of 75% female districts, so congress could be in play.

3. Jim-type voters are understandably anti-incumbent.  Democrats peaked with them way back in 2006.  Since then, it's been about trying to break even/limit losses.  Republicans should be very interested in trying to break 60% with them, but they won't likely put a Dem over the top until the GOP has full control again.

4. Unlike TX/AZ/GA, Florida looks surprisingly promising for Dems in the medium to long run.  Scott didn't overperform polling and the Cuban voting shift seemed to continue.  The GOP should do everything they can to lock it down while they still have full control and Hillary should spend a lot of time here.

5. If US oil production continues to rival Saudi Arabia over the long term, the Democratic position on the environment will go the way of the Republican position on gay marriage over the coming years.  It could be a non-starter to talk about climate change outside of 65% Obama districts in 2025.

6. The next time they have a big wave, the Democrats need to be ready to do in CO/NM/NV/VA/NH what the Republicans have now done in WV/KY/TN/AR/LA: sweep the legislatures, win by double digits statewide and take them off the table for good.  They can't let Republicans become entrenched in 20-25 states when they only have 5-10 of their own (CA still only gets 2 senators).

More or less. Pushing further Into Arizona and Texas doesn't work because many Hispanics, especially lighter skinned ones eventually assimilate and say they are "Spanish". Which is whatever but it they start acting like they were always Danny.

But giving up on climate change will stop when climate change single handedly causes a recession bad enough that you can't just put farmers on welfare the way we put banks on welfare this time.

[Person Man]

The next time they have a big wave, the Democrats need to be ready to do in CO/NM/NV/VA/NH what the Republicans have now done in WV/KY/TN/AR/LA: sweep the legislatures, win by double digits statewide and take them off the table for good.  They can't let Republicans becotme entrenched in 20-25 states when they only have 5-10 of their own (CA still only gets 2 senators).

Yes, it was a wave, and the G O P won on its own turf, not a realignment election, and it had more to do with Christie testing the political waters. But, we are already living under sequester cuts and G O P budgets and 90%.of Congress will look same.

As for 2016, G O P will end their unity

 and turn to the primaries. We must find a way next to translate our prez victory, should Clinton win to midterm gains, since the G O P govs will be term limited.

THEY'RE CALLED ARTICLES AND CONJUNCTIONS. USE THEM

We blew the 2014 election with Obama, but 2016 wont have Obama to kick around anymore.
[/quote]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RV4K6YHTfg

And another question about "Jims". Isn't deadman, grumps and gausslaw "Jims" but they are very different on the social issues. It seems like deadman and grumps are Emily-like and GaussLaw is Danny-like.

[Person Man]

This was the last favorable map for G O P triumph.

We should net about 15 house seats and 4 senate seats should CO, NV, NH, PA follow the 272 firewall, for Hilary.

Though starting in 2020, we will need all these states just to stay a viable party.

[Person Man]

The next time they have a big wave, the Democrats need to be ready to do in CO/NM/NV/VA/NH what the Republicans have now done in WV/KY/TN/AR/LA: sweep the legislatures, win by double digits statewide and take them off the table for good.  They can't let Republicans becotme entrenched in 20-25 states when they only have 5-10 of their own (CA still only gets 2 senators).

Yes, it was a wave, and the G O P won on its own turf, not a realignment election, and it had more to do with Christie testing the political waters. But, we are already living under sequester cuts and G O P budgets and 90%.of Congress will look same.

As for 2016, G O P will end their unity

 and turn to the primaries. We must find a way next to translate our prez victory, should Clinton win to midterm gains, since the G O P govs will be term limited.

THEY'RE CALLED ARTICLES AND CONJUNCTIONS. USE THEM

We blew the 2014 election with Obama, but 2016 wont have Obama to kick around anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RV4K6YHTfg

And another question about "Jims". Isn't deadman, grumps and gausslaw "Jims" but they are very different on the social issues. It seems like deadman and grumps are Emily-like and GaussLaw is Danny-like.

Jim's have diverse views on social issues, but they are generally social moderates who just want their jobs/benefits back in a way that overshadows everything else.  But it's unlikely that they ever actually will get those jobs back.  This is why fixing college funding could be such a powerful wedge issue.  Jim will eventually have to face his economic reality, but he will strongly support a political movement that gives his kids a fighting chance at a 6 figure career.

I don't think there is much risk of Sara becoming the next Danny.  If you look at the Upper Rio Grande area in NM and rural CO, the Hispanic Catholic people who have lived there more than 200 years still vote about 60/40 D.  I think they represent the long term state of the Hispanic electorate after 2050.  Texas R's can do better because they have a Hispanic Evangelical bloc.  But the idea of Democrats getting to 80-90% with Hispanic voters in perpetuity needs to go.

Regarding climate change, it would be a dormant issue until/unless there is Dust Bowl/Katrina level event that is unambiguously linked to it.  This is speculative, but maybe that will be the next realignment at mid-century that brings the Dems back into rural contention?  And the GOP becomes the urban party because the resent paying for the mess they tried to avoid?
[/quote]

Maybe the entire 1984-2008 was a period of transition from the Industrial Age politics to the Information Age politics the same way 1908-1932 was a period of transition from the Postbellum age to the Industrial Age. Maybe this era will end in a massive storm that sets the stage for the new  era.

[Person Man]

That reminds me of this off-the-wall scenario I put together earlier this year.  IL and MA are majority Western/Southern migrants, and the DC area wants more government jobs:

Isabel Martinez (TX-GOV)/Calvin Brown (IL-SEN)  56.7% 390 EV
J. A. "Jeff" Kearney (MI-GOV)/Sarah Fitzpatrick (CT-GOV)  42.5% 148 EV

And here's a toss-up race:

President Alissa Cruz-Warren/Vice President Nathaniel Morrison 50.3%  298 EV
Marianne Williamson (TN-SEN)/Arthur J. Cohen (NY-SEN)  48.0%  240 EV

So, I am guessing that the biggest city in the country in Chicago and that much of Florida is underwater,  jungle has overgrown the Southeast and that the west has run out of water?

[Person Man]

This all sounds pretty sexy. It seems like something out of the movie Interstellar.

[Person Man]

Except it's more optimistic than that.  Similarly to the 1930's-40's, freedom/democratic government hobbles across the finish line in a way that suggests Millennialist predestination to many.

In the current era, it's somewhat remarkable that things didn't get anywhere near as bad as the 1930's in the aftermath of 2008, but the problem is that it's not obviously getting any better.  Even the desperate are now pretty far away from the ancestral standard of desperation.  So Romney fell flat, and Obama never got his 1936.  You don't get much populist rage from people with electricity, cars and computers.

Except it's more optimistic than that.  Similarly to the 1930's-40's, freedom/democratic government hobbles across the finish line in a way that suggests Millennialist predestination to many.

In the current era, it's somewhat remarkable that things didn't get anywhere near as bad as the 1930's in the aftermath of 2008, but the problem is that it's not obviously getting any better.  Even the desperate are now pretty far away from the ancestral standard of desperation.  So Romney fell flat, and Obama never got his 1936.  You don't get much populist rage from people with electricity, cars and computers.

Well, the Great Recession was caused by repealing parts of the New Deal like Glass-Stegall. I have no doubt that the Great Recession would have been worse than the Great Depression if all of the New Deal had been dismantled.

Although maybe the fact that the Depression was stopped but that some damage was still done could mean that we have simply forestalled the inevitable and that is the Rs kept winning like they have been doing, we could be in a situation the is very similar to the late 20s by the end of the decade.
And yes. If the Republicans or SCOTUS is able to cancel the ACA and with their universal majorities, they could be emboldened and empowered to generally cancel the New Deal.  

In fact we probably haven't gotten to that point yet because Bush simply couldn't do it. He was able to manage four years with very little accountability but when he went in for  the kill on domestic issues, he overplayed his hand and Katrina and the Iraqi Civil war of 2006 happened, permanently stopping his agenda. Had he been able to pass the sale of social security and had his surge earlier than later, the bubble could have kept building for a couple of more years.