Why Democrats Are Becoming the Party of the 1 Percent/Trumpism and Clintonism

[youngohioan216]

Two interesting articles:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/why-democrats-are-becoming-the-party-of-the-1-percent

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't see this happening. The Democrats would be a party that is economically neoliberal, socially SJW, and foreign policy neoconservative--it's like a mashup of all the least popular political views.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/campaign-stops/trumpism-and-clintonismare-the-future.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think this will depend on whether or not the economy can improve and the educated but underemployed millennials of today can eventually find well-paying jobs, buy homes and start families like the baby boomers were able to.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democratic party has truly lost their way with Hillary. Both parties are now terrible. Maybe in another 10 years the Republican party could end up the lesser of two evils.

[RINO Tom]

This prediction is, yet again, ridiculous.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Use Williamson County, Tennessee as an example of why this wouldn't work.  It's wealthy and overwhelmingly pro-free trade, but it's also deeply conservative on social and cultural issues.  In real life, that makes it an extremely safe Republican county, but in this world, these people would have no party to vote for.

[Kingpoleon]

Centrism just keeps constantly failing, doesn't it?

[Boston Bread]

For this to happen the Democrats would have to move to the right on economics. But the exact opposite is happening. Both Clinton and Sanders are running on platforms to the left of Obama.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Use Williamson County, Tennessee as an example of why this wouldn't work.  It's wealthy and overwhelmingly pro-free trade, but it's also deeply conservative on social and cultural issues.  In real life, that makes it an extremely safe Republican county, but in this world, these people would have no party to vote for.

Such a place would become a swing county. Voters swinging back and forth based on which set of issues dominated and the economic backdrop.

Do you think there aren't counties and groups of people that don't fit in the parties right now? Why would it be so shocking for that to shift to a new type of counties and voters?

[youngohioan216]

Use Williamson County, Tennessee as an example of why this wouldn't work.  It's wealthy and overwhelmingly pro-free trade, but it's also deeply conservative on social and cultural issues.  In real life, that makes it an extremely safe Republican county, but in this world, these people would have no party to vote for.

There are a lot more people who vote Republican because of social and cultural issues than economic issues. There was a recent thread on here where several Republicans said the main reason why they were Republicans was because they were pro-life and that they would leave the party if it ever stopped being officially pro-life. What the rise of Trump has shown is that many, if not most, Republican voters are not small government economic libertarians.

[Derpist]

I can't see this happening. The Democrats would be a party that is economically neoliberal, socially SJW, and foreign policy neoconservative--it's like a mashup of all the least popular political views.

Except that really is the direction of the Democratic Party and the 1%. Places like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are crawling with SJWs and SJWism.

Being the party of Goldman Sachs is viable. After all, Hillary's doing it right now and she'll win the nomination. It's the socioeconomic agenda of white elites, supported by a large mass of minorities that you keep in the party through racial issues like BLM.

I think this will depend on whether or not the economy can improve and the educated but underemployed millennials of today can eventually find well-paying jobs, buy homes and start families like the baby boomers were able to.

There is pretty much no way that will ever happen. Recessions permanently damage the incomes, physical health, mental health, social health of generations that grow up under them. The current generation of millennials will never have any of those things; even if the economy manages to recover (which it probably won't), the beneficiaries will almost entirely be the (smaller) generation AFTER the millennials.

The millennial generation is basically permanently socially destroyed, somewhat reminiscent of the Lost Generation after World War I. The 90% of millennials who voted for Bernie are still going to be socialists in 30 years - if anything, they will probably radicalize as things do not improve for them (since most millennials are delusionally optimistic about their futures.)

Just the sheer demographic weight of this generation means that the real political question is what kind of socialism triumphs in America. Left-socialism or Trumpism.

[RINO Tom]

For this to happen the Democrats would have to move to the right on economics. But the exact opposite is happening. Both Clinton and Sanders are running on platforms to the left of Obama.

This times one million.  Even if the GOP fully alienates their fiscally minded voters (even Trump is still advocating repealing Obamacare and railing against excessive taxation), the Democrats show ZERO sign of even wanting to offer an alternative for those voters.  Period.  The GOP's move to the fiscal left (if it continues, which it won't ... there will be an apetite for fiscal restraint after Hillary, if you ask me) will be because an even further left Democratic Party dragged them there.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

SJWs don't care about economics much. Bernie just added that dimension. They can change. The Democrats have been the party of neoliberalism for quite some time while the Republicans had no coherent economic platform. Wall Street is full of them. That's just how it's been for decades. Derpist is incorrect in conflating those employees with SJWs of course. That couldn't be more off. They are just in the same coalition.

[RINO Tom]

Anyone saying Wall Street is more Democrat-friendly than GOP-friendly is either a painfully oblivious dreamer who yearns for a party that suits them or downright stupid.

[Del Tachi]

Told y'all

[RINO Tom]

Told y'all

Yes you did, but you're still not (and won't be) right, LOL.  The often-labeled "Working Class Whites" are going to have to deal with the business community, wealthy White college graduates, suburbanites who don't care that much about social issues and whatever other boogeymen you fancy for quite a while.

[Derpist]

Told y'all

Yes you did, but you're still not (and won't be) right, LOL.  The often-labeled "Working Class Whites" are going to have to deal with the business community, wealthy White college graduates, suburbanites who don't care that much about social issues and whatever other boogeymen you fancy for quite a while.

The middle-class is the most socially conservative, not the working-class. It's not working-class Republicans freaking out about Donald Trump's moderate views on abortion/LGBT issues.

[Del Tachi]

Told y'all

Yes you did, but you're still not (and won't be) right, LOL.  The often-labeled "Working Class Whites" are going to have to deal with the business community, wealthy White college graduates, suburbanites who don't care that much about social issues and whatever other boogeymen you fancy for quite a while.

Except the "White Working Class" will be GOP and all of the other groups you mentioned will be largely Democratic constituencies within the next 10 to 30 years. 

[Seneca]

Told y'all

Yes you did, but you're still not (and won't be) right, LOL.  The often-labeled "Working Class Whites" are going to have to deal with the business community, wealthy White college graduates, suburbanites who don't care that much about social issues and whatever other boogeymen you fancy for quite a while.

Except the "White Working Class" will be GOP and all of the other groups you mentioned will be largely Democratic constituencies within the next 10 to 30 years. 

How could the GOP win elections if the only people consistently voting for it were the white working class?

[RINO Tom]

Told y'all

Yes you did, but you're still not (and won't be) right, LOL.  The often-labeled "Working Class Whites" are going to have to deal with the business community, wealthy White college graduates, suburbanites who don't care that much about social issues and whatever other boogeymen you fancy for quite a while.

Except the "White Working Class" will be GOP and all of the other groups you mentioned will be largely Democratic constituencies within the next 10 to 30 years. 

We'll see my friend, but I say in your dreams.  Dixiecrat ideology died a slow, painful death, and this last gasp to resurrect it won't change the fact that it's a thing of the past (thankfully).

[youngohioan216]

I can't see this happening. The Democrats would be a party that is economically neoliberal, socially SJW, and foreign policy neoconservative--it's like a mashup of all the least popular political views.

Except that really is the direction of the Democratic Party and the 1%. Places like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are crawling with SJWs and SJWism.

Being the party of Goldman Sachs is viable. After all, Hillary's doing it right now and she'll win the nomination. It's the socioeconomic agenda of white elites, supported by a large mass of minorities that you keep in the party through racial issues like BLM.

Wall Street is crawling with SJWs? I find that hard to believe. There are exceptions, of course, like George Soros, but an ideology based on hating rich white males isn't going to be popular in an industry dominated by rich white males.

I think this will depend on whether or not the economy can improve and the educated but underemployed millennials of today can eventually find well-paying jobs, buy homes and start families like the baby boomers were able to.

There is pretty much no way that will ever happen. Recessions permanently damage the incomes, physical health, mental health, social health of generations that grow up under them. The current generation of millennials will never have any of those things; even if the economy manages to recover (which it probably won't), the beneficiaries will almost entirely be the (smaller) generation AFTER the millennials.

The millennial generation is basically permanently socially destroyed, somewhat reminiscent of the Lost Generation after World War I. The 90% of millennials who voted for Bernie are still going to be socialists in 30 years - if anything, they will probably radicalize as things do not improve for them (since most millennials are delusionally optimistic about their futures.)

Just the sheer demographic weight of this generation means that the real political question is what kind of socialism triumphs in America. Left-socialism or Trumpism.
[/quote]

Why do you think the economy will probably never recover? I mean, it's not likely we'll ever have a 50s style economy again, which was a perfect storm that won't be duplicated.  The days when a man with a high school education could support a stay at home wife and 4 or more kids are not coming back for most people. But I think it has to turn around at some point. Hopefully the mass retirement of the baby boomers over the next decade or so can open up more opportunities for millennials. 

[youngohioan216]

Anyone saying Wall Street is more Democrat-friendly than GOP-friendly is either a painfully oblivious dreamer who yearns for a party that suits them or downright stupid.

Right now, Wall Street is more Democrat-friendly.  People who derive their wealth from investments are a  lot more comfortable with the idea of a Clinton presidency than a Trump presidency. 

[Del Tachi]

Told y'all

Yes you did, but you're still not (and won't be) right, LOL.  The often-labeled "Working Class Whites" are going to have to deal with the business community, wealthy White college graduates, suburbanites who don't care that much about social issues and whatever other boogeymen you fancy for quite a while.

Except the "White Working Class" will be GOP and all of the other groups you mentioned will be largely Democratic constituencies within the next 10 to 30 years. 

We'll see my friend, but I say in your dreams.  Dixiecrat ideology died a slow, painful death, and this last gasp to resurrect it won't change the fact that it's a thing of the past (thankfully).

The only problem with what you're saying is that Donald Trump is winning.

And you're somewhat delusional if you think that a Republican Party that even today is run by Southern, White reactionaries is going to contain some amount of liberal nuance in a 21st century where globalization will empty out America's heartland of good-paying jobs, immigrants will continue flooding through the border, and the Culture Wars continue to wage with new fervor.  The GOP of 2040 looks like UKIP or Le Pen's FN.

And, beside the point, you have absolutely zero understanding of my ideology.  I'm one of the resident "big government Republicans" on the Forum, and am perfectly fine admitting that, at the current pace, I'll be a Democrat before long.  I'm not longing for the day when the GOP is only comprised of racists and losers.  So, no, I'm not trying to invent some GOP of my liking in these assessments. 

[RINO Tom]

Anyone saying Wall Street is more Democrat-friendly than GOP-friendly is either a painfully oblivious dreamer who yearns for a party that suits them or downright stupid.

Right now, Wall Street is more Democrat-friendly.  People who derive their wealth from investments are a  lot more comfortable with the idea of a Clinton presidency than a Trump presidency. 

Being in favor of Clinton over Trump does not change the fact that the business community leans heavily Republican.

[Del Tachi]

Anyone saying Wall Street is more Democrat-friendly than GOP-friendly is either a painfully oblivious dreamer who yearns for a party that suits them or downright stupid.

Right now, Wall Street is more Democrat-friendly.  People who derive their wealth from investments are a  lot more comfortable with the idea of a Clinton presidency than a Trump presidency. 

Being in favor of Clinton over Trump does not change the fact that the business community leans heavily Republican.

This is probably true of small business, but Wall Street has co-opted both major parties at the national level for quite some time now. 

[RINO Tom]

Anyone saying Wall Street is more Democrat-friendly than GOP-friendly is either a painfully oblivious dreamer who yearns for a party that suits them or downright stupid.

Right now, Wall Street is more Democrat-friendly.  People who derive their wealth from investments are a  lot more comfortable with the idea of a Clinton presidency than a Trump presidency. 

Being in favor of Clinton over Trump does not change the fact that the business community leans heavily Republican.

This is probably true of small business, but Wall Street has co-opted both major parties at the national level for quite some time now. 

It still heavily favored Romney and Congressional Republicans in the last few years.  I don't see why it's going to flock to a party whose platform is being shaped by Bernie Sanders voters...

[Badger]

Anyone saying Wall Street is more Democrat-friendly than GOP-friendly is either a painfully oblivious dreamer who yearns for a party that suits them or downright stupid.

Yep. And most Democrats--and voters in general--would strongly agree.

This is not a Republican strength.