Trump: GOP will become "workers' party"

[Famous Mortimer]

I like the direction Trump is taking the party but I doubt it will last past his loss. There are no actual politicians in the Trump wing of the party, just Trump himself, everyone else is against ideological realignment. The few politicians who do support Trump (Palin, Carson) are dullards who have espoused establishment conservatism in the past and probably will again, as they don't even really understand what they're saying. Most Trump voters are the same way. They agree with Trump's statism on one level, but they don't realize it unless Trump is there to hold their hand. If he isn't, they too will drift back towards free-market orthodoxy.

[RINO Tom]

Trump is Teddy Roosevelt with less likability and with an electorate that is less susceptible  to his off-color style (aka, unlike Teddy, he'll lose); the GOP wasn't like Trump/Roosevelt before, and it won't be like Trump after he's gone (just like it went back to normal after Teddy/Taft).

For the final time, until the Democrats offer a cozy home to affluent Whites and the business community, they're going to remain Republicans, regardless of infighting (there have always been factions, for Christ's sake) ... and the Democrats are NOT going to offer that sanctuary.  Period.  They are a party of the truly poor, minorities, government employees, public unions, academia and social justice warriors; not one of those groups is going to be okay with shifting in an even more neoliberal direction, as evidenced by the Democratic Party of 2016 arguing over how much taxes should go up, how much we should restrict free trade and how tough we should be on Wall Street.  Progressive economic thought is winning right now, and Trump is reacting (just like economic conservatism was winning in the '80s and '90s and Clinton reacted), but there's literally zero chance that the GOP moves further left than the Democrats.  Zero.  And that's what would have to happen for this realignment that some of you Dems are having wet dreams about.

For every move the GOP has made "left" fiscally, the Democrats are about ten steps ahead and show no signs of slowing down, even with (for some reason seen as at all moderate) Hillary.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

National Socialist American Workers Party?

(sorry.)

Exactly what I immediately thought.

[Famous Mortimer]

Trump is Teddy Roosevelt with less likability and with an electorate that is less susceptible  to his off-color style (aka, unlike Teddy, he'll lose); the GOP wasn't like Trump/Roosevelt before, and it won't be like Trump after he's gone (just like it went back to normal after Teddy/Taft).

For the final time, until the Democrats offer a cozy home to affluent Whites and the business community, they're going to remain Republicans, regardless of infighting (there have always been factions, for Christ's sake) ... and the Democrats are NOT going to offer that sanctuary.  Period.  They are a party of the truly poor, minorities, government employees, public unions, academia and social justice warriors; not one of those groups is going to be okay with shifting in an even more neoliberal direction, as evidenced by the Democratic Party of 2016 arguing over how much taxes should go up, how much we should restrict free trade and how tough we should be on Wall Street.  Progressive economic thought is winning right now, and Trump is reacting (just like economic conservatism was winning in the '80s and '90s and Clinton reacted), but there's literally zero chance that the GOP moves further left than the Democrats.  Zero.  And that's what would have to happen for this realignment that some of you Dems are having wet dreams about.

For every move the GOP has made "left" fiscally, the Democrats are about ten steps ahead and show no signs of slowing down, even with (for some reason seen as at all moderate) Hillary.

I don't think Republicans will move left long term but Democrats will absolutely move right and it's already started. You see that in Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's opposition to free college because "then rich people will get free college too". Similarly, I've met many leftists and SJWs who think minimum wage laws shouldn't apply to small (ie immigrant and minority owned) businesses because they can't compete otherwise. There's been talk of means testing Social Security and when people discover that that means taking away benefits from White people, that talk will only get louder. Free trade is an odd one. That's like a Bernie personal opinion and a lot of his supporters cling to it because it demonstrates a concrete different he has with Hillary. Really though, polls show most Democrats support free trade. As the party becomes more foreign born and less union, those pro-free trade numbers will only increase.

[RINO Tom]

Trump is Teddy Roosevelt with less likability and with an electorate that is less susceptible  to his off-color style (aka, unlike Teddy, he'll lose); the GOP wasn't like Trump/Roosevelt before, and it won't be like Trump after he's gone (just like it went back to normal after Teddy/Taft).

For the final time, until the Democrats offer a cozy home to affluent Whites and the business community, they're going to remain Republicans, regardless of infighting (there have always been factions, for Christ's sake) ... and the Democrats are NOT going to offer that sanctuary.  Period.  They are a party of the truly poor, minorities, government employees, public unions, academia and social justice warriors; not one of those groups is going to be okay with shifting in an even more neoliberal direction, as evidenced by the Democratic Party of 2016 arguing over how much taxes should go up, how much we should restrict free trade and how tough we should be on Wall Street.  Progressive economic thought is winning right now, and Trump is reacting (just like economic conservatism was winning in the '80s and '90s and Clinton reacted), but there's literally zero chance that the GOP moves further left than the Democrats.  Zero.  And that's what would have to happen for this realignment that some of you Dems are having wet dreams about.

For every move the GOP has made "left" fiscally, the Democrats are about ten steps ahead and show no signs of slowing down, even with (for some reason seen as at all moderate) Hillary.

I don't think Republicans will move left long term but Democrats will absolutely move right and it's already started. You see that in Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's opposition to free college because "then rich people will get free college too". Similarly, I've met many leftists and SJWs who think minimum wage laws shouldn't apply to small (ie immigrant and minority owned) businesses because they can't compete otherwise. There's been talk of means testing Social Security and when people discover that that means taking away benefits from White people, that talk will only get louder. Free trade is an odd one. That's like a Bernie personal opinion and a lot of his supporters cling to it because it demonstrates a concrete different he has with Hillary. Really though, polls show most Democrats support free trade. As the party becomes more foreign born and less union, those pro-free trade numbers will only increase.

This.  And if Trump does relatively well (particularly if he does better than Romney), we really could see Republicans become the party of the economic left over the next 20 years.  The final and most uncertain part of this would be the Sanders/Warren people bolting the Dems over their moderation and eventually ending up in the GOP.  The parties have switched positions on economics before and it could happen again.

LOL, okay, I can't do this again; believe what you will.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you going to vote Trump because of his socialism?

[RINO Tom]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you going to vote Trump because of his socialism?

Oh my God, the thread just took a fortunate and dramatic turn!

Realistic and interesting analysis ahead.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It won't take much for them to be more of a workers party than the Clinton party.

[IceSpear]

It won't take much for them to be more of a workers party than the Clinton party.

I remember the 90s being quite a fond time for "the workers", until your boy Nader got Dubya in the White House to destroy the economy.

[RR1997]

It won't take much for them to be more of a workers party than the Clinton party.

I remember the 90s being quite a fond time for "the workers", until your boy Nader got Dubya in the White House to destroy the economy.

lol

The 2008 Recession would've happened regardless of who won in 2000. Bush had nothing to do with it.

[Virginiá]

It won't take much for them to be more of a workers party than the Clinton party.

I remember the 90s being quite a fond time for "the workers", until your boy Nader got Dubya in the White House to destroy the economy.

lol

The 2008 Recession would've happened regardless of who won in 2000. Bush had nothing to do with it.

As much as I hate the 2000 election, in hindsight it's better that Bush carried out 2 terms - His presidency severely damaged the Republican party and effectively turned Millennials against the party for good. This will pay dividends in the 2020s.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Trump is Teddy Roosevelt with less likability and with an electorate that is less susceptible  to his off-color style (aka, unlike Teddy, he'll lose); the GOP wasn't like Trump/Roosevelt before, and it won't be like Trump after he's gone (just like it went back to normal after Teddy/Taft).

For the final time, until the Democrats offer a cozy home to affluent Whites and the business community, they're going to remain Republicans, regardless of infighting (there have always been factions, for Christ's sake) ... and the Democrats are NOT going to offer that sanctuary.  Period.  They are a party of the truly poor, minorities, government employees, public unions, academia and social justice warriors; not one of those groups is going to be okay with shifting in an even more neoliberal direction, as evidenced by the Democratic Party of 2016 arguing over how much taxes should go up, how much we should restrict free trade and how tough we should be on Wall Street.  Progressive economic thought is winning right now, and Trump is reacting (just like economic conservatism was winning in the '80s and '90s and Clinton reacted), but there's literally zero chance that the GOP moves further left than the Democrats.  Zero.  And that's what would have to happen for this realignment that some of you Dems are having wet dreams about.

For every move the GOP has made "left" fiscally, the Democrats are about ten steps ahead and show no signs of slowing down, even with (for some reason seen as at all moderate) Hillary.

I don't think Republicans will move left long term but Democrats will absolutely move right and it's already started. You see that in Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's opposition to free college because "then rich people will get free college too". Similarly, I've met many leftists and SJWs who think minimum wage laws shouldn't apply to small (ie immigrant and minority owned) businesses because they can't compete otherwise. There's been talk of means testing Social Security and when people discover that that means taking away benefits from White people, that talk will only get louder. Free trade is an odd one. That's like a Bernie personal opinion and a lot of his supporters cling to it because it demonstrates a concrete different he has with Hillary. Really though, polls show most Democrats support free trade. As the party becomes more foreign born and less union, those pro-free trade numbers will only increase.

This.  And if Trump does relatively well (particularly if he does better than Romney), we really could see Republicans become the party of the economic left over the next 20 years.  The final and most uncertain part of this would be the Sanders/Warren people bolting the Dems over their moderation and eventually ending up in the GOP.  The parties have switched positions on economics before and it could happen again.

LOL, okay, I can't do this again; believe what you will.

I don't see the Democrats becoming more economically liberal than the GOP, and I agree with the poster who pointed out that real realignment is not likely to come from Trump because Trumpism doesn't have other politicians behind it (unlike, say, the Tea Party). 

What Trump HAS done is exposed the GOP as a party that is not monolithically a "small government" party.  Indeed, it has shown the GOP to be, clearly, a majority-statist party, with a number of their statists quite OK with what "pure" conservatives and libertarians might view as "Nanny Statism".  I think we are at the end of the road where Movement Conservatives can honestly assert that the reason the GOP loses is because it's candidates "aren't conservatives".  I would suggest that the last two GOP nominees were, in fact, to the right of the ideological midpoint of the GOP.

[Santander]

What Trump HAS done is exposed the GOP as a party that is not monolithically a "small government" party.  Indeed, it has shown the GOP to be, clearly, a majority-statist party, with a number of their statists quite OK with what "pure" conservatives and libertarians might view as "Nanny Statism".  I think we are at the end of the road where Movement Conservatives can honestly assert that the reason the GOP loses is because it's candidates "aren't conservatives".  I would suggest that the last two GOP nominees were, in fact, to the right of the ideological midpoint of the GOP.

Good post.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

 In Austria last Sunday about 86% of blue collar workers voted for the "right wing" candidate Hofer against the "left-wing" candidate Van Der Bellen.  In some European countries the perceived more nationalist, pro-low or no immigration parties are becoming the manual workers party.

This is just the restauration of the pre-Mussolini status quo.

wtf

Before Mussolini, the working class were not part of "nationalist" political parties. In fact, they were part of internationalist political parties and the most active among them saw themselves as sharing more in common with other workers than with their capitalist compatriots. I know you know this because you aren't a fool but I'm pointing it out to remind you that your narrative is stylized and designed to fit your worldview.

The media has decided, per usual, that working class whites and poor whites in the West are to blame for the rise of the far-right and xenophobia. Little focus or attention has been directed towards the fact that, in actuality, it is the lower middle class that is the far-right's base. Protest votes might be cast for the FPO or for Trump or the FN by the working class but the party activists are definitely not working class.

I'll grant that the far-right in the 21st Century derives its support from a much wider base than the far-right of the early 20th Century, which was almost exclusively a middle class force, but, regardless, it's simply not true that union members or tradesmen particularly gravitate towards Trump or the far-right. This is a claim that's desirable if one is liberal because it allows forces of democracy to detach themselves from those pesky working class agitators who have the temerity to question aspects of "neo-liberalism". Alas, it's entirely false, as is your bizarre claim that Sanders supporters will gravitate towards Trump when, in fact, Sanders supporters are quite comfortable with free trade and internationalism, as are supporters of parties like SYRIZA, Podemos and the like.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Sanders supporters are about as "internationalist" as Clinton supporters; one could argue that they are more passionately "internationalist" where it actually accounts. It's one thing to question the merit of free trade and it's quite another to support subjecting immigrants from the Middle East to an all-encompassing police state...

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh. Let's see. We have Trump arguing from liberal principles. When Trump loses it's because he was too liberal.

Now if Cruz were running and suffered a Goldwaterish loss, I could see the argument. But, that's not on the table here.

This election isn't a referendum on movement conservatives, but once again it's McCain III where the 'GOP moderates' piss away another election.

[Famous Mortimer]

 In Austria last Sunday about 86% of blue collar workers voted for the "right wing" candidate Hofer against the "left-wing" candidate Van Der Bellen.  In some European countries the perceived more nationalist, pro-low or no immigration parties are becoming the manual workers party.

This is just the restauration of the pre-Mussolini status quo.

wtf

Before Mussolini, the working class were not part of "nationalist" political parties. In fact, they were part of internationalist political parties and the most active among them saw themselves as sharing more in common with other workers than with their capitalist compatriots. I know you know this because you aren't a fool but I'm pointing it out to remind you that your narrative is stylized and designed to fit your worldview.

The media has decided, per usual, that working class whites and poor whites in the West are to blame for the rise of the far-right and xenophobia. Little focus or attention has been directed towards the fact that, in actuality, it is the lower middle class that is the far-right's base. Protest votes might be cast for the FPO or for Trump or the FN by the working class but the party activists are definitely not working class.

I'll grant that the far-right in the 21st Century derives its support from a much wider base than the far-right of the early 20th Century, which was almost exclusively a middle class force, but, regardless, it's simply not true that union members or tradesmen particularly gravitate towards Trump or the far-right. This is a claim that's desirable if one is liberal because it allows forces of democracy to detach themselves from those pesky working class agitators who have the temerity to question aspects of "neo-liberalism". Alas, it's entirely false, as is your bizarre claim that Sanders supporters will gravitate towards Trump when, in fact, Sanders supporters are quite comfortable with free trade and internationalism, as are supporters of parties like SYRIZA, Podemos and the like.

Nice of you to not want to blame the working class but you're just wrong. The working class is behind the rise of Trump and the FPO. First of all, the distinction between "working class" and "lower middle class", if it can be made at all, is pretty close to nothing. You're saying that cashiers are good honest people who are being mislead but retail shift leaders are evil, racist fascists. Second, you admit the working class vote for Trump and the FPO but you assume their support isn't sincere or real since they don't become Trump or FPO activists. This is a very unreasonable assumption. The working class don't become activists in general, for any political movements, because by definition they can't afford to, they have to work to support themselves. Do you assume that because most Democratic Party activists aren't working class, working class support for the Democratic Party is similarly insincere?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It won't take much for them to be more of a workers party than the Clinton party.

I remember the 90s being quite a fond time for "the workers", until your boy Nader got Dubya in the White House to destroy the economy.

lol

The 2008 Recession would've happened regardless of who won in 2000. Bush had nothing to do with it.

True, Senator Dorgan warned that sh**t would hit the fan within 10 years when he voted against repealling Glass Steagal in 1999.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Sanders supporters are about as "internationalist" as Clinton supporters; one could argue that they are more passionately "internationalist" where it actually accounts. It's one thing to question the merit of free trade and it's quite another to support subjecting immigrants from the Middle East to an all-encompassing police state...

It's a little bit of a relief that Trump supporters (outside of this forum) aren't much crazier about universal health care than Cruz supporters (and less so than Kasich supporters. Perhaps small-government conservatism will prove to be a stronger force within the GOP than many here are predicting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Austria, in any case, is a very strange country and the recent Presidential election (an election to a largely symbolic post) was a very unusual one with the candidate of the Left being associated with the Green Party (which has a largely middle class voter profile) rather than the Social Democrats (which still has a largely working class one). There was a very striking division between city and country in the election (which is unusual in Austria, despite stereotypes) and given the difference in employment structures between the city and country in Austria this will have had a certain effect given the use by Austrian pollsters of very outdated social categories. And along the same lines there was a massive gender division, which (again given the outdated social categories etc) will have had an impact on the figures (which you have to take with a degree of salt anyway). Like, you can't really draw conclusions for any country other than Austria from anything to do with that weird election and can probably only barely do it for Austria...

[Wisconsin+17]

Why is a rural/urban split that strange? Most democracies are organized along those lines these days.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

It's a little bit of a relief that Trump supporters (outside of this forum) aren't much crazier about universal health care than Cruz supporters (and less so than Kasich supporters. Perhaps small-government conservatism will prove to be a stronger force within the GOP than many here are predicting.

I am curious here.  My wife has just been diagnosed with cancer.  Even with good insurance, I am still facing significant out-of-pocket costs.  If I didn't have the insurance I have, I doubt my wife would have had the favorable prognosis she has received after surgery.

So what is the conservative plan for folks like me, had I been unemployed and there had been no Obamacare?  I'd really like to know.  You can say "Medical Savings Accounts", but how would that help me in my situation; I'm almost 60 and my wife and I have a 10 year old who also has medical issues.  We live quite modestly, and I don't complain about what I earn because I've made those choices, and my wife has made those choices for the benefit of our youngest son (we have 2 grown sons as well).  But, frankly, if I had lost my job and my health insurance, I don't see any way in the world my wife would have had the treatment she received.  We wouldn't have had the money, and she'd have been left to die.  Please tell me I'm wrong, but please don't tell me that America is a generous nation.  That's only true until a specific request for help is made, as least as far as we have been concerned.  If I'm as self-reliant as I can be, it's because I've seen how good others are at not giving a crap enough to provide tangible help.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

It's a little bit of a relief that Trump supporters (outside of this forum) aren't much crazier about universal health care than Cruz supporters (and less so than Kasich supporters. Perhaps small-government conservatism will prove to be a stronger force within the GOP than many here are predicting.

I am curious here.  My wife has just been diagnosed with cancer.  Even with good insurance, I am still facing significant out-of-pocket costs.  If I didn't have the insurance I have, I doubt my wife would have had the favorable prognosis she has received after surgery.

So what is the conservative plan for folks like me, had I been unemployed and there had been no Obamacare?  I'd really like to know.  You can say "Medical Savings Accounts", but how would that help me in my situation; I'm almost 60 and my wife and I have a 10 year old who also has medical issues.  We live quite modestly, and I don't complain about what I earn because I've made those choices, and my wife has made those choices for the benefit of our youngest son (we have 2 grown sons as well).  But, frankly, if I had lost my job and my health insurance, I don't see any way in the world my wife would have had the treatment she received.  We wouldn't have had the money, and she'd have been left to die.  Please tell me I'm wrong, but please don't tell me that America is a generous nation.  That's only true until a specific request for help is made, as least as far as we have been concerned.  If I'm as self-reliant as I can be, it's because I've seen how good others are at not giving a crap enough to provide tangible help.

[Badger]

It's a little bit of a relief that Trump supporters (outside of this forum) aren't much crazier about universal health care than Cruz supporters (and less so than Kasich supporters. Perhaps small-government conservatism will prove to be a stronger force within the GOP than many here are predicting.

I am curious here.  My wife has just been diagnosed with cancer.  Even with good insurance, I am still facing significant out-of-pocket costs.  If I didn't have the insurance I have, I doubt my wife would have had the favorable prognosis she has received after surgery.

So what is the conservative plan for folks like me, had I been unemployed and there had been no Obamacare?  I'd really like to know.  You can say "Medical Savings Accounts", but how would that help me in my situation; I'm almost 60 and my wife and I have a 10 year old who also has medical issues.  We live quite modestly, and I don't complain about what I earn because I've made those choices, and my wife has made those choices for the benefit of our youngest son (we have 2 grown sons as well).  But, frankly, if I had lost my job and my health insurance, I don't see any way in the world my wife would have had the treatment she received.  We wouldn't have had the money, and she'd have been left to die.  Please tell me I'm wrong, but please don't tell me that America is a generous nation.  That's only true until a specific request for help is made, as least as far as we have been concerned.  If I'm as self-reliant as I can be, it's because I've seen how good others are at not giving a crap enough to provide tangible help.

Fuzzy, I am deeply, deeply sorry for your wife's diagnosis. I pray she beats it.

Your point is extremely apt. Does it go without saying that the 98+% of people against universal health care have health insurance?

[RaphaelDLG]

It's a little bit of a relief that Trump supporters (outside of this forum) aren't much crazier about universal health care than Cruz supporters (and less so than Kasich supporters. Perhaps small-government conservatism will prove to be a stronger force within the GOP than many here are predicting.

I am curious here.  My wife has just been diagnosed with cancer.  Even with good insurance, I am still facing significant out-of-pocket costs.  If I didn't have the insurance I have, I doubt my wife would have had the favorable prognosis she has received after surgery.

So what is the conservative plan for folks like me, had I been unemployed and there had been no Obamacare?  I'd really like to know.  You can say "Medical Savings Accounts", but how would that help me in my situation; I'm almost 60 and my wife and I have a 10 year old who also has medical issues.  We live quite modestly, and I don't complain about what I earn because I've made those choices, and my wife has made those choices for the benefit of our youngest son (we have 2 grown sons as well).  But, frankly, if I had lost my job and my health insurance, I don't see any way in the world my wife would have had the treatment she received.  We wouldn't have had the money, and she'd have been left to die.  Please tell me I'm wrong, but please don't tell me that America is a generous nation.  That's only true until a specific request for help is made, as least as far as we have been concerned.  If I'm as self-reliant as I can be, it's because I've seen how good others are at not giving a crap enough to provide tangible help.

Thanks for your powerful testimony; best of luck to you and your wife!!!