Which party would you support out of these hypothetical parties

[Figueira]

Voted Socialist, but I'd probably move back and forth between the first four. The rest are all terrible.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Would vote for enthusiastically:
1. Labor
2. Socialist
3. Progressive

Would vote for begrudgingly:
4. Nationalist

Would rather abstain than vote for, but would consider:
5. Liberal
6. Family values
7. National Security

Would never vote for:
7. Conservative
8. Libertarian

Ideal coalition would be Labor-Socialist, with the Progressives and Nationalists being junior partners.

To me Labor-Progressive-Socialist-Liberal would likely form a coalition(who ever wins the most seats leads that coalition ) and Conservative- National Security- Family Values would for a coalition(who ever wins the most seats leads that coalition )  and Nationalists and Libertarians would be the ones both coalitions would need to get  .

To me the only time since 1968 where only two parties forming a coalition could get a majority all by itself would be in 1980 and 1984 when the Conservatives and National Security would likely get a majority with just those two parties forming the coalition. In 1984 I think its possible that the Conservatives can win a majority all by themselves.

[JA]

1. Socialist Party
2. Progressive Party
3. Labor Party

I'd only vote for those three, none of the others. Even the Labor Party would be a little difficult for me to embrace if its environmental record isn't good, as would be the trade policies of the Progressive Party.

[Lechasseur]

I'd vote for the Nationalist Party. My second choice would be the Family Values Party.

[Leinad]

Libertarians, despite their apparent weird obsession with the "roaring twenties" and weird phrasing of issues.

After that would be the Conservatives in a clear yet distant second, followed by the Liberals. If those three can't make a coalition I'd be annoyed, because the rest are totally deplorable.

[The_Doctor]

Conservatives first, then libertarians.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Libertarians, despite their apparent weird obsession with the "roaring twenties" and weird phrasing of issues.

After that would be the Conservatives in a clear yet distant second, followed by the Liberals. If those three can't make a coalition I'd be annoyed, because the rest are totally deplorable.

I made the Libertarians in this version people who support bringing the size of the government back to where it was before the New Deal instead of otl where they want to bring it back to  time before the progressive era(1901-1919).

So they would want to bring the size of the government back to the time of Harding/Coolidge and not Harrison/Cleveland .

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Conservative.

[Dr. Cynic]

1. Progressives
2. Labor
3. Socialist

Others: Nah.

[OSR stands with Israel]

  I believe the governing coalitions since the 1980s would be like this

Jan 1981- Jan 1993: Conservative- National Security  
Jan 1993- Nov 2001: Liberals-Conservative
Nov 2001(Many politicians defect to National Security ) - Jan 2005: Liberals- National Security- Conservative
Jan 2005-Jan 2009: National Security- Conservative-Family Values
Jan 2009- Jan 2013: Progressive- Labor- Liberal - Socialist
Jan 2013-Jan 2017: Liberals - Progressive- Labor  
Jan 2017- Now : Conservatives- Nationalists - Family Values- National Security


Prime Ministers:

1981-1990 : Ronald Reagan
1990-1993 : Jack Kemp
1993-2001: Al Gore
2001-2005: Joe Lieberman
2005-2009: John McCain
2009-2013:  Howard Dean
2013-2017 : Barack Obama
2017- Present : Paul Ryan

[OSR stands with Israel]

The reason Reagan rise is because of this

In the 1960s Barry Goldwater really is the only prominent conservative politician in DC while at the state level it is Reagan. Then Reagan takes over the national party in the early 1970s and by 1976(due to Nixon fall) quickly ascent to being the main center-right party in the country(though they still dont win in 1976) and then in 1980 they win big(and really only need the national security party to form a governing coalition ).

Basically the rise of economic conservatism happens in a very similar way to OTL. Just like OTL there werent many prominent economic conservatives in congress (other then Barry Goldwater) or in politics in general which allowed Reagan to basically grab the mantel as the main economic conservative politician in the country .

[AN63093]

Good thread OSR, and good work with writing up the party descriptions.

I would probably side with the Nationalists in most elections, but I'm not terribly ideological, and there are bits I like in almost all of these.  With the right candidate, I could probably vote for any of these parties except for the Socialists and Family Values.

National Security is interesting, because although I work in the national security industry or "establishment," if you will, and would probably rub shoulders with a lot of these types of voters... and although I find some of its platform appealing (i.e., increased military spending), it seems way too "neo-conservative" for me.

Someone that is in favor of defense spending but more "realpolitik" or realist in their foreign policy approach would be more to my liking, which I suppose would be more likely to be a Nationalist Party member than a National Security one, based on your descriptions.

[TheSaint250]

Libertarian

[SNJ1985]

In this scenario, I would start a new party that combined the Family Values Party's views on social issues with the Nationalist Party's views on economics and foreign policy.

[Beet]

I would swing between the first four, depending on particular circumstances.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

I saw this up thread a bit and I think it's a good way to answer the question.

Would vote for more often than not (federal level)

• Liberal
• Libertarian
• Progressive

Would vote for once in a while, but generally not often

• Conservative
• Labour

Probably wouldn't vote, but would at least consider

• Socialist

Would never even consider voting for

• NatSec
• Family values
• Nationalist

I would probably vote for the Conservative and liberal parties most often at the state level. State level officials inherently have no control over NatSec or civil liberties issues, so it frees me up to vote more on economics. I also assumed that parties' positions on civil liberties issues (e.g., NSA surveillance, TSA, Due Process concerns) tracked closely with the position of the party on national security (i.e., a more interventionalist party was more supportive of fewer civil liberties and vice versa).

[maga2020]

Mostly Nationalist, occasionally Family Values

[Kingpoleon]

After further checking, I would be a Liberal/Conservative swing voter. The Libertarians would oppose Roe vs. Wade as well as Obergefell vs. Hodges, while not even supporting a basic income supplement.

[darklordoftech]

Socialist.

[vanguard96]

Obviously Libertarian though of course private individuals & groups would collaborate globally & ideally pre-1913 in terms of eliminating the Fed & national income tax.

Next Conservative Party only ground troops for ISIS stands out as a strong negative

After that it is a steep drop

Socialist is easily the worst. Followed by National Security.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Socialist, because you don't seem to understand what socialism actually is. The "socialist" platform you mentioned is basically just any left-socdem platform (which is what I am). I generally support everything in that platform except for the middle-class tax hikes, but when it comes to things like "extremely strict regulation", the devil is in the detail. There are good, strict regulations, and bad, strict regulations, because the world isn't so black-and-white. Likewise, what do you mean by "[making it] illegal to profit of essential services? Do you mean nationalization of healthcare and utilities, or do you mean full collectivization of agriculture and housing? I would support the former and oppose the latter.

If the socialist party was actually socialist, like the Second International, I would probably back the Progressive Party. That said, the Labor Party platform is very appealing, and I would be more than happy to support them.

[Njall]

Liberals, without question. Next would probably be Progressive, followed by Conservative, but each of those have some relatively important turnoffs.

[Dr. MB]

Socialist or Labor, I'd support the views of Labor with a Socialist foreign policy.

[HillGoose]

National Security Party

[OSR stands with Israel]

bump