AMA
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:51:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  AMA
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: AMA  (Read 2640 times)
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 09, 2017, 11:19:39 PM »

Have at it. I'll answer any questions you have.
Logged
Mike Thick
tedbessell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,085


Political Matrix
E: -6.65, S: -8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2017, 12:12:36 AM »

Do you have any plans for writing additional timelines?
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2017, 12:27:44 AM »

Two important questions:

1. If you actually live in NH, or have any sort of interest in it at least, what are your thoughts on Democrats' chances in taking back the state legislature/Gov office in 2018?

2. If you had to choose, puppies or turtles?
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2017, 01:01:06 AM »

What does TD stand for? I keep on thinking it stands for an infamous subreddit...
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2017, 01:55:06 PM »
« Edited: May 10, 2017, 01:57:59 PM by TD »

Do you have any plans for writing additional timelines?

Nah unfortunately. I poured all of my creative energy into BTM because I wanted to predict the future. It took a long time so I don't want to do the research again for an alternative timeline.

Do you really live in New Hamspshire? If so, my sincerest condolences. Tongue

Nay but it is my favorite state (with Arizona) and I live in the Northeast however. So I went with NH. It's an awesome libertarian paradise with a New England culture.

I've considered moving there; a friend did and loves it there.

Two important questions:

1. If you actually live in NH, or have any sort of interest in it at least, what are your thoughts on Democrats' chances in taking back the state legislature/Gov office in 2018?

2. If you had to choose, puppies or turtles?

1. I'd have to do some research before commenting, I haven't checked on NH politics in a while.

2. Puppies

What does TD stand for? I keep on thinking it stands for an infamous subreddit...

Originally “Truman democrat.” I coined it after Trump's win to denote being part of the conservative (temporary Dem) opposition to Trump but I have reverted back to my conservative leaning ways ideologically and probably will vote for Trump's successor (barring a few condition). But it's a pain to go back to Silent Cal as everyone calls me TD.  So I let it stand, regardless. [I Know Truman was a domestic liberal but he was a great Cold War hawk).

It could stand for The_Donald mockingly, I'd be okay with that lol
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2017, 02:11:27 PM »

Favorite line/paragraph from a political speech?

See my signature - Reagan's “Shining City on a Hill“ paragraph by Peggy Noonan.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2017, 04:07:32 PM »

Do you see yourself voting straight ticket D until Trump leaves office and Trumpism dies out in the GOP?
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2017, 04:58:07 PM »
« Edited: May 10, 2017, 05:00:00 PM by TD »

Do you see yourself voting straight ticket D until Trump leaves office and Trumpism dies out in the GOP?

Yes.

At this juncture the plan is to do that as its the only really meaningful way to force the Republicans to address the Russian issue and the alt right issues (not populist -- I mean alt right racial and ethnic issues). I'm not very fond of the idea but I don't really have a choice. Simply voting Republican for Congress and local office but voting against Trump changes nothing. They need to be pushed to take action on the investigation and reforming the party. The more pain the rank and file Republicans feel the more pressure they direct upwards.

So yes, the idea is to vote Democratic until the Republicans clear the party of their Russian and alt right issues. If I think Pence is innocent of collusion and rids the party of the alt right like Bannon I will vote Pence and the Republican ticket -- most likely. But that's an if contingent on many things.

I do anticipate myself voting Republican when the Democrats retake the White House, provided the Republican coalition is reformed.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2017, 05:48:56 PM »

Do you see yourself voting straight ticket D until Trump leaves office and Trumpism dies out in the GOP?

Yes.

At this juncture the plan is to do that as its the only really meaningful way to force the Republicans to address the Russian issue and the alt right issues (not populist -- I mean alt right racial and ethnic issues). I'm not very fond of the idea but I don't really have a choice. Simply voting Republican for Congress and local office but voting against Trump changes nothing. They need to be pushed to take action on the investigation and reforming the party. The more pain the rank and file Republicans feel the more pressure they direct upwards.

So yes, the idea is to vote Democratic until the Republicans clear the party of their Russian and alt right issues. If I think Pence is innocent of collusion and rids the party of the alt right like Bannon I will vote Pence and the Republican ticket -- most likely. But that's an if contingent on many things.

I do anticipate myself voting Republican when the Democrats retake the White House, provided the Republican coalition is reformed.

Great. Welcome to the fold Smiley
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2017, 11:06:07 PM »

Hello TD. Big fan of your work.

1. What happens if the Democrats squeak by with a presidential victory in 2020? How would a 2020's Democratic realignment proceed in that case?

2. How accurate would you say this analysis is?
Logged
diptheriadan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,371


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2017, 10:50:00 PM »

I've heard that there was a previous version of B.T.M. Is this true? And if so, could you send me a link?
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2017, 10:54:00 PM »

Hello TD. Big fan of your work.

1. What happens if the Democrats squeak by with a presidential victory in 2020? How would a 2020's Democratic realignment proceed in that case?

2. How accurate would you say this analysis is?

I strongly second all of this.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2017, 10:57:11 PM »

I've heard that there was a previous version of B.T.M. Is this true? And if so, could you send me a link?

How'd you hear of it? Yes there is. I deleted the first version as there were two duplicates but I'm putting it up on a website actually and when I finish up that in the next week, I'll paste the link in BTM.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2017, 11:15:03 PM »
« Edited: May 11, 2017, 11:18:40 PM by TD »

Hello TD. Big fan of your work.

1. What happens if the Democrats squeak by with a presidential victory in 2020? How would a 2020's Democratic realignment proceed in that case?

2. How accurate would you say this analysis is?

1. I have to contest that question.

Democrats squeaking by indicates we are still in the Reaganite age. It would also be an aberration from past patterns. For some very strange reason, we've had exactly two elected minority coalition presidents in every full blown realignment. In the 1st, there was William Henry Harrison (Whig of Ohio) and Zachary Taylor (Whig of Louisiana). I don't count John Q. Adams as a Whig because he ran as a Democrat-Republican explicitly. In the long Republican rule from 1860 to 1932, Grover Cleveland (D-New York) and Woodrow Wilson (D-New Jersey) were the minority presidents. And of course, Dwight Eisenhower (R-PA/KS/NY) and Richard Nixon (R-California) served as the Roosevelt age's minority coalition presidents.  And of of course, we've just finished the second run of the minority coalition presidency - Bill Clinton (D-Arkansas) and Barack Obama (D-Illinois). (Is there a loophole with Grover Cleveland winning twice on two separate occasions? I don't know).

So assume x wins in 2020 by 51-48%, narrow margin. Aside from breaking the pattern (when the Democrats win, in this realignment, they've won big -- every narrow victory has ended up going to the GOP), it would indicate the Reaganite age is still in full force because large swaths of the electorate hasn't broken tribal loyalty. In fact this is the big reason I had Pence winning in 2020. Anyway, that president would be in a weakened position because he or she would be elected as a pure reaction to Trump's foibles, not because the country had fundamentally shifted. She would be in that position where Obama was, after 2008. In fact, possibly weaker, because the GOP would still be stronger than they were in 2008.  

In that case, a Republican would win in 2024, and in 2028, as you've listed elsewhere, the Democrats would win huge.

2. I've been writing up a foreign policy article and that's as good one. Fairly accurate I'd say but I think the Left synthesizes both movements into a populist cosmopolitan whole that respects the globalization trends of 1945-2020 but also respects we've left behind people. Right now, people like Hillary and Macron are weighted too heavily on the neoliberal side, of making progress while people like Corbyn are too weighted on the populist side. In the end, the global upheaval and economic turmoil we could experience worldwide might push the Left to synthesize these movements and to push a combination.

For example, expect Labour to regain power sometime in the 2020s, but with an eye to marrying the best of Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn. It really depends on the extent of the economic crisis (definitely President Cordray is that synthesis of 1 and 2 you described). I can see a number of left parties figuring out this synthesis.

I would point out the global left is facing this identity crisis. We're seeing it over and over - the Left trying to respond appropriately to the crisis but finding themselves split (Blair v. Corbyn; Macron v. Melenchon, SD v. the far left, etc etc).  Trudeau might be an answer in this case, the harbinger of the technocratic populist liberal. I'd have to research him more closely.

It's really hard to extrapolate global trends here. Europe has a much stronger safety net than we do so neoliberal economics hasn't been as huge of an issue for them (their problems concentrate on their populations shrinking, etc). India, the United States, Britain, and similar capitalistic minded countries might be in one bucket but France, Germany, Spain, and Scandinavia might be in another bucket.

The thing is, the last two American realignments were also global in scope. The Great Depression affected EVERYONE and so did the Reagan-Thatcher neoliberal 1980 realignment that pushed everyone towards neoliberal ideas. And with globalization being what it is, debt being what it is worldwide, I don't think America's realignment will be a localized phenomenon. The problem is that quite fundamentally, quite at root of everything is the great debate over two things: (1) How do we make globalization work for everyone? Aka talking about neoliberal policies and making them work for everyone - if possible (2) How do we figure out this debt issue that everyone is dealing with and guarantee a level of prosperity?

So that second question is an extremely complex question that asks you to keep two polar opposite ideas in mind - one of countries charting individual alignments and paths and one of countries also following a globalized realignment.

After all, Donald Trump won but Marie LePen lost, but Theresa May is winning, Narendra Modi won. But again, there is a commonality. When the center-right lets the populist right win, that victory is more likely, than when they don't. So it's an example of individual countries embracing drastically different outcomes but common forces pushing them. 

An interesting point - 1932 and 1980 became global realignments, because of, in part, of our interconnectedness by that point. So you could maybe expect the globe taking this step forward for Jet Age liberal policies that sort of ratify the path of 1945 (Bretton Woods, etc) but also fix the worst egregious stuff.

Sorry for the long rant. It's a highly complex issue I haven't immersed deeply so I don't have the best answers here.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2017, 11:22:34 PM »
« Edited: May 11, 2017, 11:26:26 PM by Virginia »

This is what I love about TD. He is always willing to take the time to type out very thorough explanations for often good, wholesome theories.

Edit: In response to #1 - is it possible for them to get elected as a minority coalition president, but sometime during their term, for the electorate to fundamentally shift, and end up with them winning reelection by a large margin? It seems like we are coming awfully close to the official end of the Reagan era, and the electorate is already beginning to fill up with heavily Democratic voters, it seems like such a scenario might at least be possible, no?
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2017, 04:58:35 PM »

Thank you for the great answers TD!

One more question. Why do you think is is that the majority coalition Party usually has unpopular Presidents following the first minority coalition President?

In the Lincoln era, this would've been after the first minority coalition President Grover Cleveland (Democrat) was succeeded by Benjamin Harrison who not only lost the popular vote but became a one term President due to his unpopularity.

In the FDR era, this was JFK who may have stolen the election in Illinois and Texas and didn't win a majority of the vote (although did win the plurality). However, he was assassinated and we had LBJ who couldn't run for a second term due to his unpopularity with Vietnam and if JFK had lived he probably would've suffered the same fate as Johnson did and been very unpopular in 1968 with the Vietnam war.

In the Reagan era, we had Bush who didn't win the popular vote and may have stolen Florida similar to 1960. He also left office highly unpopular.

What do you think causes this? It seems like these men should've usurped the mantel of their majority coalitions and been successful in office but all three of them squandered it.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2017, 07:06:07 PM »

Virginia I haven't forgotten about you. I'll get to your answer later.

TT I have a slightly different take that you might like. I'm thinking on the fly as I usually do.

Within the majority coalition there's usually a first and second half right? Jefferson-Jackson Democrats had the Founders and the Democrats. Lincoln-McKinley had the Civil War radical Republicans and the Industrialists. The Roosevelt-Kennedy era had the New Deal and the New Frontier/Great Society (which is the same agenda). The Reagan-Bush era saw the Cold Warriors and the War on Terror hawks.

(I digress for a second here to talk about Reagan-Bush a second. Populism doesn't really fit in as a second half but guess what oddly does? The Cold War and 9/11 fit neatly as two halves.  Reagan is remembered for winding down the Cold War while George W. Bush is remembered for 9/11 and the War on Terror. Why not neoliberalism or whatever? I don't know. But it could be easily the National Security age. The digression is because I've been trying to think of Reagan-Trump as two halves but I just can't make that connection as well as Reagan-Bush).

To answer your question the failed presidencies seem to occur when a majority begins dying. Towards the first half of the J-J era Adams failed and Jackson replaced him while keeping the same coalition and reviving it. Hates, McArthur, and Harrison were losing the grip of the Civil War era electorate and McKinley revived it with the focus on the Industrial Age. Truman started losing control of the Great Depression electorate (he's not a failed president but he had to forego reelection in 1952). Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter presaged the slow collapse of the New Deal + Great Society coalition. Bush the Younger seems to have been JFK the first term and LBJ the second. This also corresponds with the slow death of the Reagan-Bush GOP.

The answer appears they were situated at a time where the party was losing the country's hold and they wound up failed. This is also a feature of the Trump Presidency so far
 
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2017, 10:38:29 PM »
« Edited: May 12, 2017, 10:40:34 PM by TD »

This is what I love about TD. He is always willing to take the time to type out very thorough explanations for often good, wholesome theories.

Edit: In response to #1 - is it possible for them to get elected as a minority coalition president, but sometime during their term, for the electorate to fundamentally shift, and end up with them winning reelection by a large margin? It seems like we are coming awfully close to the official end of the Reagan era, and the electorate is already beginning to fill up with heavily Democratic voters, it seems like such a scenario might at least be possible, no?

I don't think so. That hasn't happened in American history that the alignment happened during the re-election, has it? Presidential coalitions don't rapidly change during a president's time in office. Most presidents only change their re-election victories by a few points in the two party popular vote.

The scenario you describe would have to see a president viewed radically different by people who voted against him/her the first time around and realign. Also remember a crisis propels a realigning presidency into power and realignments happen usually because the president in question has failed, paving the way for hisvsuccessor to succeed.

In short it might be possible but our constitutional system is, well, weird in that it assigns clear ways to elect or defeat a president and use the president as a way of expressing a sentiment about where we want our nation to go.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2017, 10:43:04 PM »
« Edited: May 12, 2017, 10:45:29 PM by Technocratic Timmy »

This is what I love about TD. He is always willing to take the time to type out very thorough explanations for often good, wholesome theories.

Edit: In response to #1 - is it possible for them to get elected as a minority coalition president, but sometime during their term, for the electorate to fundamentally shift, and end up with them winning reelection by a large margin? It seems like we are coming awfully close to the official end of the Reagan era, and the electorate is already beginning to fill up with heavily Democratic voters, it seems like such a scenario might at least be possible, no?

I'm not sure we're that close to the end of the Reagan era. The GOP did win the House popular vote last year (something Trump wasn't able to do) and the Demcratic Party has largely been riding on Onama's coattails from 2008-2016 given how they performed worse when he wasn't on the ballot in 2010, 2014, and 2016. Millennials at the moment are still choosing to live in cities and their civic participation is still not as high as it was in 2008. Baby boomers are such a large generation and will live longer than the generations before them. I don't envision 2020 being the right time for a large generational transfer of power. So far there's nobody in the Democratic bench that I think could successfully realign the country in 2020.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2017, 10:53:35 PM »

To add to TT's discussion:

Also Obama left a fundamentally strong economy that had the weak parts propped up by the stronger parts. Let's not forget that. The reason I had realignment in 2024 is that I think our crisis won't happen that fast. It could be a constitutional one (Trump) but that doesn't change people fundamentally. The collapse (George Friedman agrees with me) will come when the middle and working class starts to really hurt and in turn their long held political beliefs turn. Obama's guaranteed this won't happen for a few years IMO.

The other reality is that the Democratic Party has to toss a lot of the geriatric 1990s type people and stop with all these people whose glory years were the Clinton era. The Left isn't quite ready to assume the mantle of power either because unlike the New Deal era they have been pretty sidelined up to the Obama times. This is one reason I think 2018 won't be the Democratic blowout on the federal level but will be on the state one.

Trump's popular vote loss is what made me conclude 2024, because had he won by 3-4% I would've said 2028. The GOP grip on the country's political center is quite strong and won't be dislodged that easily. I think, anyway.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2017, 11:07:19 PM »
« Edited: May 12, 2017, 11:12:34 PM by TD »

On the flip side I rejected 2032-2040 because of demographics. The current white dominated Republican evangelical and suburban conservative voter base runs headlong into the minority urban Democratic coalition that is increasingly too powerful. It's just too many 51% victories by adding 3-4% of white voters per cycle to the Republican Party each election. As I've long said the 35% of whites are to some degree really liberal and core Democrats. The GOP would be basically unable to govern.  

Minority voters,  on the flip side, don't just work under the Republican coalition's white evangelical business ideology. You need an urban Republican coalition that's more technocratic to start pulling them into your tent. The current Republican model is based on the southern strategy, remember and pulling in northern and Midwestern suburban whites who are culturally conservative and not urban.

So, the Republican Party would need to fundamentally change to reach 70% of white voters and let's be honest. The last time they could've done this was 2016. But that would've required an experienced party builder who knew what he was doing. Let me put it this very simply. Had the Republican nominee been a experienced Donald Trump with say two terms of a New York governorship we might be taking about Reagan-Trump, not Reagan-Bush as the alignment name (ironically also the name of the 1980 Republican ticket. If an age ever was so blindingly clear at the outset…).

I've felt for a while that 2016 was the turning point between this being the second half of a Republican majority or cementing 2000 as the half point. Given that an inexperienced politician from New York became the nominee and won the presidency with a deficit in the popular vote and remains extraordinarily unpopular I surmise we're in the ending stages of Reaganism-Bushism. Unlike the McKinley industrial ideology or the New Frontier civil rights movement or the evangelical neoconservative heyday of W the Trumpite ideology is highly inchoate and hasn't been fleshed out or capably used.  There's been no legwork to develop the idea for effective use for decades to propel the United States forward. Basically it's a bunch of memes rather than coherent policy prescription.

Anyway long and short of it, that's how I came to 2024.

Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2017, 11:28:13 PM »
« Edited: May 12, 2017, 11:37:12 PM by Technocratic Timmy »

Great insight as usual TD.

What do you think the general demographic breakdown for the first minority coalition Republican President in 2032 will look like? By then the electorate will be only about 60% nonhispanic white in 2032.

I'd guess the Republican candidate will take about 20% of African Americans, 40% of Hispanics, and likely win or split the Asian vote. But maybe you're seeing a different breakdown that I am on that front.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2017, 06:26:01 PM »
« Edited: May 13, 2017, 06:27:51 PM by TD »

TT, to answer your question, I would preface that answer with the fact the coalition of this Republican is going to be determined by a lot of variables we don’t know. We do know the GOP 2012 and 2016 nominees were urban Northerners who had moderate streaks; whether this represents the GOP or not, in the future, that depends on what happens in the next two decades.

For the record, I do not think that we will see a traditional 12 year pattern where the Opposition party regains the White House. It was 24 years after Lincoln for Cleveland, 20 years after Roosevelt for Eisenhower, and 12 for Reagan for Clinton. The first opposition party president came 40 years after Jefferson.

The Republican coalition and Party - along with the donors and infrastructure - will be very different. Fox News will have collapsed or gone mainstream, and the policy tanks on the Right will have significantly reshaped themselves to be either more mainstream or gone out of business. The evangelical base will have been restructured to be supportive of the GOP and more centrist. The business wing will still be in force but we’re going to be contending with a different America and a different set of issues. For that reason alone, this is a highly speculative guess.

Racially, the GOP will have made a huge shift in appealing to a pan-racial coalition and dumped the Southern strategy for a technocratic national strategy concentrated on winning moderates and conservatives alike who like the idea of refining some of the Cordray-Castro reforms.

Anyway, this coalition would assume 58% white voters, 15% African Americans, 20% Latinos, and 8% Asian. This isn’t the election of 2032 but most likely 2036 or 2040.  The Republican in question would probably see widespread exhaustion with Democratic rule after 12 to 16 years of the Democrats holding the White House. The GOP nominee will carry 64% of whites to the Democrats’ 35%, 20% of African Americans to the Democrats’ 79%, 48% of Latinos to the Democrats’ 50%, and 55% of Asians to the Democrats’ 44%. Whites would make up 69% of the GOP coalition, down from 90% today.  

As you can see, there is significant support among minorities for the GOP nominee. They carry 40% of minorities, up from 25% (roughly) today. This is a sea change (you can see the tie among Latinos. (This assumes there is no strong third party, for the record, but this is still useful, because we know that Perot voters would have split between Clinton and Bush if he wasn’t in the race, and Eisenhower and Stevenson won 99% of the vote and ditto Cleveland and Blaine in 1884 (97% of the vote)).  

Presumably, the Republicans would do very well in the suburban counties and the areas outside New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and so on. I expect this nominee to be highly competitive in winning socially moderate or even liberal voters but fiscally conservative voters. A lot of issues like healthcare, global warming, and so on will be squared away, allowing the GOP to push a highly technocratic message of reform of government that is appealing to a lot of voters who wanted reform, got it, and now want to refine and fine tune that reform.

So that's how I see that playing out.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2017, 07:23:49 PM »

Would you vote for a Ron Wyden/Gavin Newsom 2020 tickets? Are those two good examples of the kind of Democrat you think may win elections soon?
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2017, 07:43:51 PM »
« Edited: May 13, 2017, 07:51:41 PM by TD »

Would you vote for a Ron Wyden/Gavin Newsom 2020 tickets? Are those two good examples of the kind of Democrat you think may win elections soon?

I don't know much about Wyden beyond his civil libertarianism but I don't think either would make a good ticket, based on what little I know of them. Newsome is basically a Clinton-type Democrat who is socially liberal, right? Most prominent thing I know about him is gay marriage. Wyden is civil liberties.

Democrats that I think are good types and will win elections soon: Gwen Graham, Jason Kander, Sherrod Brown, Rich Cordray. Maybe Beto O'Rourke if he decides to come back after his 2018 loss (if he loses) and Brian Schweitzer, and Steve Bullock and Jon Tester. Democrats who can answer the issues of neoliberal economics leaving people behind while maintaining a socially liberal line that isn't bordering on gun grabbing or offensively SJW will be big winners over the next decade. Basically, the Joe Biden Democrats.

The big issue over the next decade is not - for most people - whether the government is spying on us (although it is a serious issue in its own right) or gay rights -  but guaranteeing economic prosperity to all groups, including those left behind in the economic stagnation of 2000 and beyond. Democrats like Sanders are resonating (although he is a highly imperfect messenger) because of this.

In 2020, I'd vote for any Democrat versus Trump. Versus Pence, it depends, again, on the contingent factors involved.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 11 queries.