Two Guesses
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:41:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Two Guesses
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18
Author Topic: Two Guesses  (Read 68887 times)
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #375 on: October 16, 2012, 06:51:40 PM »

You think Romney could end the New Deal and perhaps though not quite get us to the gilded Age, may get us to the 1920s where there were some regulations in place, but nothing like Social Security or Medicare.

and if there is a realignment I expect these things to happen-

1) Rederegulate the insurance market
2) Medicare and Medicaid to be privitized and replaced with vochers
3) Employer health insurance mandate to be replaced with matching funding of tax free HSAs and home-bought policies. 
4) more health care for the needy through grants to charities.
5) Allow insurers to do blood and genome tests as a condition of getting insurance.
6) Allow insurers to "sell across state lines"

The democrats, could respond with these policies when they win-
1) Mandatory minimium health contribution from employers for all employees who are earners under a certain point
2) allowing those who can prove they can't get private insurance to have  higher vouchers from employers.
3) pass some sort of health purchase program modeled on the food stamp program.


Otherwise, I think that if someone runs to the left of Obama and wins in 2016, I think that hypothetical #46 will call for and get a public option.

I think the New Deal is dead.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #376 on: October 16, 2012, 07:16:24 PM »

If this is the election before the realignment:

GOP realignment

2012

 


Obama/Biden 48.7%/277 Romney/Ryan 49.1%/261

Economy gets worse...

2016



Rubio/Christie 53.9%/374  Cuomo/Klobuchar 44.0%/164

2020



Rubio/Christie 56.2%/407  Hickenlooper/Patrick 42.1%/131


Dem Realignment

2012



Romney/Ryan 50.3%/285  Obama/Biden 48.1%/253

Economy gets worse...

2016



Schweitzer/Warren 53.6%/377  Romney/Ryan 44.5%/161 

2020



Schweitzer/Warren 57.1%/409  Jindal/Paul 129 41.2%/129

Thoughts?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #377 on: October 16, 2012, 07:42:31 PM »

My thoughts are that it is too early and I'm seeing a bipolar map that I mentioned before.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #378 on: October 17, 2012, 08:46:12 AM »

My thoughts are that it is too early and I'm seeing a bipolar map that I mentioned before.

Basically, where only Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and Iowa are truely undecided and Ohio is persuadable if Dems don't vote. Everywhere else, the winner might win at least 53 or 55% of the vote. 

Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #379 on: October 18, 2012, 10:02:57 AM »

A closing, or loss of, the gender gap, would be another sign, if it happens.

Back to the pigeon entrails. 
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #380 on: October 18, 2012, 01:29:51 PM »

Wasn't there a closing of the race gap a little in 2004...at least for non-whites who were also not black?
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #381 on: October 18, 2012, 02:01:39 PM »

This would all indicate a trend back to where there are both cultural liberals and conservatives in both parties and an end of the New Deal. Basically 2020 could be the anti-1960...basically a socially liberal Gilded Age where the Republican party is basically the Federal Party...and unless the Democrats coalesce in a particular reigion (this is an unless argument and not given because of the Senate goes R its because the Republicans were winners in every party of the country), the Republicans will eventually be up against reigional opposition parties. Maybe the Green Party in the West coast, The Libertarian Party in the West and Northeast and maybe some American party in the South and Midwest. Basically, that's what the Gilded Age basically was. The Democrats had a lock on the south, were very weak anywhere else and various "Not Republicans" were a semi-viable alternative outside of the South.   
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #382 on: October 18, 2012, 02:44:17 PM »

Wasn't there a closing of the race gap a little in 2004...at least for non-whites who were also not black?

I don't think it was very pronounced. 
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #383 on: October 18, 2012, 08:38:01 PM »

This would all indicate a trend back to where there are both cultural liberals and conservatives in both parties and an end of the New Deal. Basically 2020 could be the anti-1960...basically a socially liberal Gilded Age where the Republican party is basically the Federal Party...and unless the Democrats coalesce in a particular reigion (this is an unless argument and not given because of the Senate goes R its because the Republicans were winners in every party of the country), the Republicans will eventually be up against reigional opposition parties. Maybe the Green Party in the West coast, The Libertarian Party in the West and Northeast and maybe some American party in the South and Midwest. Basically, that's what the Gilded Age basically was. The Democrats had a lock on the south, were very weak anywhere else and various "Not Republicans" were a semi-viable alternative outside of the South.   
That is plausible. 

I've been trying to think of ways the dems could transform into a viable party if it abandoned it's twisted policies/constituents or was finally faced with perpetual defeat.  Regional opposition makes a lot of sense.  They could try to split the electoral college 4 or 5 ways if they ever had a coalition in the house.     
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #384 on: October 19, 2012, 07:07:59 AM »

There would transitions in both parties.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #385 on: October 19, 2012, 09:07:41 AM »

There would transitions in both parties.

Like I said, both parties would have more Gypsy Moths and Boll Weevils on social issues at least with the WASPs and nonWASPs who have become WASP-like taking back control of the Republican Party and the Democrats trending back towards their employees.

Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #386 on: October 19, 2012, 10:14:02 AM »

This would all indicate a trend back to where there are both cultural liberals and conservatives in both parties and an end of the New Deal. Basically 2020 could be the anti-1960...basically a socially liberal Gilded Age where the Republican party is basically the Federal Party...and unless the Democrats coalesce in a particular reigion (this is an unless argument and not given because of the Senate goes R its because the Republicans were winners in every party of the country), the Republicans will eventually be up against reigional opposition parties. Maybe the Green Party in the West coast, The Libertarian Party in the West and Northeast and maybe some American party in the South and Midwest. Basically, that's what the Gilded Age basically was. The Democrats had a lock on the south, were very weak anywhere else and various "Not Republicans" were a semi-viable alternative outside of the South.   
That is plausible. 

I've been trying to think of ways the dems could transform into a viable party if it abandoned it's twisted policies/constituents or was finally faced with perpetual defeat.  Regional opposition makes a lot of sense.  They could try to split the electoral college 4 or 5 ways if they ever had a coalition in the house.     

This is ridiculous.  You sound just like all the liberals in 2009 crowing that it would be 2030 before the Republicans were competitive outside of the South.  There is a presidential nominee in a statistical tie running on the most liberal platform in a generation.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #387 on: October 19, 2012, 11:02:35 AM »

This would all indicate a trend back to where there are both cultural liberals and conservatives in both parties and an end of the New Deal. Basically 2020 could be the anti-1960...basically a socially liberal Gilded Age where the Republican party is basically the Federal Party...and unless the Democrats coalesce in a particular reigion (this is an unless argument and not given because of the Senate goes R its because the Republicans were winners in every party of the country), the Republicans will eventually be up against reigional opposition parties. Maybe the Green Party in the West coast, The Libertarian Party in the West and Northeast and maybe some American party in the South and Midwest. Basically, that's what the Gilded Age basically was. The Democrats had a lock on the south, were very weak anywhere else and various "Not Republicans" were a semi-viable alternative outside of the South.   
That is plausible. 

I've been trying to think of ways the dems could transform into a viable party if it abandoned it's twisted policies/constituents or was finally faced with perpetual defeat.  Regional opposition makes a lot of sense.  They could try to split the electoral college 4 or 5 ways if they ever had a coalition in the house.     

This is ridiculous.  You sound just like all the liberals in 2009 crowing that it would be 2030 before the Republicans were competitive outside of the South.  There is a presidential nominee in a statistical tie running on the most liberal platform in a generation.

umm, I said "IF".  Obviously several major things would have to happen.  Most people don't know enough history to understand that things stay the same and complex systems continue to work, until they stop working and then massive shifts/changes occur really quickly. 
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #388 on: October 19, 2012, 11:51:54 AM »

...Sure, they may well do that, which would likely cause a serious breakdown in the dems ability to be a national party. 



A Neo-'Rockefeller'-ish brand of Republicans based in the powder blue states lead the party. 
The Green States face Bankruptcy/Bond default/Austerity. 

The dems faced with perpetual defeat turn to A powerful southern based Bush-Clinton-esque political family to break up the southern block. 



The NE will always be in opposition to the Deep south and thus eventually realigns.
This re-balances the parties 269-269 
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #389 on: October 19, 2012, 12:35:37 PM »

...Sure, they may well do that, which would likely cause a serious breakdown in the dems ability to be a national party. 



A Neo-'Rockefeller'-ish brand of Republicans based in the powder blue states lead the party. 
The Green States face Bankruptcy/Bond default/Austerity. 

The dems faced with perpetual defeat turn to A powerful southern based Bush-Clinton-esque political family to break up the southern block. 



The NE will always be in opposition to the Deep south and thus eventually realigns.
This re-balances the parties 269-269 

Pray tell who can enforce bankruptcy/austerity on a sovereign state?  And if the GOP can win nationally exclusively by turning their base out, why can't the Dems?  You realize there are lots of people out there that aren't voting this year because they think Obama didn't do enough, right?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #390 on: October 19, 2012, 01:31:08 PM »

As I've often said, if this is a realignment we won't know all the details.  It is, however, likely that, after the realignment, there will be presidents of different parties.

Realignments:

1860 R

Grover Cleveland

1900 R

Woodrow Wilson

1932 D

Dwight Eisenhower

Richard Nixon

1980 R

Bill Clinton

Barack Obama
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #391 on: October 19, 2012, 02:13:17 PM »
« Edited: October 19, 2012, 02:26:35 PM by AmericanNation »

Pray tell who can enforce bankruptcy/austerity on a sovereign state?  And if the GOP can win nationally exclusively by turning their base out, why can't the Dems?  You realize there are lots of people out there that aren't voting this year because they think Obama didn't do enough, right?
Well, our states aren't exactly "sovereign".  We are part of a Union of states, which has some guidelines to it.  One thing of interest is that the states gave up their 'right' to print their own currency.  Also, Almost every state bans itself from running a deficit in it's own state constitution.  States have rights of course, but things get tricky if a state fails to meet serious obligations on a huge scale.  The closest thing to a scenario like this is a large corporation going into bankruptcy.  The bondholders and bankruptcy judge / appointed manager start taking over.  If the Feds step in, they would really be able to do whatever they wanted (in exchange for their money).  All of these things cause major ripple effects.    

The only similar historical example I know of is Newfoundland's collapse in the 30's.  The 'British Empire' stepped in and re-gained control of the sovereign state in exchange for meeting it's obligations.        

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_Newfoundland

http://www.heritage.nf.ca/law/collapse_responsible_gov.html
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #392 on: October 21, 2012, 11:35:23 AM »

In terms of metrics of a realignment:

Romney would need > 387 EV.

There would have to be a +5 or more seat Senate gain.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #393 on: October 21, 2012, 03:19:46 PM »

So, basically unless the Republicans can win by enough to pick up all the marbles, the Democrats probably still have a good coalition and just need to wait until people get sick of Romney or there is another inevitable war or recession. Basically if this is what the map looks like in the morning-



Democrats 47 Republicans 50 Independents 3
Democrats 195 Republicans 243

The next 4 to 8 years will probably look like the last 12. ...or depending on what happens, 2014-2020 could be the next big realignment for Democrats.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #394 on: October 21, 2012, 03:29:19 PM »

So, basically unless the Republicans can win by enough to pick up all the marbles, the Democrats probably still have a good coalition and just need to wait until people get sick of Romney or there is another inevitable war or recession. Basically if this is what the map looks like in the morning-



Democrats 47 Republicans 50 Independents 3
Democrats 195 Republicans 243

The next 4 to 8 years will probably look like the last 12. ...or depending on what happens, 2014-2020 could be the next big realignment for Democrats.


Pretty much.  As I've said from the start, I think a realignment is coming (or here), but I don't know what it will look like.  That Gallup number has me interested.  Either it is hugely bad modeling, or it is predictive.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #395 on: October 21, 2012, 03:46:30 PM »

I think that even this could be a realigment...but nothing smaller-



Republicans 51 Democrats 46 Independents 3
Republicans 247 Democrats 188
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #396 on: October 21, 2012, 05:28:43 PM »

I think that even this could be a realigment...but nothing smaller-



Republicans 51 Democrats 46 Independents 3
Republicans 247 Democrats 188

I would skeptical on if this would be an indication of a realignment.  The Senate should be stronger.  The House has historically shown losses in some realignments, but I'd expect this to a gain.  247, the highest since 1928, would be a good indication. 
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #397 on: October 21, 2012, 06:20:51 PM »
« Edited: October 21, 2012, 06:24:23 PM by Mutthole Surfers »

...though with the seats that the Rs need to capture the senate being in traditional D territory, even these small numbers would mean that the Republicans have a national party machine that can compete anywhere. ...but yes, that would be what would be required for the New Deal to come full circle.

Obama can probably lose by a bit and yet the Senate could stay D. At that point, a lot of conservative executive orders would be passed, but Obamacare would not be repealled  and a moderate would probably replace Ginsburg.

I would definitely look out for a realignment if one party takes complete control of the Federal Government.

but, there might a realignment without there being one party behind it. Could there be two parties swapping constituents at once?

This?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #398 on: October 21, 2012, 06:30:06 PM »



Obama can probably lose by a bit and yet the Senate could stay D. At that point, a lot of conservative executive orders would be passed, but Obamacare would not be repealled  and a moderate would probably replace Ginsburg.

A realignment is a systemic change, so a 50/50 Senate, R+3, would not signal one. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't, because we had that in 2002 and 2008; those were not realignments.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that will happen nor will it be a realignment.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #399 on: October 21, 2012, 09:01:14 PM »

So, a realignment is when there is an end to the polarization and basically it becomes about the establishment or reestablishment of a national party machine and how the other party becomes relevant again.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18  
« 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 0.087 seconds with 13 queries.