I'm worried...

[Torie]

I've been saying, "After you the deluge."  The flood waters will sweep all but the extreme left and black people out of the Democratic Party.

Um, interesting choice of metaphor.

Ya, apres moi, le deluge, was about the prediction a feckless incumbent king, that after his final exit, the sans culottes, would sweep out the aristocrats. This is a reverse deluge prediction, seemingly.

[Torie]

Nym, if politics gets more classed based, there might be a redneck reversion to the Dems, but it depends who is perceived as getting the spoils, and whether they got more than their share. And it will also depend on how severely fleecing the golden goose, will kill it. How real is supply side?

The "poors" who feel stressed going left with redistribution in the air, works better in more homogeneous societies, with less tension over cultural issues. In fact, in a book I am reading, surprisingly enough, American politics has never been that classed base. Yes, it surprised me too. What is different, is that at the moment, the secular rich with cultural liberal sentiments feel comfortable enough now, to vote their secularism, and against what they perceive as a greater threat. That is why is higher income blue states, the Dems are getting an even split now with the affluent. Meanwhile the more secular  poors vote more consistently, at least the white poors, across the fruited plain.

[Nym90]

Nym, if politics gets more classed based, there might be a redneck reversion to the Dems, but it depends who is perceived as getting the spoils, and whether they got more than their share. And it will also depend on how severely fleecing the golden goose, will kill it. How real is supply side?

The "poors" who feel stressed going left with redistribution in the air, works better in more homogeneous societies, with less tension over cultural issues. In fact, in a book I am reading, surprisingly enough, American politics has never been that classed base. Yes, it surprised me too. What is different, is that at the moment, the secular rich with cultural liberal sentiments feel comfortable enough now, to vote their secularism, and against what they perceive as a greater threat. That is why is higher income blue states, the Dems are getting an even split now with the affluent. Meanwhile the more secular  poors vote more consistently, at least the white poors, across the fruited plain.

Well, I agree that if things truly go back to the past, the golden goose would be killed. In other words, if Dems raise the top tax rate on the rich back up to 70 percent as it was under Carter, we'd be on the other side of the Laffer curve again. But the 90's are enough evidence to convince me that 39 percent is on the right side of the curve.

Not to sound like Opebo too much, but the government programs that are funded by redistributionism have always vastly benefitted the poor and middle class (and thus the rich by extension....trickle up economics....maybe not as quickly as putting Republican tax cuts into a mutual fund could've made them wealthier instead, but still). Democrats have done a mighty lousy job of advertising this fact, however, so I don't blame people for hating "government" in the abstract even as they voice strong support for government programs individually.

[Sam Spade]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Affluent white liberals won't hang around if the redistribution jihad gains traction, or the economy stays sick. Much of the realignment is that the affluent have decided that Dems are not a threat to their comfortable lifestyle, with private sector unions dead. If we can go back to the past, some of the politics will revert to the past.

^^^^  Wiser words cannot be found moreso on this thread.  I suspect that's not what is about to occur, however.

Quite possibly true (though I'm not as convinced as you two that affluent Dems will ultimately vote their short term pocketbooks over their long term pocketbooks).

It's happened before.  It could happen again.  After all, a certain number of those affluent Dems were GOPers 20 years ago, many moreso 40 years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could well happen in the future - but highly unlikely with Obama as President.  Besides, I suspect the GOP may be recentering a bit around its non-affluent base in the future, as I have suggested for the past month or so.

[Nym90]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Affluent white liberals won't hang around if the redistribution jihad gains traction, or the economy stays sick. Much of the realignment is that the affluent have decided that Dems are not a threat to their comfortable lifestyle, with private sector unions dead. If we can go back to the past, some of the politics will revert to the past.

^^^^  Wiser words cannot be found moreso on this thread.  I suspect that's not what is about to occur, however.

Quite possibly true (though I'm not as convinced as you two that affluent Dems will ultimately vote their short term pocketbooks over their long term pocketbooks).

It's happened before.  It could happen again.  After all, a certain number of those affluent Dems were GOPers 20 years ago, many moreso 40 years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could well happen in the future - but highly unlikely with Obama as President.  Besides, I suspect the GOP may be recentering a bit around its non-affluent base in the future, as I have suggested for the past month or so.

True, such changes usually don't happen at the same time. In the 80's, the GOP had taken the working class voters away from the Dems at the Presidential level but hadn't yet lost the wealthy suburbanites; then in the 90's, Clinton managed to win over the suburbanites without yet losing the working class vote. Took a while for both changes to finally settle in.

Ultimately it all depends on how successful Obama is. If the economy is far better in 2012 than today, I'd expect to see a huge working class swing to Obama in 2012. If it's just as bad then or worse than now, I'd expect to see a huge affluent suburbanite swing away from Obama.

Another key question to ponder is whether those former GOP affluent suburbanites went Dem because of better economies under Dem Presidents (the fact many didn't switch until 1996 rather than in 1992 leads me to think this possibly) or whether it was, as many have simply assumed, due to social issues.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not AFDC certainly, and a lot of folks are going to college now, who should not be there, and are wasting their time. And then there are those super generous pension programs to public employees, but maybe that is just a Dem payoff, rather than something coming under the heading of "redistribution." Ditto facilitating unions with highly paid employees, that reduce economic efficiency, and increase product costs. Moreover, the middle class still pays a lot of taxes, just not so much federal income taxes. But I don't think a 40% top marginal tax rate will be the end of the golden goose, assuming that FICA taxes don't go through the roof, but Obama claims he is cutting that way back. But on the other hand, Obama won't have the money to do anything much, given his modest tax increases, and increases limited to only those earning over 250K to boot. That dog just isn't going to hunt.

A host of Obama's promises will have to be broken. The issue is which ones. The danger is that a lot of them might be hidden by imposing costs and mandates on business, which will cause the recession to hang around for a long time, and drive productivity offshore to more congenial climes. I suspect Obama will be pretty much trapped, and stuck with a lot of the Bush policies. There just isn't that much running room.

[Nym90]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not AFDC certainly, and a lot of folks are going to college now, who should not be there, and are wasting their time. And then there are those super generous pension programs to public employees, but maybe that is just a Dem payoff, rather than something coming under the heading of "redistribution." Ditto facilitating unions with highly paid employees, that reduce economic efficiency, and increase product costs. Moreover, the middle class still pays a lot of taxes, just not so much federal income taxes. But I don't think a 40% top marginal tax rate will be the end of the golden goose, assuming that FICA taxes don't go through the roof, but Obama claims he is cutting that way back. But on the other hand, Obama won't have the money to do anything much, given his modest tax increases, and increases limited to only those earning over 250K to boot. That dog just isn't going to hunt.

A host of Obama's promises will have to be broken. The issue is which ones. The danger is that a lot of them might be hidden by imposing costs and mandates on business, which will cause the recession to hang around for a long time, and drive productivity offshore to more congenial climes. I suspect Obama will be pretty much trapped, and stuck with a lot of the Bush policies. There just isn't that much running room.

Ok, you are right, I should've said "almost always". It's election season; I blame my hyperbole on that.

I don't agree that higher wages make the economy worse, but we've gone over that before and should agree to disagree, at least on any threads in this particular section of the forum.

I do agree that it's possible that Obama will end up like Carter, trying hard to fix problems that can't be fixed in only 4 years and thus a lame duck President from day one. We'll see.....

[Sam Spade]

Another key question to ponder is whether those former GOP affluent suburbanites went Dem because of better economies under Dem Presidents (the fact many didn't switch until 1996 rather than in 1992 leads me to think this possibly) or whether it was, as many have simply assumed, due to social issues.

My guess:

If they went in the 90s, it was due to a better economy.
If they went in this decade, it was due to social issues.

[J. J.]

I've been saying, "After you the deluge."  The flood waters will sweep all but the extreme left and black people out of the Democratic Party.

Um, interesting choice of metaphor.

I actually think this is 1928 or 1976.  I've been saying this since January, before I had any idea who I would be voting for.

In this case, Obama would the "elitist aristocrat."  McCain would be the "old establishment aristocrat."  Had the campaign taken a different course, Obama might have lost that image.  McCain can probably change the GOP's course away from the "old establishment," and actually did with Palin.

[Nym90]

I've been saying, "After you the deluge."  The flood waters will sweep all but the extreme left and black people out of the Democratic Party.

Um, interesting choice of metaphor.

I actually think this is 1928 or 1976.  I've been saying this since January, before I had any idea who I would be voting for.

In this case, Obama would the "elitist aristocrat."  McCain would be the "old establishment aristocrat."  Had the campaign taken a different course, Obama might have lost that image.  McCain can probably change the GOP's course away from the "old establishment," and actually did with Palin.

If this is 1976, is Romney the modern day Reagan?

Shuddering at the thought....

I do think you are quite possibly correct in your assessment, though the Sesame Street line of thinking about elections (each one of these things is just like one of the others) does get a bit tiring at times. Every election and candidate is of course unique.

[J. J.]

I've been saying, "After you the deluge."  The flood waters will sweep all but the extreme left and black people out of the Democratic Party.

Um, interesting choice of metaphor.

I actually think this is 1928 or 1976.  I've been saying this since January, before I had any idea who I would be voting for.

In this case, Obama would the "elitist aristocrat."  McCain would be the "old establishment aristocrat."  Had the campaign taken a different course, Obama might have lost that image.  McCain can probably change the GOP's course away from the "old establishment," and actually did with Palin.

If this is 1976, is Romney the modern day Reagan?

Palin might be, so might Huckabee (and that should send shivers down your spine).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've been saying that a re-alignment will be coming since January, but not this time 2012 to 2016.  I actually think it could end up being a leftward shift, but if Obama is elected, it could be very rightward one.

[Nym90]

I've been saying, "After you the deluge."  The flood waters will sweep all but the extreme left and black people out of the Democratic Party.

Um, interesting choice of metaphor.

I actually think this is 1928 or 1976.  I've been saying this since January, before I had any idea who I would be voting for.

In this case, Obama would the "elitist aristocrat."  McCain would be the "old establishment aristocrat."  Had the campaign taken a different course, Obama might have lost that image.  McCain can probably change the GOP's course away from the "old establishment," and actually did with Palin.

If this were 1928, McCain would win. Smith is similar to Obama (elitist image, member of an ethnic group that is out of the "mainstream" of society, etc.) while McCain, like Hoover is the experienced candidate representing the status quo.

[phk]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Affluent white liberals won't hang around if the redistribution jihad gains traction, or the economy stays sick. Much of the realignment is that the affluent have decided that Dems are not a threat to their comfortable lifestyle, with private sector unions dead. If we can go back to the past, some of the politics will revert to the past.

^^^^  Wiser words cannot be found moreso on this thread.  I suspect that's not what is about to occur, however.

Quite possibly true (though I'm not as convinced as you two that affluent Dems will ultimately vote their short term pocketbooks over their long term pocketbooks).

It's happened before.  It could happen again.  After all, a certain number of those affluent Dems were GOPers 20 years ago, many moreso 40 years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could well happen in the future - but highly unlikely with Obama as President.  Besides, I suspect the GOP may be recentering a bit around its non-affluent base in the future, as I have suggested for the past month or so.

True, such changes usually don't happen at the same time. In the 80's, the GOP had taken the working class voters away from the Dems at the Presidential level but hadn't yet lost the wealthy suburbanites; then in the 90's, Clinton managed to win over the suburbanites without yet losing the working class vote. Took a while for both changes to finally settle in.

Ultimately it all depends on how successful Obama is. If the economy is far better in 2012 than today, I'd expect to see a huge working class swing to Obama in 2012. If it's just as bad then or worse than now, I'd expect to see a huge affluent suburbanite swing away from Obama.

Another key question to ponder is whether those former GOP affluent suburbanites went Dem because of better economies under Dem Presidents (the fact many didn't switch until 1996 rather than in 1992 leads me to think this possibly) or whether it was, as many have simply assumed, due to social issues.

Just a side note here. Theres plenty of "Clinton Republicans" but nobody ever talks about them as such.

[J. J.]

If this were 1928, McCain would win. Smith is similar to Obama (elitist image, member of an ethnic group that is out of the "mainstream" of society, etc.) while McCain, like Hoover is the experienced candidate representing the status quo.

I disagree here.  In terms of party Obama is the status quo in the model of a Jimmy Carter.  He didn't start out that way, but he is now.

McCain isn't a religious conservative nor was really aligned with Gingrich or Bush. 

Even Palin isn't really part of the religious right in the same manner as Huckabee. 

[Reaganfan]

My big question is...who is the head of the Republican Party? Ronald Reagan and George Bush held the mantle...then folks like Gingrich and Dole...then George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

With McCain likely to lose...who goes on into 2012 with a real good shot at solidifying the base and appealing to middle America best to defeat President Obama?

Right now...honestly...I think it's Gov. Sarah Palin. I can picture her having an "Obama-like" campaign in 3 years...with huge grassroots and such.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Right now...honestly...I think it's Gov. Sarah Palin.

If you Republicans want to win back the White House in 2012, I can guarantee to you now in 2008, that Sarah Palin won't be your knight in shining armour that will lead you back the good old days of Reagan and Co. People, a part from the Religious Right wing of the Republican Party will release that she isn't electable on the national scene.

[Reaganfan]

Right now...honestly...I think it's Gov. Sarah Palin.

If you Republicans want to win back the White House in 2012, I can guarantee to you now in 2008, that Sarah Palin won't be your knight in shining armour that will lead you back the good old days of Reagan and Co. People, a part from the Religious Right wing of the Republican Party will release that she isn't electable on the national scene.

Who then?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not at all.  It looks more and more likely that Obama will have a strong win, which, coupled with a heavily Democratic Congress, will allow him to govern strongly, at least until 2010.

I think that this was one of the problems with Clinton.

The thing is, in 2012, the Democratic Party might be the party of black people and the extreme left, exclusively.  That's not enough to win, outside of a few congressional districts.

Pigs could also fly by 2012.

[Lunar]

Right now...honestly...I think it's Gov. Sarah Palin.

If you Republicans want to win back the White House in 2012, I can guarantee to you now in 2008, that Sarah Palin won't be your knight in shining armour that will lead you back the good old days of Reagan and Co. People, a part from the Religious Right wing of the Republican Party will release that she isn't electable on the national scene.

McCainforPrez is right, Palin is the driving force behind the GOP right now.  But I think "head" is a poor choice of verbage (Palin joke, huck huck huck) since I don't think she makes any decisions yet and won't for a couple years.

I'm extremely confident that she's heavily favored in the 2012 GOP primary should Obama win - she'd have four years to get more competent at interviews/debates, she'd be fully vetted , she'd have massive fundraising appeal & connections, and she'd generate enough enthusiasm to dominate Iowa like Huck did.  She'd be like Huck but with Mitt's money and Hillary's establishment support (but for Reps).

[Reaganfan]

Right now...honestly...I think it's Gov. Sarah Palin.

If you Republicans want to win back the White House in 2012, I can guarantee to you now in 2008, that Sarah Palin won't be your knight in shining armour that will lead you back the good old days of Reagan and Co. People, a part from the Religious Right wing of the Republican Party will release that she isn't electable on the national scene.

McCainforPrez is right, Palin is the driving force behind the GOP right now.  But I think "head" is a poor choice of verbage (Palin joke, huck huck huck) since I don't think she makes any decisions yet and won't for a couple years.

I'm extremely confident that she's heavily favored in the 2012 GOP primary should Obama win - she'd have four years to get more competent at interviews/debates, she'd be fully vetted , she'd have massive fundraising appeal & connections, and she'd generate enough enthusiasm to dominate Iowa like Huck did.  She'd be like Huck but with Mitt's money and Hillary's establishment support (but for Reps).

Polls last month showed that an Obama vs. Palin or Biden vs. Palin race would be competitive even though barely anybody knew who she was just week ago.

Take a scenario where the Democrats control all of Congress and the White House, Obama leads in a liberal fashion, here comes Annie Oakley, all guns blazing (no pun intended) with a huge amount of fundraising, all the Republican establishment (RNC, Rush, Hannity) behind her, and a unique appeal to middle America...she runs a campaign against President Obama's "elitest" leadership, "forgetting smalltown folk"...she could actually pull it off.

If you honestly asked me who the biggest "Reagan" on the current national stage is...it's not Romney, McCain, Huckabee or Jindal...it's Sarah Palin.

[Lunar]

No way in heck do I think she'd win, I don't think she could put together as good of a campaign as Reagan, let alone Obama.  But I do think she's the clear and easy frontrunner for the GOP ticket in '12 if she wants it (which she probably does, but she might not want to go directly against Obama unless she thinks she can win, so it depends on his approval ratings).  Obama would have to be Carter II, a prophecy which many Republican posters on this forum strictly adhere too.

[Fritz]

All I can say is, yes, please, please, run with Palin in 2012!

[Reaganfan]

All I can say is, yes, please, please, run with Palin in 2012!

If this forum were around 30-some years ago, you would be saying...

All I can say is, yes, please, please, run with Reagan in 1980!

[elcorazon]

I haven't read thru the whole thread so sorry if i'm repeating others thoughts, BUT, in 2000 no one thought W could govern effectively given the closeness of the election and the way in which the final results occurred, but it turned out that Bush pretty much got whatever he wanted.

I do worry that Obama will not have as much support in his own party as Bush had, and will have less crossover support, but if he wins big enough, he might be in good shape to govern.

I'm more worried that we're f ucked regardless, given the state of the economy and our military, etc.

[J. J.]

I do worry that Obama will not have as much support in his own party as Bush had, and will have less crossover support, but if he wins big enough, he might be in good shape to govern.

Clinton won by seven points in 1992, and wasn't in good enough shape to govern.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll say to any candidate that wins, "After you the deluge."    I've been saying that since January.