Establishment Dems are getting themselves into era-defining trouble

[tru_m.a.c]

I've been telling y'all that the party has been ripe for a split that will empower a third party in this country.

This isn't new. Ross Perot got 8 million votes in 96. The Liberterians netted 4 million votes in 2016.

As long as rank choice voting isn't allowed on the federal or state level people will be afraid to split from one of the two main parties. That's literally all it comes down too.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

While there is no way to quantify it, I’m observing it now...nimbyism in the Bay Area is a manifestation of it.

I mean, San Fran is historically racist though. And like in NY, just because there are more people who identify as "liberal" doesn't mean that there are no people who identify as conservative.

And most people don't actually understand leftist politics regarding housing and zoning. They only think being left leaning means that black people shouldn't be called monkeys and it's ok for gay people to get married.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

I mean, San Fran is historically racist though. And like in NY, just because there are more people who identify as "liberal" doesn't mean that there are no people who identify as conservative.

And most people don't actually understand leftist politics regarding housing and zoning. They only think being left leaning means that black people shouldn't be called monkeys and it's ok for gay people to get married.

That’s exactly what I’m talking about, the social, and possibly environmental, liberals who grow to be fiscally conservative. That’s why what AOC represents right now doesnt mean that will be the median 10-20 years from now

 

[tru_m.a.c]

That’s exactly what I’m talking about, the social, and possibly environmental, liberals who grow to be fiscally conservative. That’s why what AOC represents right now doesnt mean that will be the median 10-20 years from now

It's actually probably going to be the conservative view on the left in 10-20 years.

Once you consider 40+ years of war in the middle east, school shootings, climate change, student debt, another 2 recessions, austerity measures that endanger SS - anyone with the thoughts of AOC would probably be seen as middle of the road.

There aren't anymore "tweaks" that centrist can get out of the system without turning into full blown republicans.

Edit: Just remember Sanders is not considered a socialist by socialists.

 

[the cac mamba]

While there is no way to quantify it, I’m observing it now..

you're just correct though i dont know what the fukk hes talking about

since when is the younger generation not more liberal? and why is that always the trend?....because you get more conservative

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I feel the article takes that into account. What it’s saying is that there will be a new left and right paradigm.

Great Depression/FDR Dems stayed that their entire lives which is why they didn’t want anyone touching social security and Medicaid.

that's actually not true...it's a myth created by conservatives

30’s is too young to see a shift, talk to me when we’re in our 50’s.

I'm with mastermind and tru_m.a.c. For instance, it took me 5 seconds to find this LA Times article from 1988.

Baby boomers currently have a more favorable impression of 77-year-old President Reagan than do the older voters, according to a July survey by the Los Angeles Times Poll. The baby boomers in 1984 voted for Reagan over Democrat Walter F. Mondale in about the same proportion as did older Americans.

So there's an example for you @the cac mamba. Baby boomers were just in their 20s and 30s during the Reagan years, yet they were already bigger Reagan supporters than the hippies before them. People who came of age in the 60s/70s were MORE liberal than people who came of age in the 70s/80s.

A similar dynamic to the Reagan dynamic is happening right now in India. The ultra-conservative party swept into power a few years ago because the ultra-liberal secularists were seen as dinosaurs. Young people there are MORE likely to side with conservative economic principles than older people are, they're more likely to support corporate freedom over environmental restrictions and more likely to worry about jobs than to worry about welfare programs. The young people in India are driving a pro-corporate shift at the same time the young people in America are driving an anti-corporate shift.

There's no natural reason for people to become more conservative as they age. It's all about the various pressures they face and what "liberal" or "conservative" mean in their era. In America, old people in recent generations (say 1940s-1970s births) were fundamentally independent and self-centered, and so as they age their self-interest has continued to follow self-centered policies, including doubling down on racism and choosing tax cuts over helping others. That pull towards conservatism in that generation is a product on those pressures. It's just as believable that people in their 20s and 30s right now will instead become MORE liberal over time as they face completely different pressures, choosing multiculturalism and environmentalism and a wide safety net to combat social inequality and automation, rather than doubling down on the failed choices of their parents.

As I pointed out from the beginning, the big question is whether the Democrats will ride that wave or be left behind.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

And this doubling down on whiteness may only continue as their percentage of the population shrinks, pair that with assimilated Latinos/the dem party looking vulnerable with the Latino vote (over time). It’s fun create these articles that paint the outlook you want to see become reality but there is a big possibility that the dem/republican breakdown will stay the same or, on a long shot, a real third party takes off

How can you predict that the White people will double-down on Whiteness but then assume that the Latino people will join them? Won't the doubling down on Whiteness push a fair number of those assimilated Latinos away? In fact, don't Latinos tend to become more liberal as them assimilate, not less so? Even the most conservative immigrant communities, like Vietnamese voters and Cuban voters, are actually becoming less and less conservative over time. Hillary Clinton won the Cuban vote in 2016, the first time a Democrat had won that demographic. As Republicans double down on Trump's overt racism it's only going to get worse for them there.

 

[Regular_P]

Older dems have power because younger dems aren't voting at a high enough rate.

This is such a disingenuous talking point. If Dems ran on issues that pertain to young people, the turnout rates would be higher.

Instead, too many of them run on things that are centrist or Republican-lite then they bytch when young people don't show up for them. Young people get marginalized in politics and that hurts the Democratic party, not Republicans.

Young people get told, "vote for me because that guy is worse. I'm not gonna do shyt for you but you HAVE to vote for me so things aren't as bad."

 

[Pressure]

This is such a disingenuous talking point. If Dems ran on issues that pertain to young people, the turnout rates would be higher.

Instead, too many of them run on things that are centrist or Republican-lite then they bytch when young people don't show up for them. Young people get marginalized in politics and that hurts the Democratic party, not Republicans.

Young people get told, "vote for me because that guy is worse. I'm not gonna do shyt for you but you HAVE to vote for me so things aren't as bad."

How is this disingenuous? These older/establishment democrats are running on what they feel is important and they're winning elections.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

How is this disingenuous? These older/establishment democrats are running on what they feel is important and they're winning elections.

By "winning elections", you're actually referring to at most one presidential election in the last five (Obama ran against the establishment candidate in 2008 before he turned), and they held Congress from, what, 2006-2010? In other words, they briefly took advantage of a horrible president and an economic collapse to gain control for ONE cycle before losing it again.

I hope you establishment folk aren't satisfied with the rate at which Democrats have been "winning" in recent memory.

 

[mastermind]

Yeah, and if you want to go further back, the 1994 election is when the baby boomers took over politics.

During that time, Democrats only controller the house from 2006-10 and the senate from 01-0 and 08-14

 

[Reality Check]

This is why Biden shouldn’t be the nominee. He is the old Democratic party: white Reagan democrats and black Clinton democrats.

White Reagan Dems are the reason Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and ultimately the Presidency. Can someone point out what someone not named Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden has done to court blue collar voters who may have buyers remorse from believing in Trump's con game?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

White Reagan Dems are the reason Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and ultimately the Presidency. Can someone point out what someone not named Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden has done to court blue collar voters who may have buyers remorse from believing in Trump's con game?

No, bad turnout is why Trump won those states.

It sounds to me like you left off the word “white” before blue collar voters btw.

As for courting those voters, we’ll see how the candidates play out during campaign season.

But if you think a guy (Biden) who enthusiastically supported every trade agreement and is a prime architect of the prison-industrial complex is the answer for increasing voter turnout in the rural and urban areas of the rust belt and elsewhere, you’re entitled to that opinion.

 

[acri1]

I've been telling y'all that the party has been ripe for a split that will empower a third party in this country.

The proof was in how easy it was for a little known Senator from VT to completely change the party platform without even making it to the general election. That is a clear sign that the party is slowly losing the majority.

Isn't a third party going to just split the left-leaning vote and give every major election to the GOP?

How can you predict that the White people will double-down on Whiteness but then assume that the Latino people will join them? Won't the doubling down on Whiteness push a fair number of those assimilated Latinos away? In fact, don't Latinos tend to become more liberal as them assimilate, not less so? Even the most conservative immigrant communities, like Vietnamese voters and Cuban voters, are actually becoming less and less conservative over time. Hillary Clinton won the Cuban vote in 2016, the first time a Democrat had won that demographic. As Republicans double down on Trump's overt racism it's only going to get worse for them there.

Because a lot of Latinos eventually start identifying as white over time, especially with intermarriage and whatnot.

 

[Pressure]

By "winning elections", you're actually referring to at most one presidential election in the last five (Obama ran against the establishment candidate in 2008 before he turned), and they held Congress from, what, 2006-2010? In other words, they briefly took advantage of a horrible president and an economic collapse to gain control for ONE cycle before losing it again.

I hope you establishment folk aren't satisfied with the rate at which Democrats have been "winning" in recent memory.

You listed senators and congressmen and women who have been serving for decades and comfortably winning elections.

You and I will always fundamentally disagree because I think candidates should run on what they believe and the chips fall where they may.