CSNbbs

I think one or both parties could be in a state of civil war by 2020. But probably not. I don't know if the Republicans will somehow have gotten rid of Trump by then, but if not, I think they'll rally around him again.

My worry is more about disaffected Bernie supporters than the Indivisible Movement, which seems to fall pretty squarely in the Democratic mainstream. I've heard Bernie supporters (I voted for him in the primary, but was OK with Clinton as the nominee) who claim they will leave the party if Ellison doesn't get elected chair or if anyone of the "sellout" Dems gets the nomination. Whether they will follow through or not and how many of them there are will be key.

(02-13-2017 10:54 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think one or both parties could be in a state of civil war by 2020. But probably not. I don't know if the Republicans will somehow have gotten rid of Trump by then, but if not, I think they'll rally around him again.

My worry is more about disaffected Bernie supporters than the Indivisible Movement, which seems to fall pretty squarely in the Democratic mainstream. I've heard Bernie supporters (I voted for him in the primary, but was OK with Clinton as the nominee) who claim they will leave the party if Ellison doesn't get elected chair or if anyone of the "sellout" Dems gets the nomination. Whether they will follow through or not and how many of them there are will be key.

I would posit that the Republicans are still in the midst of a civil war. Being united under Trump is an amazingly odd and fragile situation.

Trump is *not* in any way, shape, or form representative of the conservative faction (i.e. social conservatives), nor for that matter the libertarian faction. I wouldn't say that he adheres to any specific line of the Republican party, and the only reason you don't see an overt civil war is that most Republicans are being very good about not showing those schisms with the 'head' of the party in any major way.

The only reason there is not an overt schism is that someone won the Presidency that chose (for whatever reason) to put an 'R' behind their name, notwithstanding that he really hasnt shown that he is an adherent to any specific strain existent in the traditional 'geni' that make up the Republican party.

=====

Have fun if Ellison wins. Interesting to see the Democrats lurch even more leftward if thats the case. I think there is plenty of room for a political movement right of Sanders (I mean, by definition there is a lot of room to the right of a self-professed socialist, not meant in a perjorative way, just what he tends to even self-describe as his political goals) and (whatever direction he is) of Trump.

Everyone in the middle has gotten savaged in terms of having the political parties wrench grotesquely in the direction that their bent used to be more mildly indicative of.

I sure hope JAAO is not speaking of a shooting Civil War, but of an ideological one. I doubt this country will ever again see a shooting civil war.

But I do think the two major political parties could splinter into 4-6 smaller ones capable of electing at least a few Representatives and an occasional Senator. The Tea Party and the Bernie-ites are possibly the early forerunners for that. The middle will not hold.

(02-13-2017 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I sure hope JAAO is not speaking of a shooting Civil War, but of an ideological one. I doubt this country will ever again see a shooting civil war.

But I do think the two major political parties could splinter into 4-6 smaller ones capable of electing at least a few Representatives and an occasional Senator. The Tea Party and the Bernie-ites are possibly the early forerunners for that. The middle will not hold.

Yes, speaking figuratively only.

First-past-the-post elections and presidential systems both tend toward two parties, so I don't think we'll see much change without more fundamental structural changes.

(02-13-2017 12:20 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I sure hope JAAO is not speaking of a shooting Civil War, but of an ideological one. I doubt this country will ever again see a shooting civil war.

But I do think the two major political parties could splinter into 4-6 smaller ones capable of electing at least a few Representatives and an occasional Senator. The Tea Party and the Bernie-ites are possibly the early forerunners for that. The middle will not hold.

Yes, speaking figuratively only.

First-past-the-post elections and presidential systems both tend toward two parties, so I don't think we'll see much change without more fundamental structural changes.

The true splintering of a party condemns that party to lose almost every election in the future in our current electoral system.

(02-13-2017 12:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017 12:20 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I sure hope JAAO is not speaking of a shooting Civil War, but of an ideological one. I doubt this country will ever again see a shooting civil war.

But I do think the two major political parties could splinter into 4-6 smaller ones capable of electing at least a few Representatives and an occasional Senator. The Tea Party and the Bernie-ites are possibly the early forerunners for that. The middle will not hold.

Yes, speaking figuratively only.

First-past-the-post elections and presidential systems both tend toward two parties, so I don't think we'll see much change without more fundamental structural changes.

The true splintering of a party condemns that party to lose almost every election in the future in our current electoral system.

Unless both splinter. I thought the Tea Party's antipathy toward RINOs would be a plus for the DNC. But then comes Bernie, and they have their own movement against the middle.

Add the Trump voters to the Bernie supporters and I think over 60% of the American people were ready for a change.

(02-13-2017 12:20 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I sure hope JAAO is not speaking of a shooting Civil War, but of an ideological one. I doubt this country will ever again see a shooting civil war.

But I do think the two major political parties could splinter into 4-6 smaller ones capable of electing at least a few Representatives and an occasional Senator. The Tea Party and the Bernie-ites are possibly the early forerunners for that. The middle will not hold.

Yes, speaking figuratively only.

First-past-the-post elections and presidential systems both tend toward two parties, so I don't think we'll see much change without more fundamental structural changes.

Well, if more localities/states choose to follow jungle primary voting, like California, it could start to enable people to run in differentiating parties. Then it wouldn't be Democrat against Democrat (in California Senate 2016), but maybe Blue Dog versus Progressive. That assumes that the parties could get organized and develop a separate donor structure (or at least a dependable one, even if those donors cross party lines depending on the candidate).

That wouldn't prevent these new parties from caucusing with one of the existing main parties (Republican or Democratic), unless the new party developed enough support to caucus on their own (like many other parliamentary governments) and be able to negotiate support for various legislation on its own.

(02-13-2017 12:20 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]First-past-the-post elections and presidential systems both tend toward two parties, so I don't think we'll see much change without more fundamental structural changes.

Yes - the history of American electoral politics is that movements are soon subsumed into one party or the other. Trump was as much a "third way" candidate for president as we've had for quite some time, and he rather effortlessly slid into the Republican Party, then won its primary and the election. As regards the president, the Electoral College makes it very difficult for a third-party candidate to win. Ross Perot captured almost 20% of the popular vote in 1992 but wasn't close to winning any state and thus received no electoral votes, which are the only ones that count in the presidential race. The only time a third-party candidate was a serious challenger was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, and that was built on his charismatic personality plus the fact that he already had served 1+ terms as President, so he was a known commodity.

(02-13-2017 01:12 PM)gsloth Wrote: [ -> ]Well, if more localities/states choose to follow jungle primary voting, like California, it could start to enable people to run in differentiating parties. Then it wouldn't be Democrat against Democrat (in California Senate 2016), but maybe Blue Dog versus Progressive. That assumes that the parties could get organized and develop a separate donor structure (or at least a dependable one, even if those donors cross party lines depending on the candidate).

That wouldn't prevent these new parties from caucusing with one of the existing main parties (Republican or Democratic), unless the new party developed enough support to caucus on their own (like many other parliamentary governments) and be able to negotiate support for various legislation on its own.

Because the USA isn't a parliamentary democracy, however, there's no real pressure for this to happen. Louisiana has had open primaries for pretty much its entire existence, and yet there's still just two main parties in the state.

(02-14-2017 12:06 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-13-2017 12:20 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]First-past-the-post elections and presidential systems both tend toward two parties, so I don't think we'll see much change without more fundamental structural changes.

Yes - the history of American electoral politics is that movements are soon subsumed into one party or the other. Trump was as much a "third way" candidate for president as we've had for quite some time, and he rather effortlessly slid into the Republican Party, then won its primary and the election. As regards the president, the Electoral College makes it very difficult for a third-party candidate to win. Ross Perot captured almost 20% of the popular vote in 1992 but wasn't close to winning any state and thus received no electoral votes, which are the only ones that count in the presidential race. The only time a third-party candidate was a serious challenger was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, and that was built on his charismatic personality plus the fact that he already had served 1+ terms as President, so he was a known commodity.

(02-13-2017 01:12 PM)gsloth Wrote: [ -> ]Well, if more localities/states choose to follow jungle primary voting, like California, it could start to enable people to run in differentiating parties. Then it wouldn't be Democrat against Democrat (in California Senate 2016), but maybe Blue Dog versus Progressive. That assumes that the parties could get organized and develop a separate donor structure (or at least a dependable one, even if those donors cross party lines depending on the candidate).

That wouldn't prevent these new parties from caucusing with one of the existing main parties (Republican or Democratic), unless the new party developed enough support to caucus on their own (like many other parliamentary governments) and be able to negotiate support for various legislation on its own.

Because the USA isn't a parliamentary democracy, however, there's no real pressure for this to happen. Louisiana has had open primaries for pretty much its entire existence, and yet there's still just two main parties in the state.

A rare post in which we are in 100% agreement.

People are also too lazy to commit to anything but Rs/Ds...see the 2016 election, where the two most-hated presidential candidates in modern history got 94% of the popular vote. Those who voted just eventually capitulated and picked one.

(02-14-2017 12:11 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote: [ -> ]People are also too lazy to commit to anything but Rs/Ds...see the 2016 election, where the two most-hated presidential candidates in modern history got 94% of the popular vote. Those who voted just eventually capitulated and picked one.

It didn't help that the Libertarian candidate came across as a loon.

As a write-in voter I escaped the 94%, so at least I know you don't think I'm lazy.

(02-14-2017 12:55 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic...-o-key-jr/

Interesting. So while the reviewer extol's Key's work in establishing the importance of independents and an electorate who actually thinks about issues and votes on personal preferences . . .

Per the review, Key's warned at the end that even if the electorate is more of a deliberative body in the middle that moves beyond mere social alliances/behaviors . . . that if politicians and parties do not acknowledge this, or even intentionally work against it by focusing on "cultivation of images" and "projections of styles" and therefore eliminate the focus of substantive debate, discussion and analyses of political issues . . . . . they 'abdicate' the responsibility of relying on substance to justify their arguments to be placed in power.

The problem with those studies is that they were performed in an era where newspapers and fledgling network TV provided a somewhat more balanced reporting of news and the editorials were less fixated on the level of entertainment provided therein (Will Rogers and others no doubt provided entertainment as well)

We had not entered the 'entertainment generation', or witnessed the advent of customized TV viewing, or envisioned civil discourse dumbed down by culture (reality TV anyone?).

The studies did not see assess the impact of personality cults, or the importance of being the best recognized candidate, much less the best looking one.

You linked the article. What is your impression / take away?

(02-14-2017 01:41 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2017 12:55 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic...-o-key-jr/

Interesting. So while the reviewer extol's Key's work in establishing the importance of independents and an electorate who actually thinks about issues and votes on personal preferences . . .

Per the review, Key's warned at the end that even if the electorate is more of a deliberative body in the middle that moves beyond mere social alliances/behaviors . . . that if politicians and parties do not acknowledge this, or even intentionally work against it by focusing on "cultivation of images" and "projections of styles" and therefore eliminate the focus of substantive debate, discussion and analyses of political issues . . . . . they 'abdicate' the responsibility of relying on substance to justify their arguments to be placed in power.

The problem with those studies is that they were performed in an era where newspapers and fledgling network TV provided a somewhat more balanced reporting of news and the editorials were less fixated on the level of entertainment provided therein (Will Rogers and others no doubt provided entertainment as well)

We had not entered the 'entertainment generation', or witnessed the advent of customized TV viewing, or envisioned civil discourse dumbed down by culture (reality TV anyone?).

The studies did not see assess the impact of personality cults, or the importance of being the best recognized candidate, much less the best looking one.

You linked the article. What is your impression / take away?

Somewhat?

Master of Understatement.

(02-14-2017 01:41 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2017 12:55 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic...-o-key-jr/

Interesting. So while the reviewer extol's Key's work in establishing the importance of independents and an electorate who actually thinks about issues and votes on personal preferences . . .

Per the review, Key's warned at the end that even if the electorate is more of a deliberative body in the middle that moves beyond mere social alliances/behaviors . . . that if politicians and parties do not acknowledge this, or even intentionally work against it by focusing on "cultivation of images" and "projections of styles" and therefore eliminate the focus of substantive debate, discussion and analyses of political issues . . . . . they 'abdicate' the responsibility of relying on substance to justify their arguments to be placed in power.

The problem with those studies is that they were performed in an era where newspapers and fledgling network TV provided a somewhat more balanced reporting of news and the editorials were less fixated on the level of entertainment provided therein (Will Rogers and others no doubt provided entertainment as well)

We had not entered the 'entertainment generation', or witnessed the advent of customized TV viewing, or envisioned civil discourse dumbed down by culture (reality TV anyone?).

The studies did not see assess the impact of personality cults, or the importance of being the best recognized candidate, much less the best looking one.

You linked the article. What is your impression / take away?

I don't think the sociological, psychological, and rational are mutually exclusive.

In his 1948 acceptance speech, Truman laid out a point by point list of reasons why supporting the Democratic parity was the only reasonable action for labor and agriculture.

George Will says he won the election because the Republican Congress failed to pass a bill which would have provided for surplus grain storage which ticked off enough farmers in California to swing it to Truman.

On the other hand, David McCullough says Truman won because enough voters who were on the fence decided, "I just like the guy" when it came time to vote.

While everyone "liked Ike," Key maintained Eisenhower won because the Republican platform reflected what most voters wanted. I've had some heated discussions about what
would have happened if he had run as a Democrat (which Truman wanted very much).

(02-14-2017 04:24 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2017 01:41 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2017 12:55 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic...-o-key-jr/

Interesting. So while the reviewer extol's Key's work in establishing the importance of independents and an electorate who actually thinks about issues and votes on personal preferences . . .

Per the review, Key's warned at the end that even if the electorate is more of a deliberative body in the middle that moves beyond mere social alliances/behaviors . . . that if politicians and parties do not acknowledge this, or even intentionally work against it by focusing on "cultivation of images" and "projections of styles" and therefore eliminate the focus of substantive debate, discussion and analyses of political issues . . . . . they 'abdicate' the responsibility of relying on substance to justify their arguments to be placed in power.

The problem with those studies is that they were performed in an era where newspapers and fledgling network TV provided a somewhat more balanced reporting of news and the editorials were less fixated on the level of entertainment provided therein (Will Rogers and others no doubt provided entertainment as well)

We had not entered the 'entertainment generation', or witnessed the advent of customized TV viewing, or envisioned civil discourse dumbed down by culture (reality TV anyone?).

The studies did not see assess the impact of personality cults, or the importance of being the best recognized candidate, much less the best looking one.

You linked the article. What is your impression / take away?

I don't think the sociological, psychological, and rational are mutually exclusive.

In his 1948 acceptance speech, Truman laid out a point by point list of reasons why supporting the Democratic parity was the only reasonable action for labor and agriculture.

George Will says he won the election because the Republican Congress failed to pass a bill which would have provided for surplus grain storage which ticked off enough farmers in California to swing it to Truman.

On the other hand, David McCullough says Truman won because enough voters who were on the fence decided, "I just like the guy" when it came time to vote.

While everyone "liked Ike," Key maintained Eisenhower won because the Republican platform reflected what most voters wanted. I've had some heated discussions about what
would have happened if he had run as a Democrat (which Truman wanted very much).

And the irony is that the last paragraph in the review concluded that the politician who "talks sense to the American people" is acting sensibly, and his example was . . . . . . Adlai Stevenson.

Well, that worked well.

So does this have any relevance in 21st century America?

In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez had a TV show for years (while President), entitled something like "Hola, El Presidente" or "Buenos dias, el president" (forgive my Spanish, never took it - although my kids are fluent) . . .

and we just elected a Reality TV Star to our highest office . . . .

Heck, what we're watching now, 24/7/365, is "Celebrity Apprentice" writ large.

Except with a 4-year contract.

(02-14-2017 04:51 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2017 04:24 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2017 01:41 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2017 12:55 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic...-o-key-jr/

Interesting. So while the reviewer extol's Key's work in establishing the importance of independents and an electorate who actually thinks about issues and votes on personal preferences . . .

Per the review, Key's warned at the end that even if the electorate is more of a deliberative body in the middle that moves beyond mere social alliances/behaviors . . . that if politicians and parties do not acknowledge this, or even intentionally work against it by focusing on "cultivation of images" and "projections of styles" and therefore eliminate the focus of substantive debate, discussion and analyses of political issues . . . . . they 'abdicate' the responsibility of relying on substance to justify their arguments to be placed in power.

The problem with those studies is that they were performed in an era where newspapers and fledgling network TV provided a somewhat more balanced reporting of news and the editorials were less fixated on the level of entertainment provided therein (Will Rogers and others no doubt provided entertainment as well)

We had not entered the 'entertainment generation', or witnessed the advent of customized TV viewing, or envisioned civil discourse dumbed down by culture (reality TV anyone?).

The studies did not see assess the impact of personality cults, or the importance of being the best recognized candidate, much less the best looking one.

You linked the article. What is your impression / take away?

I don't think the sociological, psychological, and rational are mutually exclusive.

In his 1948 acceptance speech, Truman laid out a point by point list of reasons why supporting the Democratic parity was the only reasonable action for labor and agriculture.

George Will says he won the election because the Republican Congress failed to pass a bill which would have provided for surplus grain storage which ticked off enough farmers in California to swing it to Truman.

On the other hand, David McCullough says Truman won because enough voters who were on the fence decided, "I just like the guy" when it came time to vote.

While everyone "liked Ike," Key maintained Eisenhower won because the Republican platform reflected what most voters wanted. I've had some heated discussions about what
would have happened if he had run as a Democrat (which Truman wanted very much).

And the irony is that the last paragraph in the review concluded that the politician who "talks sense to the American people" is acting sensibly, and his example was . . . . . . Adlai Stevenson.

Well, that worked well.

So does this have any relevance in 21st century America?

In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez had a TV show for years (while President), entitled something like "Hola, El Presidente" or "Buenos dias, el president" (forgive my Spanish, never took it - although my kids are fluent) . . .

and we just elected a Reality TV Star to our highest office . . . .

Heck, what we're watching now, 24/7/365, is "Celebrity Apprentice" writ large.

Except with a 4-year contract.

I meant to note that about Stevenson, too.
It's not a minor point. I guess it depends on what people see as "sense."

I remember the show Brooklyn Bridge about a Jewish teen in the 1950s.
After the 1956 election, his teacher asks if any of the students know anyone who voted for Eisenhower.
No one does.