Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
Author Message
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 45,440
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1264
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #1
Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
Trump has made painfully obvious the disconnect between the GOP base and the GOP itself. Trump turned the GOP from the party of free trade to nationalist, protectionist, and economically isolationist 140 characters at a time. Watching how effective Trump is at gutting the GOP not just of its dead weight (Boehner, Ryan, etc) but also the few card carrying serious people in town (Mark Sanford, Rand Paul in the campaign, etc) ... if this guy pulls off another 4 years there won't be a GOP. There'll be a Trump party. And that might as well have a line scratched through the middle and "Populist Party" scribbled underneath. Because that's what it really is.

Right now there is a cadre of issues where a libertarian / constitutional / old school Goldwater / fusionist platform can be made. And to make a platform you need big slices of the electorate that can broadly agree with one another. Right now there is no voice in the room for:

- States rights .... on a cadre of issues from health care to cannabis to education.
- Free trade
- Military non-intervention
- An actual sensible post Cold War foreign policy centered around "we'll maintain Bretton-Woods for YOU ... if YOU individually aren't a prick and pay for the cost of defending you. And we're flexible about how you pay. It can be gold. It can be cash. It can be onshoring business and manufacturing to the United States. We're flexible." An example: We give the British a bunch of our older but still capable Carrier Fleet support vessels. Since they can't afford them. In exchange, the British permanently cede Diego Garcia to the United States.
- An actual sensible post Cold War diplomatic policy centered around replacing the United Nations with something more in line with the Commonwealth of Nations.
- Domestic expansion. This is a long game, but to play the long game you must first begin the game. Alberta. Saskatchewan. If you get those, BC and then extend I-5 to Junea and Anchorage. Guam. The Northern Marianas Islands. There's options o'plenty.
- Balanced budgets
- Entitlement reform ... because eventually "save the programs from bankruptcy" will be a powerful political force. And boy that'd be a nice time to sneak an opt-out clause in like Chile has with their social security program.
- Privacy ... not just from FB or Google but the NSA too.
- Taxes .... set aside what rate to make them or how to levy them ... just having a tax code people can under-f*cking-stand would be enormously popular. You should be able to do your taxes on one sheet of paper. State and local governments manage to do that just fine.


Now the problem I see with this ... is any new party needs a charismatic leader who can rally everybody together but who is also pragmatic enough to paper over differences while some cohesion happens. You need a Nigel Farage more or less. And I don't see that person out there politically in the existing landscape. All the people with the credentials either don't have the name ID (Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc) or simply aren't charismatic (Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, etc).


Related: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...son-219006
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2018 12:17 AM by georgia_tech_swagger.)
07-20-2018 12:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,568
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 268
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
With the rift so clear in the Republican ranks with the Populism movement, and a rift that keeps getting bigger in the Democratic ranks between the near-socialists and the more moderate wings, there seems to be plenty of political population sitting where each of those parties is abandoning.

The rift in the Republican side is older and more pronounced. Kind of a direct lineage from the energy of the Tea Party movement, to the ascendancy of the Palin, to Trump.

I think we are just beginning to see the after-effects of Obama on the Democrats. Obama was a sudden surge leftward/governmentalist for the Democrats, and the surge of Bill Clinton's 'Third Way' that moved them centrist died with Gore losing. Even what can be considered 'moderate' for these days for a Democrat is a striking move leftward from Bill Clinton. And *that* rift is just getting started.

If the third party cannot make it with those tectonic forces pulling the older parties in direction that they are moving, then I do not see how any third party or movement would be able to do it.

And, imo, the consequences of not doing so would be terrible for the United States overall.

As an aside, you are are correct it will take a name recognizable and charismatic person to get this rolling. And, they need to be somewhat distanced from the knee-jerk 'moonbat' designation that some that you have listed enjoy.

Look, I have no problems with Johnson or Paul. Voted for Johnson the last go around. But the simple fact remains that for a good 30 per cent of the populace either of those name initiates an immediate 'moonbat' knee kick. That is not a personality 'asset' that a movement or party needs to be saddled with, and actually a nascent one cannot be saddled with.
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2018 11:10 AM by tanqtonic.)
07-20-2018 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 59,383
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #3
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
Tanq, I don't agree with your TEA Party to Palin to Trump linkage. The original TEA Party would have been pretty comfortable with the platform that GTS outlined. But after the debacle of 2008, the TEA Party was about the only thing republicans had going for them, and so a lot of folks with little or no philosophical connection to the TEA Party latched onto the name and hijacked it. I saw all sorts of beliefs and issue positions attached the the "Tea Party" that had nothing to do with the Taxed Enough Already Party. I think maybe Teabaggers would be an appropriate name for them, since they remind me very much of the historic Carpetbaggers.

Otherwise I tend to agree with both GTS and you. We need somebody to come forward with something between the extremes toward which current republican and democrat leaders seem to want to take us. I do not want to live in a theocracy or a socialist/communist workers "paradise," and I don't see much else on offer. Trump is no theocrat, but I'm not at all certain what his long term impact will be. Populists tend to flame out, and usually do more harm than good. As far as the leader of the needed movement, I still think Rand could be the one, but he needs to do some work on polishing his image.
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2018 12:01 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
07-20-2018 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,568
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 268
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
Owl#s, I could have been more clear. The Tea Party 'energized' the various factions; that 'energy' (not necessarily political leanings) very much pushed Palin from failed VP candidate to an almost de-facto spokesperson for the GOP.

In other words, the Tea Party was a highly energized 'movement' in search of leader. Palin directly tapped into and was the largest beneficiary of that energy.

And Palin very much is the the proto-populist that directly led to the ascendancy of the Trumpsists in GOP.
07-20-2018 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,568
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 268
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
Sorry, will be hard for Rand to polish that image. While he is a little more centered than his pop, he comes across to many in the general populace as a wacknut. Really hard to walk that bridge back once it has been crossed.
07-20-2018 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nomad2u2001 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,438
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 402
I Root For: ECU
Location: NC
Post: #6
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
I don't see a shake up like the Whigs, but I do see an election where we may have around 4 serious candidates in the general, especially if Trump gets it in 2020. Both establishments want control of their party and there's nothing saying that the democrats and republicans have to send one candidate each. This will do nothing but hurt a 3rd party candidate, IMO.
07-21-2018 04:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 32,126
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 845
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
I don't see it. But Perot and Trump provided the blueprint for an independent. Trump got outspent 1.2 billion to 500 million and still won the electoral college comfortably.
07-23-2018 11:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,126
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 695
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
(07-20-2018 12:07 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Trump has made painfully obvious the disconnect between the GOP base and the GOP itself. Trump turned the GOP from the party of free trade to nationalist, protectionist, and economically isolationist 140 characters at a time. Watching how effective Trump is at gutting the GOP not just of its dead weight (Boehner, Ryan, etc) but also the few card carrying serious people in town (Mark Sanford, Rand Paul in the campaign, etc) ... if this guy pulls off another 4 years there won't be a GOP. There'll be a Trump party. And that might as well have a line scratched through the middle and "Populist Party" scribbled underneath. Because that's what it really is.

Right now there is a cadre of issues where a libertarian / constitutional / old school Goldwater / fusionist platform can be made. And to make a platform you need big slices of the electorate that can broadly agree with one another. Right now there is no voice in the room for:

- States rights .... on a cadre of issues from health care to cannabis to education.
- Free trade
- Military non-intervention
- An actual sensible post Cold War foreign policy centered around "we'll maintain Bretton-Woods for YOU ... if YOU individually aren't a prick and pay for the cost of defending you. And we're flexible about how you pay. It can be gold. It can be cash. It can be onshoring business and manufacturing to the United States. We're flexible." An example: We give the British a bunch of our older but still capable Carrier Fleet support vessels. Since they can't afford them. In exchange, the British permanently cede Diego Garcia to the United States.
- An actual sensible post Cold War diplomatic policy centered around replacing the United Nations with something more in line with the Commonwealth of Nations.
- Domestic expansion. This is a long game, but to play the long game you must first begin the game. Alberta. Saskatchewan. If you get those, BC and then extend I-5 to Junea and Anchorage. Guam. The Northern Marianas Islands. There's options o'plenty.
- Balanced budgets
- Entitlement reform ... because eventually "save the programs from bankruptcy" will be a powerful political force. And boy that'd be a nice time to sneak an opt-out clause in like Chile has with their social security program.
- Privacy ... not just from FB or Google but the NSA too.
- Taxes .... set aside what rate to make them or how to levy them ... just having a tax code people can under-f*cking-stand would be enormously popular. You should be able to do your taxes on one sheet of paper. State and local governments manage to do that just fine.


Now the problem I see with this ... is any new party needs a charismatic leader who can rally everybody together but who is also pragmatic enough to paper over differences while some cohesion happens. You need a Nigel Farage more or less. And I don't see that person out there politically in the existing landscape. All the people with the credentials either don't have the name ID (Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc) or simply aren't charismatic (Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, etc).


Related: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...son-219006

Back when I was just saying "No way will I vote for Hillary" and well before I had any need to add "No way will I vote for Trump" had a long text conversation with a good friend where I argued that we were on the cusp of a major party shake-up.

The collapse of the Whigs and emergence of Republicans was huge but we've had smaller yet very significant changes in the past.

The GOP which once polled 30-35% of black voters swung Democrat for Kennedy and locked in after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That pushed the anti-Civil Rights crowd out of the GOP. The 1972 election saw the "warhawks" displaced from the Democratic party. 1980 saw the shift of evangelicals to the GOP.

The GOP is a very messy coalition right now.

The old-time pro-business GOP that really has no interest in issues like gay marriage or abortion except to make sure they say nothing about either that will cost them revenue can't feel comfortable.

The traditional isolationist has no place to go between a warhawk GOP that wants to impose Democracy by force (instead of covert action, circa Eisenhower era) in any place that has economic or strategic value and a Democratic party afraid to not quasi-declare war lest they lose elections. Hillary for example was a major hawk.

The traditionally western Republican who favors small fiscally responsible government and thinks what you do in your private life is your concern doesn't fit well with the borrow and spenders who share your vision on taxation but not spending and certainly doesn't fit with the evangelical wing.

The evangelical wing which was once a major supporter of social security and mostly a supporter of collective bargaining, now has ditched that and focuses on abortion and what gay people do and would really like to regulate what shows up when their wife wants skin care tips and searches for facial.

There is such a vast disparity in the logic and priorities of the GOP constituency that I'm not sure how it survives much longer without some sort of shifting.

The traditional pro-business Republican is who I think defects first. Post-Bill Clinton the Democratic party has been pretty close to their positions, Obama era didn't change that much unless you sell insurance or sell pharmaceuticals.

Just going to be really hard to hold the current coalition together.
07-23-2018 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 32,126
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 845
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
(07-23-2018 04:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-20-2018 12:07 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Trump has made painfully obvious the disconnect between the GOP base and the GOP itself. Trump turned the GOP from the party of free trade to nationalist, protectionist, and economically isolationist 140 characters at a time. Watching how effective Trump is at gutting the GOP not just of its dead weight (Boehner, Ryan, etc) but also the few card carrying serious people in town (Mark Sanford, Rand Paul in the campaign, etc) ... if this guy pulls off another 4 years there won't be a GOP. There'll be a Trump party. And that might as well have a line scratched through the middle and "Populist Party" scribbled underneath. Because that's what it really is.

Right now there is a cadre of issues where a libertarian / constitutional / old school Goldwater / fusionist platform can be made. And to make a platform you need big slices of the electorate that can broadly agree with one another. Right now there is no voice in the room for:

- States rights .... on a cadre of issues from health care to cannabis to education.
- Free trade
- Military non-intervention
- An actual sensible post Cold War foreign policy centered around "we'll maintain Bretton-Woods for YOU ... if YOU individually aren't a prick and pay for the cost of defending you. And we're flexible about how you pay. It can be gold. It can be cash. It can be onshoring business and manufacturing to the United States. We're flexible." An example: We give the British a bunch of our older but still capable Carrier Fleet support vessels. Since they can't afford them. In exchange, the British permanently cede Diego Garcia to the United States.
- An actual sensible post Cold War diplomatic policy centered around replacing the United Nations with something more in line with the Commonwealth of Nations.
- Domestic expansion. This is a long game, but to play the long game you must first begin the game. Alberta. Saskatchewan. If you get those, BC and then extend I-5 to Junea and Anchorage. Guam. The Northern Marianas Islands. There's options o'plenty.
- Balanced budgets
- Entitlement reform ... because eventually "save the programs from bankruptcy" will be a powerful political force. And boy that'd be a nice time to sneak an opt-out clause in like Chile has with their social security program.
- Privacy ... not just from FB or Google but the NSA too.
- Taxes .... set aside what rate to make them or how to levy them ... just having a tax code people can under-f*cking-stand would be enormously popular. You should be able to do your taxes on one sheet of paper. State and local governments manage to do that just fine.


Now the problem I see with this ... is any new party needs a charismatic leader who can rally everybody together but who is also pragmatic enough to paper over differences while some cohesion happens. You need a Nigel Farage more or less. And I don't see that person out there politically in the existing landscape. All the people with the credentials either don't have the name ID (Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc) or simply aren't charismatic (Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, etc).


Related: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...son-219006

Back when I was just saying "No way will I vote for Hillary" and well before I had any need to add "No way will I vote for Trump" had a long text conversation with a good friend where I argued that we were on the cusp of a major party shake-up.

The collapse of the Whigs and emergence of Republicans was huge but we've had smaller yet very significant changes in the past.

The GOP which once polled 30-35% of black voters swung Democrat for Kennedy and locked in after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That pushed the anti-Civil Rights crowd out of the GOP. The 1972 election saw the "warhawks" displaced from the Democratic party. 1980 saw the shift of evangelicals to the GOP.

The GOP is a very messy coalition right now.

The old-time pro-business GOP that really has no interest in issues like gay marriage or abortion except to make sure they say nothing about either that will cost them revenue can't feel comfortable.

The traditional isolationist has no place to go between a warhawk GOP that wants to impose Democracy by force (instead of covert action, circa Eisenhower era) in any place that has economic or strategic value and a Democratic party afraid to not quasi-declare war lest they lose elections. Hillary for example was a major hawk.

The traditionally western Republican who favors small fiscally responsible government and thinks what you do in your private life is your concern doesn't fit well with the borrow and spenders who share your vision on taxation but not spending and certainly doesn't fit with the evangelical wing.

The evangelical wing which was once a major supporter of social security and mostly a supporter of collective bargaining, now has ditched that and focuses on abortion and what gay people do and would really like to regulate what shows up when their wife wants skin care tips and searches for facial.

There is such a vast disparity in the logic and priorities of the GOP constituency that I'm not sure how it survives much longer without some sort of shifting.

The traditional pro-business Republican is who I think defects first. Post-Bill Clinton the Democratic party has been pretty close to their positions, Obama era didn't change that much unless you sell insurance or sell pharmaceuticals.

Just going to be really hard to hold the current coalition together.

Business people are the strongest Republicans. Now if you are talking about multi-national corporate types, then maybe what you are saying is possible. They deal in a constant world of regulation and want to "influence" politicians to get what they want. But small business people don't have that influence and feel the impact of a heavy handed bureaucratic government most.
07-23-2018 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,568
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 268
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
(07-23-2018 04:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-20-2018 12:07 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Trump has made painfully obvious the disconnect between the GOP base and the GOP itself. Trump turned the GOP from the party of free trade to nationalist, protectionist, and economically isolationist 140 characters at a time. Watching how effective Trump is at gutting the GOP not just of its dead weight (Boehner, Ryan, etc) but also the few card carrying serious people in town (Mark Sanford, Rand Paul in the campaign, etc) ... if this guy pulls off another 4 years there won't be a GOP. There'll be a Trump party. And that might as well have a line scratched through the middle and "Populist Party" scribbled underneath. Because that's what it really is.

Right now there is a cadre of issues where a libertarian / constitutional / old school Goldwater / fusionist platform can be made. And to make a platform you need big slices of the electorate that can broadly agree with one another. Right now there is no voice in the room for:

- States rights .... on a cadre of issues from health care to cannabis to education.
- Free trade
- Military non-intervention
- An actual sensible post Cold War foreign policy centered around "we'll maintain Bretton-Woods for YOU ... if YOU individually aren't a prick and pay for the cost of defending you. And we're flexible about how you pay. It can be gold. It can be cash. It can be onshoring business and manufacturing to the United States. We're flexible." An example: We give the British a bunch of our older but still capable Carrier Fleet support vessels. Since they can't afford them. In exchange, the British permanently cede Diego Garcia to the United States.
- An actual sensible post Cold War diplomatic policy centered around replacing the United Nations with something more in line with the Commonwealth of Nations.
- Domestic expansion. This is a long game, but to play the long game you must first begin the game. Alberta. Saskatchewan. If you get those, BC and then extend I-5 to Junea and Anchorage. Guam. The Northern Marianas Islands. There's options o'plenty.
- Balanced budgets
- Entitlement reform ... because eventually "save the programs from bankruptcy" will be a powerful political force. And boy that'd be a nice time to sneak an opt-out clause in like Chile has with their social security program.
- Privacy ... not just from FB or Google but the NSA too.
- Taxes .... set aside what rate to make them or how to levy them ... just having a tax code people can under-f*cking-stand would be enormously popular. You should be able to do your taxes on one sheet of paper. State and local governments manage to do that just fine.


Now the problem I see with this ... is any new party needs a charismatic leader who can rally everybody together but who is also pragmatic enough to paper over differences while some cohesion happens. You need a Nigel Farage more or less. And I don't see that person out there politically in the existing landscape. All the people with the credentials either don't have the name ID (Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc) or simply aren't charismatic (Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, etc).


Related: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...son-219006

Back when I was just saying "No way will I vote for Hillary" and well before I had any need to add "No way will I vote for Trump" had a long text conversation with a good friend where I argued that we were on the cusp of a major party shake-up.

The collapse of the Whigs and emergence of Republicans was huge but we've had smaller yet very significant changes in the past.

The GOP which once polled 30-35% of black voters swung Democrat for Kennedy and locked in after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That pushed the anti-Civil Rights crowd out of the GOP. The 1972 election saw the "warhawks" displaced from the Democratic party. 1980 saw the shift of evangelicals to the GOP.

The GOP is a very messy coalition right now.

The old-time pro-business GOP that really has no interest in issues like gay marriage or abortion except to make sure they say nothing about either that will cost them revenue can't feel comfortable.

The traditional isolationist has no place to go between a warhawk GOP that wants to impose Democracy by force (instead of covert action, circa Eisenhower era) in any place that has economic or strategic value and a Democratic party afraid to not quasi-declare war lest they lose elections. Hillary for example was a major hawk.

The traditionally western Republican who favors small fiscally responsible government and thinks what you do in your private life is your concern doesn't fit well with the borrow and spenders who share your vision on taxation but not spending and certainly doesn't fit with the evangelical wing.

The evangelical wing which was once a major supporter of social security and mostly a supporter of collective bargaining, now has ditched that and focuses on abortion and what gay people do and would really like to regulate what shows up when their wife wants skin care tips and searches for facial.

There is such a vast disparity in the logic and priorities of the GOP constituency that I'm not sure how it survives much longer without some sort of shifting.

The traditional pro-business Republican is who I think defects first. Post-Bill Clinton the Democratic party has been pretty close to their positions, Obama era didn't change that much unless you sell insurance or sell pharmaceuticals.

Just going to be really hard to hold the current coalition together.

Pretty much impossible for a Trump/populist to hold together, imo.

Democrats unified their disparity under Obama, and they purged the moderates in the process.
07-23-2018 05:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 45,440
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1264
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #11
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
(07-23-2018 05:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Pretty much impossible for a Trump/populist to hold together, imo.

Democrats unified their disparity under Obama, and they purged the moderates in the process.

The electorate purged the moderates in retaliation for ObamaCare.
07-23-2018 05:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,568
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 268
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
I would hazard to guess with the leftward shift in the Democrats under Obama, there has been a more than decent amount of self-immolation of centrists in that party.

I cant think of more than 2 or 3 national figure Democrats that could be even labeled anywhere near moderate or centrist.
07-23-2018 08:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 59,383
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #13
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
(07-23-2018 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would hazard to guess with the leftward shift in the Democrats under Obama, there has been a more than decent amount of self-immolation of centrists in that party.
I can’t think of more than 2 or 3 national figure Democrats that could be even labeled anywhere near moderate or centrist.

I can think of one, maybe—Joe Manchin. Who would be your others?
07-24-2018 02:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,568
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 268
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
(07-24-2018 02:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-23-2018 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would hazard to guess with the leftward shift in the Democrats under Obama, there has been a more than decent amount of self-immolation of centrists in that party.
I can’t think of more than 2 or 3 national figure Democrats that could be even labeled anywhere near moderate or centrist.

I can think of one, maybe—Joe Manchin. Who would be your others?

I was being 'liberal' in my statement of my estimation.... he was the only one I could think of tbh.

Still too early to tell about the Alabama Senator. He might be an 'unbaked loaf'.

Never put Jim Webb into that camp, but he might be 'stale bread'. In fact Webb was almost the only candidate I more than halfway supported for the 2016 race. (tended to look decently on Fiorina as well. Just about all the others I had to at the very least pinch the nose to come to grips with them.... even on the Libertarian slate.)
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2018 08:26 AM by tanqtonic.)
07-24-2018 08:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 32,126
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 845
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles...10725.html

Another take on what holds parties together or breaks them apart.

"...As intuitive as this view is, it misses one of the central functions of political parties, which is to hide disagreement between their members and thus make them appear more unified than they really are. Strong leadership actually becomes more necessary as conflicting concerns within a coalition proliferate. Accordingly, to understand our current political environment, we need to reorient our view of what parties do...."
07-24-2018 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,126
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 695
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
When the parties made the decision to turn the candidate selection process over to the primary system in a two party state, it assured the purging of moderates. The idea it is Obama's fault or Trump's or Bush or Clinton ignores the actual trends as the primary system has matured.

For simplicity. Let's say 60% of Americans are essentially moderates. About 2/3rds won't align with a party at all, 1/3rd will cast their lot with one or the other.
Of the remaining 40%, you have 20% well to the right or far right and 20% are well to the left or far left.

When a primary arrives. The far elements of each party are more engaged in politics and will show up to support the candidate. The moderates are less motivated and dispersed between the two parties when they do align.

The system assures the most far right and far left candidates the easiest path to a nomination.

The only time moderates have had success in a primary system was when a state for all intents and purposes was a one party state because then moderates were less likely to be diluted and more likely to show up for a primary because it was their only opportunity to vote for the person who would win the office.

The primary system nearly nominated as a Democrat a person who adamantly declares to not be a Democrat. It also nominated a person who at various times has declared himself to be a Democrat, a Republican, and a third-party person. There is no gate-keeping function to assure that say the nominee for Governor and Lieutenant Governor hold similar positions.

The primary system that was supposed to better reflect the mood of the public does the exact opposite by diluting the impact of moderates and increasing the influence of more radical voters.
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2018 09:14 AM by arkstfan.)
07-24-2018 09:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,126
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 695
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
(07-24-2018 08:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles...10725.html

Another take on what holds parties together or breaks them apart.

"...As intuitive as this view is, it misses one of the central functions of political parties, which is to hide disagreement between their members and thus make them appear more unified than they really are. Strong leadership actually becomes more necessary as conflicting concerns within a coalition proliferate. Accordingly, to understand our current political environment, we need to reorient our view of what parties do...."

The primary system precludes the idea of strong leadership. The leadership instead of being a gatekeeper who controls access to the ballot and party resources is instead ad hoc financial coalitions.
07-24-2018 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,568
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 268
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
(07-24-2018 09:11 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  When the parties made the decision to turn the candidate selection process over to the primary system in a two party state, it assured the purging of moderates. The idea it is Obama's fault or Trump's or Bush or Clinton ignores the actual trends as the primary system has matured.

For simplicity. Let's say 60% of Americans are essentially moderates. About 2/3rds won't align with a party at all, 1/3rd will cast their lot with one or the other.
Of the remaining 40%, you have 20% well to the right or far right and 20% are well to the left or far left.

When a primary arrives. The far elements of each party are more engaged in politics and will show up to support the candidate. The moderates are less motivated and dispersed between the two parties when they do align.

The system assures the most far right and far left candidates the easiest path to a nomination.

The only time moderates have had success in a primary system was when a state for all intents and purposes was a one party state because then moderates were less likely to be diluted and more likely to show up for a primary because it was their only opportunity to vote for the person who would win the office.

The primary system nearly nominated as a Democrat a person who adamantly declares to not be a Democrat. It also nominated a person who at various times has declared himself to be a Democrat, a Republican, and a third-party person. There is no gate-keeping function to assure that say the nominee for Governor and Lieutenant Governor hold similar positions.

The primary system that was supposed to better reflect the mood of the public does the exact opposite by diluting the impact of moderates and increasing the influence of more radical voters.

In that sense the jungle primary system of Louisiana (and adopted by California) would be a better system.

Which actually cuts against 'party sponsorship'. When you think about the current primary system has one or more opposing rabbles of people: in this example call them Pepsi, Coke, and RC parties.

In the traditional primary system each rabble wants, as a group, to put forward whom, in their own rabble-consciousness, best promotes which each group does. In order to get as many people in their own respective gang to make that decision, they employ the state infrastructure of a voting process to their collective choice.

Employing a jungle primary kind of destroys the power of the rabble; it feeds the choices directly to the people as a whole without the filter effect of each private group making a determination who might best represent their collective rabble's view of 'best'.
07-24-2018 12:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 32,126
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 845
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
(07-24-2018 09:11 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  When the parties made the decision to turn the candidate selection process over to the primary system in a two party state, it assured the purging of moderates. The idea it is Obama's fault or Trump's or Bush or Clinton ignores the actual trends as the primary system has matured.

For simplicity. Let's say 60% of Americans are essentially moderates. About 2/3rds won't align with a party at all, 1/3rd will cast their lot with one or the other.
Of the remaining 40%, you have 20% well to the right or far right and 20% are well to the left or far left.

When a primary arrives. The far elements of each party are more engaged in politics and will show up to support the candidate. The moderates are less motivated and dispersed between the two parties when they do align.

The system assures the most far right and far left candidates the easiest path to a nomination.

The only time moderates have had success in a primary system was when a state for all intents and purposes was a one party state because then moderates were less likely to be diluted and more likely to show up for a primary because it was their only opportunity to vote for the person who would win the office.

The primary system nearly nominated as a Democrat a person who adamantly declares to not be a Democrat. It also nominated a person who at various times has declared himself to be a Democrat, a Republican, and a third-party person. There is no gate-keeping function to assure that say the nominee for Governor and Lieutenant Governor hold similar positions.

The primary system that was supposed to better reflect the mood of the public does the exact opposite by diluting the impact of moderates and increasing the influence of more radical voters.

The sorting of the parties in the 70s/80s/90s on liberal/conservative grounds is what made things more extreme. You had a different sort of split before with liberals and conservatives in both parties. It was more economic sorting before. Business on one side, labor on the other. Farmers and most white collar professionals on one side with most lawyers and teachers on the other. While that is still somewhat true, its not as much.
07-24-2018 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crebman Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,746
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 279
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Will we see the first party shake up since the Whigs?
Honestly, I tend to believe the country would be better off with more than two parties, but don't believe we are going to see it in the foreseeable future.

The two current parties have sufficiently rigged the system to make any group leaving so devoid of money and clout to pose much of a threat.
07-24-2018 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.