We don’t really have centrism today. What was once the conservative party only demands fiscal responsibility when the other party is in charge. As soon as they get into power it’s spend spend spend and tax cuts for the rich and their lobbyists. If the Democrats take over to help pull us out a recession, and remember the president and Congress don’t really control the economy but they can help or hinder it, then they can’t really do it either. When times are good, pay down the debt, ease up on the security blankets, plan for the future, when times are bad, try and boost it a bit. Neither party can avoid cycles all together but look at these people so concerned with national debt when Obama was in charge just piling onto it like there’s no tomorrow.
I agree, but I really think the legitimate conservatives aren’t happy with what Trump is doing. The racist white nationalist doesn’t care about blowing up the deficit- they’d be fine with Bernie’s policies as long as it helped whites mostly.
Yeah but they’d be fine if you lined up every non-white in country, pushed them into a ditch and shot them too. I don’t know what that has to do with anything.
If there is anyone left in the GOP that cares more about running the country and the future over dictating how other people live their lives, they have no voice right now, and their numbers and willingness to change sides for a vote is questionable at best.
I’ve not seen much presented by the Democrats that curtaials spending, expands jobs, tightens, not necessarily expands, national security oh hell nearly all the things @SlainteMhath mentioned above. I still think Medicare for all only sounds good on paper, especially for people who don’t actually use Medicare or Medicaid, but that’s just me.
The exploding deficits and federal debt didn’t begin in earnest until the Reagan era; dramatic increase in defense spending, tax cuts and status quo more or less on domestic spending** (although he did start the whole “welfare fraud” and “welfare queen” nonsense that lives to this day.) Reagan did sign legislation that raised taxes in 86, so did Bush 1 which probably cost him the election against Clinton. Then there is Bush II: For the first time in human history a government cut taxes while starting two wars (along with an unfunded new entitlement program).
Contrast that to some Democrats- take for example Debbie Stabenow of MI who offered to kill her own program to pay for help for Flint (Republicans: NO.) The truth of the matter as Nesrie observes is that Republicans only (pretend to) care about deficits when they are not in power. But they are remarkably good at the rhetoric (aided and abetted by the MSM) and that notion has so permeated the American electorate that Republicans are viewed as the party that is fiscally responsible and good for the economy.
.
**Turns out ‘socialist’ programs such as medicare, the VA and social security are popular with almost all Americans.
For all intents and purposes, it was Third Way’s vision that had been on the ballot in 2016—and lost. The think tank, inspired by the New Democrat centrism of the 1990s, had advised Hillary Clinton on her 2016 policy platform. In debates within the Democratic Party, Third Way advocated for the sensible center. It argued that a left-wing platform could not win elections, and that what voters preferred was a pragmatic, moderate, technocratic philosophy, socially liberal but pro-business and wary of big government. It used research and data to demonstrate that these policies made good politics.
I’m not going to try to refute your assertions but regardless, the truth of the matter is that the American electorate do not appear to care about policy. Did trump offer these things? Bombastic rhetoric against “illegal aliens” on murdering rampages or a litany of far right, Breitbart-fueled conspiracy theories ‘energized’ his campaign (along with the low information voter who thought trump? from the apprentice? a businessman!)
I don’t know how Democrats counter the litany of lies proffered by Republicans or counter the MSM penchant for taking bothsidism to such extremes that they turn Democratic gaffes into scandals. I think the best candidate for 2020 isn’t where they fall on the left-right spectrum but rather someone who is authentic - or at least appears that way, since we seemed to have decided that perception trumps reality.
Edit: I’ve not finished the Atlantic piece yet but the quote provided eerily echos your sentiments.
As long as this is the attitude, we’re not going to make any real headway against the Trumps of the world who push divisive rhetoric as their path to power.
That article two posts above is why I think and belive I’m right. This country is pretty evenly divided right now, and there’s a thin strip of folks who swing both ways. We got to offer those folks what they want in a way that doesn’t kill base turnout.
I believe Third Way Clinton-era politics are dead, and I believe some folks thought Hillary would be an extension of Bill’s policies, and voted against Bill Clinton.
I agree with this; we’ve seen similar tensions in the UK with Corbyn and Tony Blair’s legacy.
I’ve not seen any data but I"m curious how the Gary Johnson vote broke down (his numbers certainly appeared to have impacted the results in a few states at least.)
Edit: No surprise, but the American electorate really is sorting along idealogical lines.
The median Republican is now more conservative than 97% of Democrats, and the median Democrat is more liberal than 95% of Republicans. By comparison, in 1994, there was substantially more overlap between the two partisan groups than there is today: Just 64% of Republicans were to the right of the median Democrat, while 70% of Democrats were to the left of the median Republican. Put differently, 23% of Republicans were more liberal than the median Democrat in 1994, while 17% of Democrats were more conservative than the median Republican. Today, those numbers are just 1% and 3%, respectively.
This is why I believe Dems have two potential long-term paths to victory (this is post-Trump)
Run on a majority-minority agenda, and become anti-white. This one scares me, and I think there’s some Republicans who aren’t fans of Republican economics, but are afraid of this scenario so they vote Republican out of an idea it will hurt them less. Basically sink to the level of the Republicans, and a dark future will happen.
The second choice is to run on a millenial-friendly populist agenda and hope it inspires the millenials to vote without sacrificing your base. This means going at least social democrat if not more, and less emphasis on racial issues to keep white millenials on board (that said, white millenials will be ok with equality initiatives as long as it’s not seen as blatantly biased in the other direction)
Millenials are going to reject Third Way policies entirely- they see it as Republican lite, and many saw Hillary as that. You might be able to get away with it in 2020, but if the Dems don’t change, any victory will be short-lived and not accomplish much.
Ehhhh… I think 50% of the population checks at least one of those boxes.
Wow is that hilariously wrong. Population data: do you even do it?
Well 30% of the US population are Evengelical Christian, so that covers the religious zealots. I bet we could find another 20% that is racist on top of that! The misogynists are just gravy.
LOL, no, that’s not how demographics data works.
First, it’s 25.4% in the latest Pew survey who identify as Evangelical. Nearly 6% of that group consists of Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists, congregations overwhelmingly consisting of African Americans, so they’re out of the whole potential “White nationalist” pool.
And for the record, “racist” does not equal “vocal white nationalist”. Those goalposts: you’re moving them.
Some evangelicals are older black church ladies.
That said, hardcore right-wing evangelical racists are now outnumbered by non-churchgoing racists.
I don’t think this is true. I understand there are polls and studies, most of which were wrong heading into the election.
I think American’s do care about policy, but you have to equate it to their lives, not someone else’s. Trump offered simple lies to complex problems. The average 4th grade reader could understand what he said and what he pretended he would do. And if they didn’t like what he said, they convinced themselves he was just joking, was really a master planner and no one else got the joke but his voters and him.
The Democrats need to dumb down their messaging, but they don’t actually have to lie.
But hey, if some you think pointing to Europe and saying hey let’s do that will work… I’ll just hunker down for another 4 years of Trump hell.
Wait - we have to back up our flippant, snarky comebacks now? I’ll have to rethink my whole use of P&R.
Wally said “at least one” checkbox, not all three at once. His (probably tongue-in-cheek) assertion is not that 50% of the population are bigoted, misogynistic bible-bangers… it’s that they are at least one of those things.
There have been political science studies that show that who gets elected is pretty much random (no link handy.) Polls on issues also show broad support for those generally supported by Democrats, but since the US has sorted ideologically the issues tend to get clumped together (for example, “Pro-life” people are also going to be climate change deniers.) And the polls in 2016 weren’t that wrong - most were within the margin of error (Nate Silver did a long piece on this not long ago at 538.)
I didn’t say that; what I said is it probably doesn’t matter where on the spectrum the potential candidate falls, but rather a candidate perceived as authentic (i.e. not in thrall to special interests) is probably a good route to go. But, it’s not up to me, or you, or the DNC. That’s what the primaries are for (as for whether the country is center-right or center-left, that Pew article I posted shows that with the move toward supporting gay marriage the country now is slightly more left than previously.)
^— this
I also don’t discriminate when it comes to religious zealotry! You don’t have to be a Christian to be a zealot, but if you’re a zealot in the US you’re probably a Christian.
Ya, I don’t think you’re actually gonna have 50% though.
There’s gonna be some signficant overlap between the religious crazies and the bigots, so they aren’t purely additive.
The biggest wildcard might be the misogynists. Again, there’s almost certainly huge overlap with the other two groups, with a large addition beyond them… But I dunno how much hard data there is.