Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I actually wonder what is going to happen, in the future, to these two groups:
1.) Democrat voters who are growing alarmed away from the JFK Democrat Party to the radical extreme the party is going to now.
2.) Evangelical Republican voters who see the party throwing traditional marriage, pro-life, religious expression/freedom values under the bus in the near future (we can see the warning signs with them caving the Gaystapo/Transtapo in many state houses, only MS held out strong, though Texas it was just the fault of Straus.) and valuing business and economics and less social issues and feel like they don't belong anymore.
If it weren't that groups 1 might think group 2 to be "far Right bigot, extremist, etc", there might be the possibility that these two groups could unite and deal a successful challenge to the Two Party dictatorship in DC. This is problematic because Trump won in large part because of the Evangelicals, and even Leftists would be hard pressed to deny it. If the GOP throws us under the bus, eventually we won't turn out. While I can see the group 1 eventually going Republican, what could well happen is that the Republican Party would then become a less extreme party than the Democrat Party, but still keep moving further to the Left.
This would eventually spell doom for freedom in our country as we'd end up like Europe.
I guess I feel that the inability of the Evangelicals to break through the Good Ole Boy Republican network, which cares more for their pals in the US Chamber of Commerce (who aren't exactly pals of religious liberty or traditional values) than for us, will eventually lead to the GOPs demise, as voter fraud and indoctrination will make the Democrat Party strong enough to hold off its losses from group 1. This would make DC like California, which means the road to North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
I just feel like we need to unify groups 1 and 2 above to challenge the Uniparty to stop the eventual domination of the increasingly radical Democrat Party and the ruination of the United States of America. But I'm baffled on how to do it.
Evangelicals are a dying breed and the statistics prove it. Religion in general is becoming less popular and the millennial generation is the least religious in U.S. history. Honestly, either party can just wait it out, and bide their time until the evangelicals hold too little sway to matter. That is an aging demographic, but only one of the parties really depends on them.
1) The Democrat Party isn't going to the radical extreme they've been there for a long time, yet many citizens have voted for them. If that wasn't the case Obama wouldn't have gotten elected once let alone twice. The party base of minorities (high percentage of them vote Democrat), union members, and the elderly who still see the party as it was in the 1960s and 1970s, wont vote Republican so overlook or don't pay attention to what the Democrat Party has become.
2) Evangelicals, lets call them Christians since many wouldn't classify themselves as evangelicals (myself included), have known for a long time the Republican Party was just the least worst of the two when it comes to moral issues. It isn't a party of good old boys, as you classified them, its a bigoted term actually.
You say Republicans care more for their pals at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce than they do for us. If you believe the Democrats are any different in that regard you haven't been paying attention or are blinded by party loyalty. Perfect example was the Democrats trying to get TPP passed when Obama was president. That would have greatly helped corporations, foreign workers, set up an international commission that would have told the United States how many workers from our trade partners in that agreement we would have had to bring in, and seen many more American jobs transferred overseas. When TPA was passed with bi-partisan support it was said at the time it guaranteed passage of TPP when it would finally be voted on because it would only need 51 votes in the Senate. Trump's success on the campaign trail deriding such bad trade deals scared the heck out of our elected leaders who knew it would be political suicide to bring it up for a vote.
The man I believe was our nation's greatest president was FDR. On April 29th, 1938 he penned a letter to Congress on Curbing Monopolies, where he warned of monopolies and gave his definition of fascism in the first full paragraph. (I've included a little more):
"To the Congress:
Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living."
Think about that and how it relates to our country today, how since the 1970s thousands of factories and millions of American jobs have been sent overseas, and 10s of millions of illegal immigrants have invaded our country and taken jobs that would have gone to our citizens. Some of the jobs sent overseas companies actually got tax breaks for creating jobs even though those jobs were merely transferred from Americans to workers in other countries. And corporations and even small and medium sized companies like hiring illegals in this country because they can get away with paying them less. Imagine what Franklin Roosevelt would have thought & said about that. He would be appalled.
Concerning your comments, only way I see the left and right getting together to change things in D.C. with our elected leaders, is if a new political party is created. A viable third party does not exist today despite what supporters of some third parties believe. It will be a long hard struggle because both ruling parties have made it extremely hard for third parties to get on the ballot. You could also see a new movement in one of the existing parties to change things but that could be a daunting task as well. The establishment within each party would restrict funding for candidates that did not carry the banner of said establishment.
We definitely need to get back to a system where our elected leaders truly represent the citizens not huge multi-national corporations and the uber wealthy. I've often thought if I had the money to properly start a political party I would give it a shot, yet I'm not sure if enough people would care enough to take part in it. Maybe some day I'll find out.
Also, we have to address the fact that illegals are counted in determining how many delegates states get, which gives the Democrat Party a huge advantage. Gives liberal left-wing states too much say in our presidential elections. In fact, it makes it almost impossible for Republicans to win the White House. Trump did so because he knew how to advertise himself to disenchanted and disenfranchised voters, and because Hillary was such a terrible candidate. Once the illegals are given amnesty, which I have no doubt will happen by the end of March, you can pretty much call it a day for the Republican Party as far as presidential elections are concerned.
To me it seems the best solution to our political problem is a new party that truly represents our citizens at every economic level, while pandering to no one. Democrats and Republicans keep winning by getting us to believe the other party is worse so we have to vote for them. I've done that for the last time. Trump isn't much different than establishment Republicans. I wasn't a Trumpeteer but I did vote against Hillary because I knew how dangerous she was for the country. I swore off the Democrat Party two and a half decades ago, and now I've finally sworn off the Republican Party, having wanted to do so for a very long time. I'm sure I'm not the only one. No more least worst candidate, least worst party votes will I be making.
If it’s a Democrat who actually voted for JFK, the youngest is now 78 years old, so that’s just a handful of voters and getting smaller by the day.
Kennedy was the last Democrat elected before the passage of the Civil Rights Bill, so a “JFK Democrat” could be used to include Southern racial conservatives who were taught from birth that Republicans were the Devil but eventually became Republicans or routinely voted Republican in Presidential elections from 1964 onwards because of opposition to civil rights. Personally, I think “Goldwater Democrats” or “George Wallace Democrats” is more accurate than “JFK Democrats”. Whatever you call them, those conservative Democrats were primarily Southern Jeffersonians and most have long since died or become Republicans.
2. The other group mentioned by the OP was Christian Evangelicals, which is also closely linked with another group; non-college whites. Both groups are disproportionately older and have been losing voting share for over 20 years.
If it’s a Democrat who actually voted for JFK, the youngest is now 78 years old, so that’s just a handful of voters and getting smaller by the day.
Kennedy was the last Democrat elected before the passage of the Civil Rights Bill, so a “JFK Democrat” could be used to include Southern racial conservatives who were taught from birth that Republicans were the Devil but eventually became Republicans or routinely voted Republican in Presidential elections from 1964 onwards because of opposition to civil rights. Personally, I think “Goldwater Democrats” or “George Wallace Democrats” is more accurate than “JFK Democrats”. Whatever you call them, those conservative Democrats were primarily Southern Jeffersonians and most have long since died or become Republicans.
2. The other group mentioned by the OP was Christian Evangelicals, which is also closely linked with another group; non-college whites. Both groups are disproportionately older and have been losing voting share for over 20 years.
I think he means moderate Dems, who increasingly have no place in the Democratic Party. The failure of Jim Webb's campaign in 2016 proves that.
I think he means moderate Dems, who increasingly have no place in the Democratic Party. The failure of Jim Webb's campaign in 2016 proves that.
Do you really think that the Democrats are less accommodating to moderates than the Republicans?
I guess it depends on your definition of moderate.
Twenty years ago, Kasich was considered a hard core conservative. Now he’s a “moderate.”
He hasn’t moderated so much as the party has sharply turned to the right.
The Democrats “turn to the left” is more due to the more moderate Southern Democrat Blue Dogs being defeated by hard core Republican conservatives than it was an actual turn to the left. The right wing D’s were mostly southern conservatives and now they’re gone. The “moderate” R’s in office are few in number and are mostly only moderate in comparison to some of the Tea Party/Bannonites that now represent the party’s right fringe.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 12-24-2017 at 11:06 AM..
I actually wonder what is going to happen, in the future, to these two groups:
1.) Democrat voters who are growing alarmed away from the JFK Democrat Party to the radical extreme the party is going to now.
2.) Evangelical Republican voters who see the party throwing traditional marriage, pro-life, religious expression/freedom values under the bus in the near future (we can see the warning signs with them caving the Gaystapo/Transtapo in many state houses, only MS held out strong, though Texas it was just the fault of Straus.) and valuing business and economics and less social issues and feel like they don't belong anymore.
If it weren't that groups 1 might think group 2 to be "far Right bigot, extremist, etc", there might be the possibility that these two groups could unite and deal a successful challenge to the Two Party dictatorship in DC. This is problematic because Trump won in large part because of the Evangelicals, and even Leftists would be hard pressed to deny it. If the GOP throws us under the bus, eventually we won't turn out. While I can see the group 1 eventually going Republican, what could well happen is that the Republican Party would then become a less extreme party than the Democrat Party, but still keep moving further to the Left.
This would eventually spell doom for freedom in our country as we'd end up like Europe.
I guess I feel that the inability of the Evangelicals to break through the Good Ole Boy Republican network, which cares more for their pals in the US Chamber of Commerce (who aren't exactly pals of religious liberty or traditional values) than for us, will eventually lead to the GOPs demise, as voter fraud and indoctrination will make the Democrat Party strong enough to hold off its losses from group 1. This would make DC like California, which means the road to North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
I just feel like we need to unify groups 1 and 2 above to challenge the Uniparty to stop the eventual domination of the increasingly radical Democrat Party and the ruination of the United States of America. But I'm baffled on how to do it.
Group 1 will really depend on the region of the country that these voters live. In liberal areas, they'll probably vote for moderate Republicans. In conservative areas, I suspect that if Republicans go too far to the right, that moderate Democrats will be able to realistically challenge their traditional Republican representatives for seats, and Group 1 will vote for them. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a resurgence of blue dog Democrats in the next few years if enough voters in traditionally conservative areas start believing it possible to vote for them again.
I think that for Group 2, there are changes WITHIN the evangelical movement that are affecting the direction that the Republicans are going. Not so much with abortion, but definitely with LGBT rights. Ten years ago, you could be "pro-family" and not really anti-gay. Today, that's a lot more challenging, as virulent hostility towards LGBT people exist within some percentage of the population (let's say maybe 25%), but the number of people who want to be kind to them while still not really thinking it's okay is maybe 10-15% or so. These changes are coming across the board, including with Republicans and with evangelical Christians. If you want to stop things from going to far with extreme trans activists imposing their agenda, then you're going to have to allow moderate pro-LGBT groups to step in. As long as you're railing against them, that won't happen. I'm guessing these voters will remain loyal Republicans because they're a little closer to their viewpoint, but outwardly anti-gay people aren't going to be more influential unless the extreme activists get too much power and there's a backlash.
If it’s a Democrat who actually voted for JFK, the youngest is now 78 years old, so that’s just a handful of voters and getting smaller by the day.
Kennedy was the last Democrat elected before the passage of the Civil Rights Bill, so a “JFK Democrat” could be used to include Southern racial conservatives who were taught from birth that Republicans were the Devil but eventually became Republicans or routinely voted Republican in Presidential elections from 1964 onwards because of opposition to civil rights. Personally, I think “Goldwater Democrats” or “George Wallace Democrats” is more accurate than “JFK Democrats”. Whatever you call them, those conservative Democrats were primarily Southern Jeffersonians and most have long since died or become Republicans.
2. The other group mentioned by the OP was Christian Evangelicals, which is also closely linked with another group; non-college whites. Both groups are disproportionately older and have been losing voting share for over 20 years.
I define a JFK Democrat as a liberal the same way JFK did. I use JFK's own definition of liberal from his book Profiles in Courage for that clarification:
“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
That quote would not apply to Republicans. Trump is growing more isolationist by the day and ran on building a wall. Trump and Trump supporters want to end health care coverage, they have added taxes to colleges and consider anything that applies to civil rights as being "too PC" and should be abolished. I'm a liberal and so was JFK.
I define a JFK Democrat as a liberal the same way JFK did. I use JFK's own definition of liberal from his book Profiles in Courage for that clarification:
“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
That quote would not apply to Republicans. Trump is growing more isolationist by the day and ran on building a wall. Trump and Trump supporters want to end health care coverage, they have added taxes to colleges and consider anything that applies to civil rights as being "too PC" and should be abolished. I'm a liberal and so was JFK.
Which in todays terms would mean being a moderate.
A few years ago I would hve said that a living Kennedy would still have been a Dem, just not in the most liberal wing of the Dems.
Today I would say he would be kicked out of the party.
Which in todays terms would mean being a moderate.
A few years ago I would hve said that a living Kennedy would still have been a Dem, just not in the most liberal wing of the Dems.
Today I would say he would be kicked out of the party.
I'm a liberal Democrat and no he would not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
