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.
It's hard to run against a booming economy. So that combined with what we've seen over the last 7 years with Democrats leads me to believe only far leftists with socialist ideas and baseless accusations of racism, sexism, etc. will get any traction in the far left democrats primary.
A decade ago, the Republicans developed a philosophical split within their party. Some members wanted more emphasis on social conservatism than existed, while others wanted to continue fiscal conservatism foremost.
What was 'normal' for the Republicans 10 years ago? Strong fiscal conservatism with moderate social conservatism. What the party members wanted was a new 'normal', where social conservatism became the strongest party stance, with fiscal conservatism losing its primary importance.
Until that conflict was settled, their Presidential candidates had to have some compromise as a way of appealing to both sides of the split, while having some appeal to all the voters outside their party as well, enough appeal to win the Presidency.
In the end, the social conservatives won the argument. They voted into office more social conservatives than fiscal conservatives.
So 'normal' became re-defined for all Republicans. Those who are still fiscal conservatives have to live with the fact social conservatism has taken over the party and produces the candidates they will vote for. 10 years of time have decided it.
The Democrats weren't so dissatisfied with their party's philosophy 10 years ago. They were fine with the social side of their platform as it was, and the fiscal side as it was.
But now, the social side isn't so satisfactory as it was any more, and the Democrats have begun questioning whether their fiscal side is satisfactory too.
Ever since 1992, the Democratic party gradually defined 'normal' as being lightly conservative in fiscal aspects, and more liberal in the social aspects of the party.
But the Great Recession of 2008 ended that conservative-light position.
The Democrats had a big deep recession suddenly thrust on them to fight, so fiscal concerns took over, and the Democrats could no longer be conservative-light. They had to either be very liberal or very conservative. One would lift us out of the recession, while the other would ruin our economy for many years to come.
In the end, the recession stopped. Some big mistakes were made along the way, big and bad enough to raise real questions about them and the direction the party took. Those questions were enough to start a split within the Democratic party.
The 2016 election was for the Democrats what the 2008 election was for the Republicans. A compromise candidate was found who proved to be a failure with the voters. So, just like the Republicans earlier, the split that began before 2016 deepened and widened afterwards.
'Normal' is now being re-defined within the Democratic party. Just like 'normal' was re-defined within the Republican party earlier.
Since the process of re-definition has just begun, none of us know what 'normal' will become. Since it took more than one election for the Republicans to re-define themselves, it may take more than one election for the Democrats to re-define themselves too.
In the end, it's always the voters who do it. We get the parties we want and the candidates we want eventually.
And once enough of us as voters agree on what is the normal function of government, we tend to go along with it for a while.
But in times of dissension within the party, 'normal' stays open.
Sooner or later, both parties clearly announce "This is who we are and this is where we stand. If you agree with us, vote for us. This is what you will get if you do." That becomes the new normal.
It may not happen in 2020 if history proves out. Both parties are always dependent on who is willing to step forth and throw their hat in the election ring.
Sometimes there are no good choices in those people, and in other times, there are a wealth of good choices.
One is as big a problem for the party as the other.
A decade ago, the Republicans developed a philosophical split within their party. Some members wanted more emphasis on social conservatism than existed, while others wanted to continue fiscal conservatism foremost.
What was 'normal' for the Republicans 10 years ago? Strong fiscal conservatism with moderate social conservatism. What the party members wanted was a new 'normal', where social conservatism became the strongest party stance, with fiscal conservatism losing its primary importance.
Until that conflict was settled, their Presidential candidates had to have some compromise as a way of appealing to both sides of the split, while having some appeal to all the voters outside their party as well, enough appeal to win the Presidency.
In the end, the social conservatives won the argument. They voted into office more social conservatives than fiscal conservatives.
So 'normal' became re-defined for all Republicans. Those who are still fiscal conservatives have to live with the fact social conservatism has taken over the party and produces the candidates they will vote for. 10 years of time have decided it.
The Democrats weren't so dissatisfied with their party's philosophy 10 years ago. They were fine with the social side of their platform as it was, and the fiscal side as it was.
But now, the social side isn't so satisfactory as it was any more, and the Democrats have begun questioning whether their fiscal side is satisfactory too.
Ever since 1992, the Democratic party gradually defined 'normal' as being lightly conservative in fiscal aspects, and more liberal in the social aspects of the party.
But the Great Recession of 2008 ended that conservative-light position.
The Democrats had a big deep recession suddenly thrust on them to fight, so fiscal concerns took over, and the Democrats could no longer be conservative-light. They had to either be very liberal or very conservative. One would lift us out of the recession, while the other would ruin our economy for many years to come.
In the end, the recession stopped. Some big mistakes were made along the way, big and bad enough to raise real questions about them and the direction the party took. Those questions were enough to start a split within the Democratic party.
The 2016 election was for the Democrats what the 2008 election was for the Republicans. A compromise candidate was found who proved to be a failure with the voters. So, just like the Republicans earlier, the split that began before 2016 deepened and widened afterwards.
'Normal' is now being re-defined within the Democratic party. Just like 'normal' was re-defined within the Republican party earlier.
Since the process of re-definition has just begun, none of us know what 'normal' will become. Since it took more than one election for the Republicans to re-define themselves, it may take more than one election for the Democrats to re-define themselves too.
In the end, it's always the voters who do it. We get the parties we want and the candidates we want eventually.
And once enough of us as voters agree on what is the normal function of government, we tend to go along with it for a while.
But in times of dissension within the party, 'normal' stays open.
Sooner or later, both parties clearly announce "This is who we are and this is where we stand. If you agree with us, vote for us. This is what you will get if you do." That becomes the new normal.
It may not happen in 2020 if history proves out. Both parties are always dependent on who is willing to step forth and throw their hat in the election ring.
Sometimes there are no good choices in those people, and in other times, there are a wealth of good choices.
One is as big a problem for the party as the other.
This is an excellent analysis. I remember when the Tea Party started about a decade ago I was really hoping that was a shift in the GOP towards a more socially moderate but fiscally conservative platform. I remember when Trump announced he was running I actually thought it was a good idea. Trump was not particularly religious and had very little ties with the moral majority, so I thought he might represent a break in the party away from the Christian Right. However what happened is the Christian Right took over the party wholesale and now IS the party. Fiscal conservatives are still on board for their own issues but it's social conservatism eg. God, guns, gays, abortion, etc defines the GOP.
I personally think the far-left progressive wing of the Democratic Party led by the likes of AOC and Bernie Sanders is too far left and while they have some good ideas, many will not work. The Green New Deal needs to be scaled way back. However, I will gladly vote for them over a party that wants a corrupt authoritarian third-world religious tyranny of the minority. I'm not interested in living in a Christian version of Saudi Arabia and that's where it feels like we are headed.
This is an excellent analysis. I remember when the Tea Party started about a decade ago I was really hoping that was a shift in the GOP towards a more socially moderate but fiscally conservative platform. I remember when Trump announced he was running I actually thought it was a good idea. Trump was not particularly religious and had very little ties with the moral majority, so I thought he might represent a break in the party away from the Christian Right. However what happened is the Christian Right took over the party wholesale and now IS the party. Fiscal conservatives are still on board for their own issues but it's social conservatism eg. God, guns, gays, abortion, etc defines the GOP.
I personally think the far-left progressive wing of the Democratic Party led by the likes of AOC and Bernie Sanders is too far left and while they have some good ideas, many will not work. The Green New Deal needs to be scaled way back. However, I will gladly vote for them over a party that wants a corrupt authoritarian third-world religious tyranny of the minority. I'm not interested in living in a Christian version of Saudi Arabia and that's where it feels like we are headed.
For sure, there's plenty of opposition within the Democratic party to AOC, Bernie, and the Green New Deal.
But sometimes, it takes the bald extreme positions to define the way a party's members really want the direction the party takes.
Oddly enough, it's often the most radical old party members' positions that can catch fire with the young. The Tea Partiers are an aging bunch, but their ideas caught on with the young who became party leaders.
Bernie is old, but his ideas had enormous appeal to the young Democrats in 2016. Without Bernie, AOC may never have become a surprise dark horse 2 years later.
The extreme propositions usually come to pass in a less extreme form quite often if that's the direction the party members really want it to take. The Tea Party never accomplished it's largest goals, but it got a lot of lesser goals passed. And their social agenda did win over their party.
It's always the numbers. A political party must become what it's members want it to be or it will dissolve. Sometimes there's no compromise that can hold a party together.
I doubt it's going to happen in 2020. It takes time for fomenting to gain enough strength to make a party change its thoughts and ways.
A lot of party change happens generationally, as one generation ages and gives up its power to the next. Today's Republican party is younger than it once was in the recent past. The Democrats are still an older bunch, and I tend to think it will take a while longer for the old generation to hand it over to the young, unless the passion of youth takes the party over.
I see young folks like AOC as the leading edge of the wave. The breaking curl of a wave doesn't always show how big and strong the wave actually is.
Last edited by banjomike; 03-08-2019 at 02:51 PM..
It's hard to run against a booming economy. So that combined with what we've seen over the last 7 years with Democrats leads me to believe only far leftists with socialist ideas and baseless accusations of racism, sexism, etc. will get any traction in the far left democrats primary.
The left would have a chance of winning if they would actually focus on the average American middle class worker and fixing the student loan crisis. But the left is too obsessed with fixating on identity politics and promising freebies.
The left would have a chance of winning if they would actually focus on the average American middle class worker and fixing the student loan crisis. But the left is too obsessed with fixating on identity politics and promising freebies.
The student loan crisis is a very big deal inside the Democratic party. It's one of the issues that will be used next year for sure.
There are some others. Infrastructure is another. Both are issues that are fair game for either party.
Both are deeply middle class issues as well.
It's hard to say just how many Democratic candidates are going to concentrate on identity politics. The Republicans have one big well-known guy who'll be put up in 2020.
The Democrats can't afford the luxury of identity politics except for 2 candidates: Bernie and Joe Biden. They're both so well known they can use identity politics. All the others don't have enough recognition to allow identity to rule them.
For sure no one is going to be promising any freebies in either party. Trump's wall was a freebie, and we've all seen how that one worked out. I doubt there are going to ever be big promises like the wall in 2020.
Any big promise anyone makes will have to be one that's problem-proof to work as a freebie.
If Trump had delivered in his promise to rebuild our roads and bridges instead of insisting on the wall, he would be a lot stronger now than he is.
Bernie Sanders can gain some traction I believe and his ideas are so normal in all our closest allies that even the right wing there wouldnt think about attacking those ideas.
The left would have a chance of winning if they would actually focus on the average American middle class worker and fixing the student loan crisis. But the left is too obsessed with fixating on identity politics and promising freebies.
Make up your mind. Addressing the student loan issue is going to be defined as a "freebie" no matter how it is addressed.
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.
Globalization
