If Hillary loses, Democrats face a long time in exile

[OGIS]

Interesting article by Michael Barone. There are several important take-aways here, but I think one of the most controversial is: "But the argument for going back to pre-Trump positions is weakened by the fact that Republicans have lost four of the six presidential elections between 1992 and 2012." Is he right? Why or why not?

Feel free to bring up and discuss his other assertions and conclusions, as well.

This is a serious discussion thread. Both sides: please leave the nested adhom bombs and other assorted derp out of this thread. tPF enabled.


If Hillary loses, Democrats face a long time in exile (http://nypost.com/2016/09/23/if-hillary-loses-democrats-face-a-long-time-in-exile/)By Michael Barone (http://nypost.com/author/michael-barone/)

There’s been lots of speculation about the fate of the Republican Party if (as most of the prognosticators expect and hope) Donald Trump loses. There’s been less speculation, though recent polling suggests it may be in order, about the fate of the Democratic Party if Hillary Clinton loses.

Certainly there’s reason to think — or fear — the Republican Party will change. Republicans likely won’t supply the bulk of support for free-trade agreements as they increasingly have for 40 years. Prominent Republicans probably won’t press for mass legalization of illegal immigrants, as they did in 2006, 2007 and 2013.

If Trump loses, the Republican electorate will have become more downscale and elderly — a continuation of a process that’s been in train since the middle 1990s. The long-term migration of voters southward along Interstate 95 will have made the East Coast just about as solidly Democratic as the West Coast, leaving a Republican rump in the interior South and the Great Plains.

Anti-Trump Republicans hope the Trump effect will just go away, and will note that a defeated Trump will not leave behind much in the nature of an institutional apparatus, as the defeated Barry Goldwater arguably did in 1964. But the argument for going back to pre-Trump positions is weakened by the fact that Republicans have lost four of the six presidential elections between 1992 and 2012.

But what if Hillary Clinton loses? The political map in that case will look quite different, with Democratic states confined to the Northeast, West Coast and a few splotches in between. The presidential Democratic Party, like the congressional Democratic Party, will be concentrated in heavily Democratic central cities, some sympathetic suburbs and scattered university towns.

The shock for Democrats if Clinton loses will likely be more severe than for Republicans if Trump loses.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/23/if-hillary-loses-democrats-face-a-long-time-in-exile/

[Peter1469]

I think both parties are on the way out. We are no longer fighting over what Americans call right v. left. As bad as that is for our economic future, it is a fact.

[OGIS]

I think both parties are on the way out. We are no longer fighting over what Americans call right v. left. As bad as that is for our economic future, it is a fact.

Nationalism -vs- globalism instead.

[Peter1469]

Nationalism -vs- globalism instead.

Right. At least in the West. Asia doesn't seem to be hung up on that.

And it isn't globalism so much as the slow move towards a borderless world.

[Cigar]

Democrates have lost before, without losing their F'cking minds like Republicans :laugh:

[TrueBlue]

In a nutshell of reality, should Democrats lose, it will be the American People who will become the ultimate losers for having voted for Donald Trump. And they would soon find out shortly afterward when they see that he would only reduce or eliminate what they have worked for all of their life and would not lift a finger to help the Middle Class and especially the poor. Are you in either group? Take good note then. Trump would be anathema to Americans, their future and their pocketbook. That's why Hillary Clinton and the Democrats Must Win!

[OGIS]

Democrates have lost before, without losing their F'cking minds like Republicans :laugh:

I read this story to my wife, and she said the same thing. Not sure that is totally true.

[Mister D]

I read this story to my wife, and she said the same thing. Not sure that is totally true.

Anyone who remembers the 2000 and 2004 elections would hold that claim suspect.

[Archer0915]

Interesting article by Michael Barone. There are several important take-aways here, but I think one of the most controversial is: "But the argument for going back to pre-Trump positions is weakened by the fact that Republicans have lost four of the six presidential elections between 1992 and 2012." Is he right? Why or why not?

Feel free to bring up and discuss his other assertions and conclusions, as well.

This is a serious discussion thread. Both sides: please leave the nested adhom bombs and other assorted derp out of this thread. tPF enabled.

Both parties are dirty and owned. I really believe this is the last election for both these parties after the crap they pulled.

[zelmo1234]

Democrates have lost before, without losing their F'cking minds like Republicans :laugh:

I don't remember the GOP going to court after loosing? That was Al is it hot in her Gore.

[zelmo1234]

I see the difference being the Bull Pen?

If the GOP looses, you have a lot of youth that will be here in 2020. Rubio, Walker, Pence, Cruz,

If Hillary looses, what do the Democrats have? There are not a lot of rising Democrats out there.

The best known Democrats are old.

[ripmeister]

The advantage the D's will have regardless is demographics. I forget what year it is but at some point minorities will be the majority. Unless R's or conservatives do something to appeal to these groups the D's are likely to benefit.

[OGIS]

I see the difference being the Bull Pen?

If the GOP looses, you have a lot of youth that will be here in 2020. Rubio, Walker, Pence, Cruz,

But their politics (and religion) are to the right of Trump, and have already been rejected by those same Republicans for a more moderate (possibly even stealth liberal) Trump with a populist agenda.

I see the possibility of a far right splinter forming their own party. And the moderate-to-left Dems who voted for Hillary will drift into the Dems, perhaps enough of them to create the same kind of slow change that happened to the Republicans after 1967-68.

The Republican Party goes away.


If Hillary looses, what do the Democrats have? There are not a lot of rising Democrats out there.

The best known Democrats are old.

Fertile ground for agitation and radicalism.

We could end up with another charismatic community activist.

But there will also be fertile ground for the libertarians.

We might even get one that has pragmatic common sense.

[OGIS]

The advantage the D's will have regardless is demographics. I forget what year it is but at some point minorities will be the majority. Unless R's or conservatives do something to appeal to these groups the D's are likely to benefit.

The dirty little secret is that Hispanic voters are socially conservative (good Catholics). The Republicans could have had them all in their pocket if they had kicked out the Messican haters.

[ripmeister]

The dirty little secret is that Hispanic voters are socially conservative (good Catholics). The Republicans could have had them all in their pocket if they had kicked out the Messican haters.

A good example. They didn't pay attention to their 2012 autopsy.

[Peter1469]

The advantage the D's will have regardless is demographics. I forget what year it is but at some point minorities will be the majority. Unless R's or conservatives do something to appeal to these groups the D's are likely to benefit.

Correct. History is a cycle. A republic will fall when the people realize that they can vote for public treasury.

[zelmo1234]

The advantage the D's will have regardless is demographics. I forget what year it is but at some point minorities will be the majority. Unless R's or conservatives do something to appeal to these groups the D's are likely to benefit.

Many times it is actually the state of the country that changes things. We made a few other very progressive moves in this country. The Last One Called the Roaring 20's

Before that it lead up to the Civil War

I believe the next one will be the fall of the dollar. And that usually resets the voting blocks.

Minorities are starting to figure out that the Democrats are lying to them. But if the dollar collapses and they no longer get their free stuff.

It is likely that they will have a change of heart, when their stomach is empty.

[OGIS]

Minorities are starting to figure out that the Democrats are lying to them. But if the dollar collapses and they no longer get their free stuff.

You are aware, aren't you, that white people get 40% of food stamp dollars?

16231

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html

Also, don't forget about the hundreds of billions of free stuff that all the largely WASP crony capitalists are socking away in bloated cost-plus defense contracts, subsidies, grants, government-funded R&D they pay nothing for, etc. etc. ad nauseam.




It is likely that they will have a change of heart, when their stomach is empty.

Or they may just throw you on a guillotine.

[Bethere]

Many times it is actually the state of the country that changes things. We made a few other very progressive moves in this country. The Last One Called the Roaring 20's

Before that it lead up to the Civil War

I believe the next one will be the fall of the dollar. And that usually resets the voting blocks.

Minorities are starting to figure out that the Democrats are lying to them. But if the dollar collapses and they no longer get their free stuff.

It is likely that they will have a change of heart, when their stomach is empty.

The roaring 20s were not a progressive era.

[Peter1469]

You are aware, aren't you, that white people get 40% of food stamp dollars?

16231


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html

Also, don't forget about the hundreds of billions of free stuff that all the largely WASP crony capitalists are socking away in bloated cost-plus defense contracts, subsidies, grants, government-funded R&D they pay nothing for, etc. etc. ad nauseam.





Or they may just throw you on a guillotine.

What is the percentages based on population? This is an example of using statistics to mislead people.

[OGIS]

What is the percentages based on population? This is an example of using statistics to mislead people.

So wait: if I am a member of a set that is defined by some socially/culturally/physically defined characteristic (let say, having Brown Skin) I am therefore automatically tarred and feathered due to the activities/proclivities of some of the members of that set? Bad logic, Peter. Lawyer logic. And highly racist.

And again, you are trying to change the topic of someone else's thread. Please stop trolling.

[AZ Jim]

I don't remember the GOP going to court after loosing? That was Al is it hot in her Gore.Loosing?

[zelmo1234]

You are aware, aren't you, that white people get 40% of food stamp dollars?

16231

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html

Also, don't forget about the hundreds of billions of free stuff that all the largely WASP crony capitalists are socking away in bloated cost-plus defense contracts, subsidies, grants, government-funded R&D they pay nothing for, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Or they may just throw you on a guillotine.

First? Why would you be under the impression that someone Skin Color has a bearing on if they are a deadbeat or not?

I certainly would not advocate using color as a basis for cutting off benefits.

Next I am NO fan of corporate welfare, That being said, it is constitutional for the Government to spend on the Military, but we could be a lot wiser with the dollars for sure.

Green Energy, The Arts, Medical Research, welfare, all unconstitutional. in my opinion. Stop them.

[zelmo1234]

Loosing?

My bad?

[OGIS]

First? Why would you be under the impression that someone Skin Color has a bearing on if they are a deadbeat or not?

That seems to be the operational stance of many Trump supporters.

But this is OFF TOPIC. The topic is which, if either, political party is going under.

And this is a tPF thread.

[Mister D]

Loosing?

Jim, that's pretty lame.

[MisterVeritis]

The advantage the D's will have regardless is demographics. I forget what year it is but at some point minorities will be the majority. Unless R's or conservatives do something to appeal to these groups the D's are likely to benefit.
Right. That was the whole point of the Kennedy bill signed into law. We stopped bringing in immigrants from European countries. Instead, Democrats wanted, and brought in over 50 million black and brown people from authoritarian states. They make great, lifelong Democrats. So we have about 45 million people on food stamps and welfare. many do not assimilate. They are very slow to become Americans. It does not matter to Democrats. They just want the political power. Since the Democratic leadership sees the nation as a source of wealth for themselves it matters not at all that Americans are displaced by the immigrants.

So it is time for a change. If Clinton wins we will have a one-party system at the national level. Although it would be unconstitutional she promises amnesty to the 11-20 million illegal aliens here. She promises to bring in five times as many Syrian refugees. Americans be damned.

[Peter1469]

So wait: if I am a member of a set that is defined by some socially/culturally/physically defined characteristic (let say, having Brown Skin) I am therefore automatically tarred and feathered due to the activities/proclivities of some of the members of that set? Bad logic, Peter. Lawyer logic. And highly racist.

And again, you are trying to change the topic of someone else's thread. Please stop trolling.

You are incorrect.

[Newpublius]

Interesting article by Michael Barone. There are several important take-aways here, but I think one of the most controversial is: "But the argument for going back to pre-Trump positions is weakened by the fact that Republicans have lost four of the six presidential elections between 1992 and 2012." Is he right? Why or why not?

Feel free to bring up and discuss his other assertions and conclusions, as well.

This is a serious discussion thread. Both sides: please leave the nested adhom bombs and other assorted derp out of this thread. tPF enabled.

History to me truly suggests a continuation of the political pendulum. If Trump wins, the midterms will see Democrats pick up power in the Congress.....and so on.....