Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I'd replace Eisenhower with Benito Mussolini or Fidel Castro on that list. Eisenhower was merely 'authoritative'.

I would argue that Castro was a populist of the left type while Mussolini was a populist of the right type. Italian fascism is based on a perversion of Italian Social Democracy.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I would argue that Castro was a populist of the left type while Mussolini was a populist of the right type. Italian fascism is based on a perversion of Italian Social Democracy.

By tradition, yes, fascism is considered of the right while communism is of the left. I would argue that the distinction between authoritarian rule and democracy is far more important. The question is whether there is an effective non-violent check on the influence of the politicians and whether there are multiple parties offering significant choices.

I am open to an argument that today's Republicans and Democrats are not offering significant choices. I'll even make the argument.

Still, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin didn't even pretend. Once you go that far autocratic, left and right doesn't much matter.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I'm sure that Lind didn't. I first came across the idea trolling through the American Enterprise Institute archives some years ago.

An early version of it was in Lind's 1995 book, so it's at least 20 years old. Was the reference you saw from before then?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

But I find it telling that you seemingly cannot answer the strength of the GOP even when I give you answer. Here is the facts. When Democrats run as Republican lite anywhere they lose to the Republican, everywhere. When the Democrat runs as a Democrat they win everywhere. The strength of the GOP rests not on their ideas (they don't have any), it isn't in their base (most of them are otherwise social pariahs), it isn't even their money (which they actually do have truck loads of). The GOP's main strength is the weakness of Democrats who choose to run as Republican Lite.

I see where you are coming from. What you miss is why this is so. As you point out, Truman did not feel running as Republican lite was a mart policy for Dems. Neither did Johnson, who shellacked Goldwater in 64. But they sure do nowadays. This goes back at least to the Clintons in 1992. So we went from a world where a Democrat, running as a strong Democrat beats the tar of the a conservative Republican to one where Democrats no longer run as Democrats. What happened?

What happened was the Democratic party split in 1968 like it had in 1948, but this time it the Democrats lost. Since then, Democrats have run republican-lite candidates 8 times and won the popular vote 6 times and the electoral vote 5. They have run candidates from the Democratic wing three times and lost three times.

Two strategies, one that yielded 75% success in popular vote and one that yielded 0%. The evidence says that running as Republican lite works better than running as Democrats.

Of course, times change. Over 1932-1964 Democrats ran as Democrats 9 times and won 7. If 2008 really was a critical election then there is reason to believe that perhaps things have changed and a Democrat can now win. Here the paradigm matters. Those born over 1946-1964 came of age during the time when Democrats were learning that to win they had to not run as Democrats. They were forged during these times into the timid Dems you see everywhere nowadays. It is noteworthy that Bernie is from an earlier gen who came of age when Dems were Dems and Republicans were sane.

On the other hand folks born since 1968 have never known anything but Dems who act like moderate Republicans and Republicans who get increasingly extreme. Some of them might wonder what it would be like to actually see a real Democrat run. So much time has elapsed, things might have changed since 30 years ago.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

An early version of it was in Lind's 1995 book, so it's at least 20 years old. Was the reference you saw from before then?

I'm not sure. AEI isn't exactly known for meticulously dating their articles.

Your thesis isn't true. Apart from the parts we agree on which I'll get too.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I see where you are coming from. What you miss is why this is so. As you point out, Truman did not feel running as Republican lite was a mart policy for Dems. Neither did Johnson, who shellacked Goldwater in 64. But they sure do nowadays. This goes back at least to the Clintons in 1992. So we went from a world where a Democrat, running as a strong Democrat beats the tar of the a conservative Republican to one where Democrats no longer run as Democrats. What happened?

What happened was the Democratic party split in 1968 like it had in 1948, but this time it the Democrats lost. Since then, Democrats have run republican-lite candidates 8 times and won the popular vote 6 times and the electoral vote 5. They have run candidates from the Democratic wing three times and lost three times.

I would argue that in 1968 there was a split in the Democrats. In large part that was when the Dixiecrat segment of the Party split off. Leaving mostly liberals in the Party. Starting in 1968 (because of boomers and other factors) the parties started to become more highly ideological rather than coalition like.

As for winning the Presidency I'm assuming that you're only dating this back to 1980 since not including the present election there have been 12 cycles since 1968. In that time there have actually been 8 cycles, of which Republican light Candidates have consisted of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and BHO (though I would argue that he is the most progressive of the Democratic Candidates on offer excluding Sanders). Of those four who won the Presidency? Bill Clinton and BHO.

But how did they win? Bill Clinton ran against a split GOP in 1992 (Parot caused a spoiler effect), and in 1996 was a popular incumbent running against a tired GI candidate. Al Gore won the Popular vote but lost the electoral vote (an argument to scrap the electoral collage no doubt), Kerry didn't win at all. BHO won against a tired GOP Candidate with an INSANE/RETARDED VP pick (seriously Palin scared the shit out of every moderate who regularly breaks republican I know), and against a Moderate Republican who couldn't stay on message more than five minutes.

Two strategies, one that yielded 75% success in popular vote and one that yielded 0%. The evidence says that running as Republican lite works better than running as Democrats.

No the evidence suggests that running as Republican Lite works only when the GOP offers a candidate who has already made a poor VP pick (McCain), is exhausted (McCain and Dole), or the GOP has a spoiler (Perot in '92). All of these would seem to indicate that special circumstances are required for the Democrat to win running as Republican Lite. As such the DLC Democrats can only win under special circumstances.

Of course, times change. Over 1932-1964 Democrats ran as Democrats 9 times and won 7. If 2008 really was a critical election then there is reason to believe that perhaps things have changed and a Democrat can now win. Here the paradigm matters. Those born over 1946-1964 came of age during the time when Democrats were learning that to win they had to not run as Democrats. They were forged during these times into the timid Dems you see everywhere nowadays. It is noteworthy that Bernie is from an earlier gen who came of age when Dems were Dems and Republicans were sane.

You know I don't buy into your theory of critical elections. In the Third Republic the pattern has been 8 years on 8 years off, in the Second the GOP dominated, and in the First the Jacksonian Democrats dominated much of the time.

As such I would say that the elections of 1860, 1864, 1872, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 2008, 2012 all took place in a 4T and thus had "special considerations".

That being said, being that Sanders is a Silent, he may be following the "Truman Formula" (for lack of a better title) which presents the public with something new, unique even in a 4T election. That something new and unique may in fact be exactly the thing most sorely needed. (Let me go out on a limb here and say that Sanders very well could be the purported Grey Champion. There is the joke running around that Sander's electoral power as it was was the result from being bitten as a teenager by a radioactive senior citizen which granted him the grumpiness of 10 old men.)

On the other hand folks born since 1968 have never known anything but Dems who act like moderate Republicans and Republicans who get increasingly extreme. Some of them might wonder what it would be like to actually see a real Democrat run. So much time has elapsed, things might have changed since 30 years ago.

I would argue that it hasn't changed, other than that the Democrats decided sometime in the 1980s to walk back from labor and snuggle up to the Banksters. Thom Hartmann described this process, and it seems that it only happened sometime around 1988 after the failure of Dukakis (who I would argue lost to the VP of a Popular President by basically allowing himself to be made to look ridiculous).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPj4HAL0mzI

While this explains the last 7 or 8 cycles and has roots in the 1980 cycle I would not take it back to 1968.

Originally Posted by B Butler

By tradition, yes, fascism is considered of the right while communism is of the left. I would argue that the distinction between authoritarian rule and democracy is far more important. The question is whether there is an effective non-violent check on the influence of the politicians and whether there are multiple parties offering significant choices.

I am open to an argument that today's Republicans and Democrats are not offering significant choices. I'll even make the argument.

Still, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin didn't even pretend. Once you go that far autocratic, left and right doesn't much matter.

Indeed it is hard to decide whether to put Idi Amin, Moammar Qaddafi, or Saddam Hussein on the Left or Right.

Originally Posted by B Butler

By tradition, yes, fascism is considered of the right while communism is of the left. I would argue that the distinction between authoritarian rule and democracy is far more important. The question is whether there is an effective non-violent check on the influence of the politicians and whether there are multiple parties offering significant choices.

I am open to an argument that today's Republicans and Democrats are not offering significant choices. I'll even make the argument.

Still, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin didn't even pretend. Once you go that far autocratic, left and right doesn't much matter.

The horseshoe theory is bullshit...you know that right?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Indeed it is hard to decide whether to put Idi Amin, Moammar Qaddafi, or Saddam Hussein on the Left or Right.

That is because their positions were ultimately economically centrist.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I would argue that in 1968 there was a split in the Democrats. In large part that was when the Dixiecrat segment of the Party split off. Leaving mostly liberals in the Party.

The party was not just composed of liberals and Dixiecrats. If that were true they wouldn't have won any presidential elections. First of all black folks were voting Democratic by 1968 and most of them were neither Dixiecrats nor liberals. Then there were white labor Democrats who also fell into neither category.

Starting in 1968 (because of boomers and other factors) the parties started to become more highly ideological rather than coalition like.

This is hand waving. Think, what was the biggest issue over 1968 to 1972?

As for winning the Presidency I'm assuming that you're only dating this back to 1980 since not including the present election there have been 12 cycles since 1968.

There have been 11 (since 1968 means 1968 isn't included), 8 where the Dems rans as moderate Reps and 3 where they ran as Dems.

No the evidence suggests that running as Republican Lite works only when the GOP offers a candidate who has already made a poor VP pick (McCain), is exhausted (McCain and Dole), or the GOP has a spoiler (Perot in '92). All of these would seem to indicate that special circumstances are required for the Democrat to win running as Republican Lite. As such the DLC Democrats can only win under special circumstances.

Not the evidence. Your interpretation of the evidence. The evidence is the actual outcomes.

In the Third Republic the pattern has been 8 years on 8 years off

I see, the metronome theory

You know I don't buy into your theory of critical elections

It’s not my theory.

As such I would say that the elections of 1860, 1864, 1872, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 2008, 2012 all took place in a 4T and thus had "special considerations".

So you roll out turning theory, with even less empirical support. Why should someone who is familiar with neither favor one over another? Also since when do you see 1872 as a 4T?

That being said, being that Sanders is a Silent, he may be following the "Truman Formula" (for lack of a better title)

That was my point, that Sanders came up in a time when Democrats were still winning as Democrats. What you are neglecting is the facts on the ground as perceived by the people who lived through those times. Remember voters in 1976 do not have knowledge of future elections. What they saw was the Dems lose in 1968 because they were too hawkish with Vietnam, then lose because they were too dovish with McGovern. When Dems nominate a conservative in 1976 they won. And when they went to a liberal in 1984 they lost.

In 1988 I supported Jackson in the primary, but knew that the moderate Dukkasis would win the nomination and then Bush was go on to win 400 electoral votes, and that is what happened. It was pretty depressing to be a Democratic liberal in the 1970’s and 1980’s, when you saw dems lose 4 out of 5 contests, with the only winner a conservative.

This experience shapes one’s view of how the world is. In the same way people who came up when I did would see inflation as the economic norm. These early experiences shape how one sees the world. Why do you suppose economic policy makers have such a fetish about inflation, when we have seen any for 30 years? If they can still fear inflation 30+ years after it went away, is it so hard to see why Dems who came up in the 1970’s and 1980’s would see the GOP as ten feet tall and that you have to run to the right to win?

I would argue that it hasn't changed, other than that the Democrats decided sometime in the 1980s to walk back from labor and snuggle up to the Banksters.

This is akin to conspiracy thinking. Dems changed what they offered because what they had been doing wasn’t working. Unions had developed a bad rep in the 1970’s for a variety of reasons such as being seen as the causal agents of “wage-push” inflation.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No. The fed will flood the system with money, preventing a repeat of the 1930's. The country will muddle through, the GOP would lose the election, block anything the Dems try to do, and then come back stronger.

This assumes that the Fed has power. Flooding the banks (not the country) with money may not have any impact at all. The Fed can't exercise fiscal policy in any sense of the word, and monetary policy only works if the money circulates.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

No again. America is a conservative nation. Long slow efforts bend right.

This is opinion based on evidence from some periods, but ignoring other periods entirely. Do you consider the Progressive period a bend to the right?

I think the history of this nation resembles a snake, with periods of strong rightward movement and other periods moving to the left. If the general trend was less progressive overall, I might agree with you, but I don't agree. Progress may be slow and halting, but it still trends that way in the long run.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

Yes it is. It is the nature of the terrain, always has been. What is called "progress" is largely achieved by the periodic crises, when the political structure is rearranged. Although they often involve internal war; they do not always (see the last one). The "political revolution" that Sanders is calling for is patently ridiculous, except when to happens.

OK. During this 4T, there may be a move to the left or not. If the 4T fails, the next will either exceed expectations, or the entire theory collapses.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

No they won't. There is no incentive on the part of the Right to accept their surrender. Remember they are now Jacksonian Republicans, with the most belligerent factions of the two parties combined. They will accept nothing short of the elimination of the Democrats as a political force, like the Federalists and Whigs. Today's Democratic party are the true heirs of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, while the GOP are the heirs of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. It is they who should be having Jefferson-Jackson dinners.

The Corporate elite has a lot of power, but they too have to work within the existing political institutions. They like the status quo of having both parties doing their will much of the time. But this is no more stable that the New Deal coalition. With Donald Trump, you can see it beginning to crack.

You made my point here. The GOP is fracturing, and the elements are not compatible enough to maintain comity. So the future is more about infighting than ruling. If the infighting is resolved quickly, they may be able to present a united front, but I don't think that's likely. They have been able to be allies while BHO is in office. He represents what both hate. Eliminate the aloof black guy, and that may not hold.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This assumes that the Fed has power. Flooding the banks (not the country) with money may not have any impact at all.

It will prevent debt-deflation spiral, and so no depression. Growth might suck, they cannot fix that, but as the last six years have shown, sucky growth can be very good for wealthy elites.

Do you consider the Progressive period a bend to the right?

I see it as a successful conservative response to a developing revolutionary situation.

I think the history of this nation resembles a snake, with periods of strong rightward movement and other periods moving to the left. If the general trend was less progressive overall, I might agree with you, but I don't agree. Progress may be slow and halting, but it still trends that way in the long run.

I don’t disagree on the long-term (century-scale) trend. I simply argue that the progressive trend is accomplished in rapid burst of short duration separated by longer periods of slow conservative backsliding.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I see it (the Progressive era) as a successful conservative response to a developing revolutionary situation.

Agreed. If Washington, Lincoln, TR, FDR and MLK were progressive leaders in different eras, the degree to which the spiral of rhetoric has spilled into a spiral of violence varies, but things have to be perceived of as being pretty bad before a progressive era gathers steam.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don’t disagree on the long-term (century-scale) trend. I simply argue that the progressive trend is accomplished in rapid burst of short duration separated by longer periods of slow conservative backsliding.

May sometimes be stagnation rather than backsliding, but essentially correct.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don’t disagree on the long-term (century-scale) trend. I simply argue that the progressive trend is accomplished in rapid burst of short duration separated by longer periods of slow conservative backsliding.

That has been the case much of the time, especially recently, but more extensive progressive periods happened in the previous 4T and in the social gospel/progressive era 2T. So it's possible that the 2020s could see a longer 4T progressive trend, perhaps even starting next year if Bernie wins.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The party was not just composed of liberals and Dixiecrats. If that were true they wouldn't have won any presidential elections. First of all black folks were voting Democratic by 1968 and most of them were neither Dixiecrats nor liberals. Then there were white labor Democrats who also fell into neither category.

I would argue that in the Fifth Party System (arguably 1932-1968) that the Democrats were composed of a coalition of the following groups (overall and excluding times where one or more broke away).

1. New Dealers (economic progressives/liberals, who may or may not have been socially liberal)
2. Dixiecrats (Social Conservatives who were Democratic only because they weren't the hated party of Lincoln, they may or may not have been also economically progressive/liberal)
3. Racial and Ethnic Minorities (particularly in the North, in the South Blacks tended Republican until the 1930s)


Following 1968 due to Civil Rights legislation the Dixiecrats broke off and joined the GOP, leaving New Dealers and Racial and Ethnic Minorities in the Democratic Coalition.

This is hand waving. Think, what was the biggest issue over 1968 to 1972?

I disagree on the hand waving. Both parties became much more ideologically driven following 1968. That said the biggest issue from 1968 to 1972 was the war in Vietnam.

There have been 11 (since 1968 means 1968 isn't included), 8 where the Dems rans as moderate Reps and 3 where they ran as Dems.

This is a quibble. We only disagree on whether to include or exclude 1968. This of course depends on when one interprets what "since 1968" means. I can't speak for you but I start 1968 on 1 January 1968 rather than sometime in November 1968. As such the Election of 1968 MUST be included making 12 total cycles.

Not the evidence. Your interpretation of the evidence. The evidence is the actual outcomes.

Whatever.

I see, the metronome theory

Not quite. The Metronome Theory posits that the pattern is hard and fast. That is not my contention at all, rather that in the time period of the Third Republic (1945-20??) that the general pattern has been 8 years Dem, 8 Years GOP, 8 years Dem. I'm not willing to make hard predictions on that pattern alone. There are other factors.

It’s not my theory.

Whose theory it is, is not especially relevant. The long arch of history across three republics does not indicate that the pattern is hard and fast. I would say that any election could prove to be critical but would only be recognized as such after the fact.

So you roll out turning theory, with even less empirical support. Why should someone who is familiar with neither favor one over another? Also since when do you see 1872 as a 4T?

I have long argued that the 4T of the Civil War Saeculum did not magically end on 9 April 1865. What we know about history is that the war continued in some locations long after Lee surrendered to Grant, and that in Washington Andrew Johnson had a very troubled presidency (clearly not a 1T). I only include 1872 within 4T elections as it as the last one of era immediately before, during and immediately after the ACW. I think everyone here would agree that the 1T in the CWSaec/GPSaec divide lagged outside of the North East and Urban Mid-West (namely Boston, NYC, Philly, and Chicago).

Most people are familiar with neither theory, however, one does not need to be familiar with gravity for it to work either.

That was my point, that Sanders came up in a time when Democrats were still winning as Democrats. What you are neglecting is the facts on the ground as perceived by the people who lived through those times. Remember voters in 1976 do not have knowledge of future elections. What they saw was the Dems lose in 1968 because they were too hawkish with Vietnam, then lose because they were too dovish with McGovern. When Dems nominate a conservative in 1976 they won. And when they went to a liberal in 1984 they lost.

I would argue that in 1976 a Democrat, any Democrat, would have won. Carter was only marginally socially conservative, being a Southerner and a born-again Christian. His main feature was that he didn't smell of the excrement in Washington.

If you notice I've couched my interpretation of elections post-Carter's election. (Since we'll quibble, either since 1980 or since 1976 which ever format you prefer.)

In 1988 I supported Jackson in the primary, but knew that the moderate Dukkasis would win the nomination and then Bush was go on to win 400 electoral votes, and that is what happened. It was pretty depressing to be a Democratic liberal in the 1970’s and 1980’s, when you saw dems lose 4 out of 5 contests, with the only winner a conservative.

I'm sure it was. My political memories of the time revolve around my Grandfather yelling about "That two-bit actor" and voting for Dukakis in the Mock General Election in Elementary School because the family is "supposed to be all Democrats". But that would only back up my hypothesis about "party inertia".

This experience shapes one’s view of how the world is. In the same way people who came up when I did would see inflation as the economic norm. These early experiences shape how one sees the world. Why do you suppose economic policy makers have such a fetish about inflation, when we have seen any for 30 years? If they can still fear inflation 30+ years after it went away, is it so hard to see why Dems who came up in the 1970’s and 1980’s would see the GOP as ten feet tall and that you have to run to the right to win?

I would argue that experience is subjective and thus must be subjected to scrutiny. My experiences have run counter to that theory. Speaking of which since 1980, when Democrats run to the right against a Republican who is not exhausted (because they are politically used up, or because they really were the third term of a preceding president), picks a repugnant Veep, or has a spoiler.

This is akin to conspiracy thinking. Dems changed what they offered because what they had been doing wasn’t working. Unions had developed a bad rep in the 1970’s for a variety of reasons such as being seen as the causal agents of “wage-push” inflation.

Just because one has a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that there isn't a conspiracy. It is a long established known quantity that both parties have their "smoke filled back rooms" where they sit down and "cut deals". That some people in the Democratic leadership may in fact make said deals in their proverbial "smoke filled back rooms" is to be expected. The only difference is that these "smoke filled back rooms" are less smoke filled these days since smoking went out of fashion in the Early 1980s. But these days it could just as easily be vapor filled rooms.

Over all I'd say the problem is that only the idea of it being a secret conspiracy is the problem. The DLC pretty much did this in front of god and everyone.

Originally Posted by B Butler

... If Washington, Lincoln, TR, FDR and MLK were progressive leaders in different eras, the degree to which the spiral of rhetoric has spilled into a spiral of violence varies, but things have to be perceived of as being pretty bad before a progressive era gathers steam...

This is just Churchill's dictum in practice. The scary unknown is always avoided until it can't be avoided any longer. I suspect that's wired into our lizard brain. It's tough to overcome.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

1952. The Republicans finally got a clue and quit defending the economics of Herbert Hoover and the Gilded Age. After World War II the partisan divide in ideology got much narrower than it had been in the 1930s or than it is today.

To get a real liberal Regeneracy we need to get poor white people to recognize that the ruling elites are less reliable as political allies than poor people who do not look like them. Should that not happen, then the ruling elites have us all stuck playing a game of politics with the loaded dice of the ruling elites. American politics has become a corrupt casino -- the only game in town... indeed, the same crooked game from Seattle to Miami and Bangor to Honolulu. Karl Rove and his like are even more corrupt operators than Bugsy Siegel and his type.

It's gonna happen again.

Now that the GOP is being destroyed from within by a motly crew of Baggers, misfits and suckers for "unt strongmahn" either a new and improved GOP will emerge or some other new party will replace it. Then we'll be back the way things were in '52.

On that note, watch for the Millie builders.

There are some younger GOPers who are already talking about some issues that you would never see Red Boomers embrace.

Rather then continue to fight against the tax system they want to refurbish it to be commensurate with other advanced countries.

For example, things like eliminating depreciation schedules and replacing them with a one year expensing holiday (e.g. in order to motivate corps and rich people to spend money on capital and infrastructure investments). Things like giving all businesses the same (corporate) tax treatment - yes that means small businesses would no longer muddle corporate and personal tax info - talk about closing a loop hole that in the aggregate results in huge revenue losses. Corporate tax rates would be lowered to either the Obama number (28%) or a slightly lower figure like 26%. Most forms of debt interest could no longer be deducted (with mortgages being up for debate).

Meanwhile, increasing Federal infrastructure and science spend.

So much more to build here. This is just scratching the surface.

what surprises me is how many people think that Republicans can win in 2016.

today, Republicans need more than the white vote to succeed. I think it was in 2012 that Obama lost the same percentage of the white vote that Dukakis did in 1988 and the results were basically reversed. Obama cruised to victory with +5m votes and a significant electoral advantage. Dukakis wasn't quite so lucky.

voter suppression may work in some states (North Carolina, notably), but it won't be enough to wipe out the Democratic advantage this election.

actually, I would say absent a significant shift to the right in minority communities, the Republicans are SOL as far as general elections are concerned.

Democrats have a huge advantage among Millennials, women, people of color, and the LGBT. not only that, the number of people who lean Democratic is higher today than it was 20 years ago, when Clinton was winning a 2nd term.

I read somewhere that Republicans would need at least 47% of the Hispanic vote to win in 2016. Romney managed around 28%. the highest polling Republican so far was Bush with 44%, the same number W. won in 2004.

significantly, the 2012 GOP autopsy stated point blank that Romney's stance on immigration had repelled Hispanic voters and given Democrats a significant advantage. they recommended a more moderated approach to immigration, including immigration reform. the Gang of Eight couldn't get it done. now we have Trump doing his thing.

this won't end well for the right-wing side in November, barring some substantive happening outside of politics. (recession, depression, total war, etc.)

Originally Posted by SZA

what surprises me is how many people think that Republicans can win in 2016.

today, Republicans need more than the white vote to succeed. I think it was in 2012 that Obama lost the same percentage of the white vote that Dukakis did in 1988 and the results were basically reversed. Obama cruised to victory with +5m votes and a significant electoral advantage. Dukakis wasn't quite so lucky.

voter suppression may work in some states (North Carolina, notably), but it won't be enough to wipe out the Democratic advantage this election.

actually, I would say absent a significant shift to the right in minority communities, the Republicans are SOL as far as general elections are concerned.

Democrats have a huge advantage among Millennials, women, people of color, and the LGBT. not only that, the number of people who lean Democratic is higher today than it was 20 years ago, when Clinton was winning a 2nd term.

I read somewhere that Republicans would need at least 47% of the Hispanic vote to win in 2016. Romney managed around 28%. the highest polling Republican so far was Bush with 44%, the same number W. won in 2004.

significantly, the 2012 GOP autopsy stated point blank that Romney's stance on immigration had repelled Hispanic voters and given Democrats a significant advantage. they recommended a more moderated approach to immigration, including immigration reform. the Gang of Eight couldn't get it done. now we have Trump doing his thing.

this won't end well for the right-wing side in November, barring some substantive happening outside of politics. (recession, depression, total war, etc.)

Trump has a unique talent for pissing off the following (a partial list BTW):
- People of color
- Muslims
- Lower Status Immigrants
- Free Traders
- Wall Street
- Neo Cons

He's building an anti-coalition.

What a talent!

But he just got the endorsement of Sarah Palin, who is almost as unlistenable as this:



No, seriously. Just make sure that no pets capable of hearing the soprano range are within range of this -- even if it is Mozart.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Indeed it is hard to decide whether to put Idi Amin, Moammar Qaddafi, or Saddam Hussein on the Left or Right.

Just put them at the center of evil.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

But he just got the endorsement of Sarah Palin, who is almost as unlistenable as this:
<snip> video </video>

No, seriously. Just make sure that no pets capable of hearing the soprano range are within range of this -- even if it is Mozart.

I had to stop it three seconds into the singing. It made Charlotte start to howl. I'm surprised she can hear tones that high given how old she is. Of course she also hates the new tv cause she can't sleep on it. Its one of those flat panels.

Originally Posted by radind

Just put them at the center of evil.

All three are in one of the lowest circles of Hell, according to Dante.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Your thesis isn't true. Apart from the parts we agree on which I'll get too.



I would argue that in 1968 there was a split in the Democrats. In large part that was when the Dixiecrat segment of the Party split off. Leaving mostly liberals in the Party. Starting in 1968 (because of boomers and other factors) the parties started to become more highly ideological rather than coalition like.

As for winning the Presidency I'm assuming that you're only dating this back to 1980 since not including the present election there have been 12 cycles since 1968. In that time there have actually been 8 cycles, of which Republican light Candidates have consisted of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and BHO (though I would argue that he is the most progressive of the Democratic Candidates on offer excluding Sanders). Of those four who won the Presidency? Bill Clinton and BHO.

But how did they win? Bill Clinton ran against a split GOP in 1992 (Parot caused a spoiler effect), and in 1996 was a popular incumbent running against a tired GI candidate. Al Gore won the Popular vote but lost the electoral vote (an argument to scrap the electoral collage no doubt), Kerry didn't win at all. BHO won against a tired GOP Candidate with an INSANE/RETARDED VP pick (seriously Palin scared the shit out of every moderate who regularly breaks republican I know), and against a Moderate Republican who couldn't stay on message more than five minutes.



No the evidence suggests that running as Republican Lite works only when the GOP offers a candidate who has already made a poor VP pick (McCain), is exhausted (McCain and Dole), or the GOP has a spoiler (Perot in '92). All of these would seem to indicate that special circumstances are required for the Democrat to win running as Republican Lite. As such the DLC Democrats can only win under special circumstances.



You know I don't buy into your theory of critical elections. In the Third Republic the pattern has been 8 years on 8 years off, in the Second the GOP dominated, and in the First the Jacksonian Democrats dominated much of the time.

As such I would say that the elections of 1860, 1864, 1872, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 2008, 2012 all took place in a 4T and thus had "special considerations".

That being said, being that Sanders is a Silent, he may be following the "Truman Formula" (for lack of a better title) which presents the public with something new, unique even in a 4T election. That something new and unique may in fact be exactly the thing most sorely needed. (Let me go out on a limb here and say that Sanders very well could be the purported Grey Champion. There is the joke running around that Sander's electoral power as it was was the result from being bitten as a teenager by a radioactive senior citizen which granted him the grumpiness of 10 old men.)





I would argue that it hasn't changed, other than that the Democrats decided sometime in the 1980s to walk back from labor and snuggle up to the Banksters. Thom Hartmann described this process, and it seems that it only happened sometime around 1988 after the failure of Dukakis (who I would argue lost to the VP of a Popular President by basically allowing himself to be made to look ridiculous).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPj4HAL0mzI

While this explains the last 7 or 8 cycles and has roots in the 1980 cycle I would not take it back to 1968.

Dukakis is as ridiculous as he looks. Mike Dukakis became a UCLA Political Science Professor who has distinguished himself by crusading against nearby Westwood residents allowing (or renting) students to park on their driveways in front of their garages during the day. http://www.laobserved.com/archive/20...n_westwood.php