Haven't posted here much for a while, for plenty of reasons, but I was thinking about the generational aspects of the current political season, and it seemed worth noting a fairly obvious dynamic. How well S&H tells us what to expect in the future is debatable, but the basic generational components are valid, and interesting.

We're seeing a very clear, tidy illustration of Boomers headed for pasture, and Xers taking over. The Democrats are led by two aging candidates who neatly represent the two sides of Boomerism - the unreformed 60s radical, and the multi-milionaire yuppie lawyer. The Republicans have a wide field of diverse candidates, whose average age is in the 50s, and includes two Hispanic candidates and an Indian candidate, all in their 40s. One of the leaders is a very conservative black Boomer, and the other, Donald Trump, is the personification of the 1980s.

In the bigger picture, when you look at the trends and dynamics in politics and society, you see a widespread and growing disdain for institutions across the board, a cynical and dismissive view of all politicians regardless of party, and an apotheosis of Boomer "identity politics" and "political correctness" beginning to generate open rebellion against it.

There are many ways of looking at these things, and commentators in the media hash them all over endlessly, but few if any recognize what seems obvious to anyone exposed to generational thinking - that we are witnessing the shift from Boomer leadership to Xer leadership. Even Trump, despite being a Boomer, represents a clear emergence of Xer sensibilities. Contrast Trump's no-BS, in your face tone with the Boomer platitudes of Jeb Bush, and the fact that Trump is leading while Bush is disintegrating, and you see the Xer personality on the rise.

Had to go ahead and note it here, because it all verifies S&H (at least the generational aspects) pretty well.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Democrats are led by two aging candidates who neatly represent the two sides of Boomerism - the unreformed 60s radical, and the multi-milionaire yuppie lawyer.

To the extant Sanders is a radical he’s much more like a 30s radical than a 60s one, except he would have been a moderate in the 30s. I mean he’s a working class, urban Jew who’s more focused on economic liberals, not a suburban WASP who’s focused on cultural issues.

That's because Sanders is a late SIlent, and not a Boomer.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

That's because Sanders is a late SIlent, and not a Boomer.

I know, although he seems postseasonal even for a silent; I found the idea that Sanders is a typical boomer liberal odd.

Just like Trump, it's less Sanders's age than what he represents. Calling him an "unreformed 60s radical" is entirely accurate. That's who he is. And he's barely a Silent. His cohort of leftists were the ringleaders Boomers like Hillary Clinton followed.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Just like Trump, it's less Sanders's age than what he represents. Calling him an "unreformed 60s radical" is entirely accurate. That's who he is. And he's barely a Silent. His cohort of leftists were the ringleaders Boomers like Hillary Clinton followed.

Indeed. And as a 60s radical, he doesn't need to be reformed. We need him to help reform our nation.

(Dan)
I know, although he seems postseasonal even for a silent; I found the idea that Sanders is a typical boomer liberal odd.

No, he is just the man for our season.

A Lost Generation of Democrats
By MARK SCHMITT NOV. 12, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/op...f=opinion&_r=0

The average age of the leaders, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders, is 71, older than Ronald Reagan was during his successful 1980 campaign.

The Republican candidates average 57, with three candidates in their 40s, even after Scott Walker (47 at the time) dropped out in September. The sole Republican candidate old enough to collect Social Security? Donald J. Trump.

Where are the national Democratic politicians in their 40s and 50s? At 52, Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, is this year’s lone exception. Does it say something about the party, or about the generation, that other than President Obama (born at the tail end of the baby boom), national (Democratic) candidates from this age group are rare? If Hillary Clinton is elected and serves eight years, by 2024, the oldest of the millennials will then be hitting their mid-40s, ready to take over. The generation of Run-D.M.C. and Winona Ryder might miss its chance altogether.....

The Democratic Party, as an institution, had little meaning for this generation. It was not ideologically coherent — extremely conservative Southerners were still Democrats well into the Clinton years — and the party’s operatives did little to make it meaningful to young people. The idea that by the mid-2000s, young people would identify as “Fighting Dems” and embrace Mr. Dean’s “50-state strategy” to expand the party would seem really surprising to us in the 1990s.

Meanwhile, like most of the Republican candidates, middle-aged conservatives spent their youth in the sunshine of the Reagan era, sometimes like Michael J. Fox’s Alex P. Keaton character, surprising their boomer parents with their right-wing views. Their early adulthood was shaped by the galvanizing backlash politics of Newt Gingrich, a mode that the candidates and their congressional counterparts are now taking to absurd extremes....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Indeed. And as a 60s radical, he doesn't need to be reformed. We need him to help reform our nation.


No, he is just the man for our season.

Sanders is superior only to Clinton or Bush. We don't need "reform" in the direction of trying to create a demilitarized world. The lesson of 9/11 and the economic crash was that we need to transform our nation into a military state. The lesson of 9/11 was that we had been going soft, and that we need to be more ruthless in order to deter enemies by striking terror into the hearts of our enemies. The lesson of Katrina and the economic Crash of 2008 was that we need to rebuild infrastructure, heavy industry and tech industry so that we have a self-sufficient "producer" economy.

As regards to Liberalism and Conservatism I have little fondness for either ideology. What amuses me is that boomer ideologues like Eric, Pbrower, B Butler and John X is that they want to shove wilsonianism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism pretty much internationalism and globalism down our throats. While JPT considers himself a "reformer" of the conservative variety, when in fact compared to their Y-cusper equivalents the Xer proposals are downright moderate. What Many early Millies like myself want is REAL reform: In my opinion this would have to take the form of the meritocratic state in which leaders are selected based on merit and performance; the establishment of the civil-military education system where children would be educated apart from the traditional subjects would also be trained in technical and survival skills, the most proficient of these would be given priority for administrative and leadership education as they mature. Finally the foreign policy aspects of restorationism reform which would consist of a military reform followed by the vassalization of Latin America and the general pacification of the middle east. After the pacification of the Mideast the whole region of the middle east and north Africa would be divided into military administrative regions in which settlement zones, settlement cities and administrative cities would be built. In my opinion if Restorationism is established and implemented, nothing would be able to stand in our way.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Haven't posted here much for a while, for plenty of reasons, but I was thinking about the generational aspects of the current political season, and it seemed worth noting a fairly obvious dynamic. How well S&H tells us what to expect in the future is debatable, but the basic generational components are valid, and interesting.

We're seeing a very clear, tidy illustration of Boomers headed for pasture, and Xers taking over. The Democrats are led by two aging candidates who neatly represent the two sides of Boomerism - the unreformed 60s radical, and the multi-milionaire yuppie lawyer. The Republicans have a wide field of diverse candidates, whose average age is in the 50s, and includes two Hispanic candidates and an Indian candidate, all in their 40s. One of the leaders is a very conservative black Boomer, and the other, Donald Trump, is the personification of the 1980s.

In the bigger picture, when you look at the trends and dynamics in politics and society, you see a widespread and growing disdain for institutions across the board, a cynical and dismissive view of all politicians regardless of party, and an apotheosis of Boomer "identity politics" and "political correctness" beginning to generate open rebellion against it.

There are many ways of looking at these things, and commentators in the media hash them all over endlessly, but few if any recognize what seems obvious to anyone exposed to generational thinking - that we are witnessing the shift from Boomer leadership to Xer leadership. Even Trump, despite being a Boomer, represents a clear emergence of Xer sensibilities. Contrast Trump's no-BS, in your face tone with the Boomer platitudes of Jeb Bush, and the fact that Trump is leading while Bush is disintegrating, and you see the Xer personality on the rise.

Had to go ahead and note it here, because it all verifies S&H (at least the generational aspects) pretty well.

Your analysis makes some sense, but only if you confine yourself to today's GOP base. The problem with that is the GOP base (older White, males) is shrinking by 2% with every 2-year election cycle. Voters are becoming younger, female, browner, and urbanize - all groups that the GOP continues to go out of its way to piss off - and the Right really can't help themselves because it goes to their very nature.

Much like the 2012 skewing issues, the sense that Trump, Carson, Cruz, and even a Rubio or Bush seem viable is derived from living in a Right wingnut bubble.

When HC chooses one of the Castro brothers for the ticket, all your hoped-for ageism goes down in flames, not just for 2016, but for 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036 - just like the GOP's fate as a national party.

Sorry, if that drives you off the forum again and back to the refuge of the RedState echo chamber.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Just like Trump, it's less Sanders's age than what he represents. Calling him an "unreformed 60s radical" is entirely accurate. That's who he is. And he's barely a Silent. His cohort of leftists were the ringleaders Boomers like Hillary Clinton followed.

When Sanders was an activist in the 60s his fellow activists thought he was strange because he focused on economic rather than social issues. He speaks with a heavy urban working class accent. He’s much more 30s CCNY than 60s Berkeley. His economic policy would have made him a mainstream liberal 50 years ago.

Originally Posted by Dan '82

When Sanders was an activist in the 60s his fellow activists thought he was strange because he focused on economic rather than social issues. He speaks with a heavy urban working class accent. He’s much more 30s CCNY than 60s Berkeley. His economic policy would have made him a mainstream liberal 50 years ago.

And it makes him mainstream liberal today.

If some of his ideas sound old, it's because they are the necessary reply to the complete CRAP that the conservatives have perpetrated upon us since 1980 in order to send society back to the conditions of more than 100 years ago.

And his protest against the Vietnam War was very 1960s; he could not have been more 1960s than he was. And he stands squarely on the side of those who want to see the Earth preserved from the ravages of industry and greedy denialism. Ecology is the great cause from the 1960s, our 2T. And our 2T provided the visions and goals of our 4T today. It is up to us NOW to follow Bernie and fulfill those visions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And it makes him mainstream liberal today.

If some of his ideas sound old, it's because they are the necessary reply to the complete CRAP that the conservatives have perpetrated upon us since 1980 in order to send society back to the conditions of more than 100 years ago.

And his protest against the Vietnam War was very 1960s; he could not have been more 1960s than he was. And he stands squarely on the side of those who want to see the Earth preserved from the ravages of industry and greedy denialism. Ecology is the great cause from the 1960s, our 2T. And our 2T provided the visions and goals of our 4T today. It is up to us NOW to follow Bernie and fulfill those visions.

The government's purpose is not to do what is "morally right" or not. The government's purpose is to implement the will of the people, no matter what that will is. The purpose of the head of state is to channel the collective will of the populace and translate that into policy.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The government's purpose is not to do what is "morally right" or not. The government's purpose is to implement the will of the people, no matter what that will is. The purpose of the head of state is to channel the collective will of the populace and translate that into policy.

And Bernie Sanders is doing that too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And Bernie Sanders is doing that too.

Sanders is only listening to boomers, and is only an improvement compared to Clinton and Bush. We need to remilitarize and rebuild heavy industry and a "producer" economy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Your analysis makes some sense, but only if you confine yourself to today's GOP base. The problem with that is the GOP base (older White, males) is shrinking by 2% with every 2-year election cycle. Voters are becoming younger, female, browner, and urbanize - all groups that the GOP continues to go out of its way to piss off - and the Right really can't help themselves because it goes to their very nature.

Much like the 2012 skewing issues, the sense that Trump, Carson, Cruz, and even a Rubio or Bush seem viable is derived from living in a Right wingnut bubble.

When HC chooses one of the Castro brothers for the ticket, all your hoped-for ageism goes down in flames, not just for 2016, but for 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036 - just like the GOP's fate as a national party.

Sorry, if that drives you off the forum again and back to the refuge of the RedState echo chamber.

I've had you on ignore here for years now, and my interest in posting here is generational, not political. There are a million places to discuss politics solely, which is all you're interested in.

However, I will humor you with one response, because you are amusingly lacking in self awareness. You're a cartoon representation of exactly the Boomer qualities I mentioned in the OP. You are an old white man, in lockstep with a party run by old white people, against a slate of candidates who are young and "diverse". Yet you are desperately clinging to a trend that has already peaked (in the form of Obama) and is being rejected, and claiming to speak for young people and/or "people of color".

Unlike you, I don't claim to know who will win the 2016 election. All I know is that all of the indicators - polling and economic - and all of the historical trends - like the difficulty of any party winning three terms in the White House - make it highly likely that the next president will be a Republican. Then there is the fact that the Democrats have been decimated in every election since 2008 where Obama was not on the ballot, to the point where Republicans hold more power than they have since before the Great Depression. And to top it off, the Democrats are almost certainly going to nominate a candidate that nobody likes, or trusts, including Democrats who will have to hold their noses to vote for her, who is being investigated by the FBI, and who could very well be indicted before the election.

Yet you claim the Republican Party is about to cease to exist, and the Democrats will win every presidential election for the next 50 years. If you can't recognize how delusional that is, you should seek psychiatric care.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the attacks in Paris, the Democrats restated their refusal to even name Islam, and worse for them, continued to assert that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but your confidence is extremely misplaced. And it's not even shared by many Democrats.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The government's purpose is not to do what is "morally right" or not. The government's purpose is to implement the will of the people, no matter what that will is. The purpose of the head of state is to channel the collective will of the populace and translate that into policy.

We may not agree on everything, but I strongly agree with that statement. And I would add that it is the issues both parties agree about, and the people overwhelmingly disagree, that must be targeted. Just to name a few - immigration, trade, and bailouts. But there are many more. Pretty much anything that falls under the banner of "globalism".

In general, the fact that politicians do the will of the people who write them checks rather than the people who vote for them is the root cause of everything people are fed up with, and people across the spectrum recognize it. If nothing else, Trump's candidacy is extremely valuable for that reason alone.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

We may not agree on everything, but I strongly agree with that statement. And I would add that it is the issues both parties agree about, and the people overwhelmingly disagree, that are the biggest problem, and present the opportunity for a broad coalition of voters. Just to name a few - immigration, trade, and bailouts. But there are many more. Pretty much anything that falls under the banner of "globalism".

I like that you are making sense, or at least making the attempt. I don't think immigration unites people at all, but trade, perhaps (or at least opposition to free trade crosses party lines), and certainly bailouts, yes.

In general, the fact that politicians do the will of the people who write them checks rather than the people who vote for them, is the root cause of all problems, and people across the spectrum recognize it. If nothing else, Trump's candidacy is extremely valuable for that reason alone.

Indeed, that is a root cause; I agree.

But Trump is just one charismatic member of the billionaire class; even though he's not getting too much money from his fellow classmates, he still represents them, and many of his policies show that. But I agree that sometimes he's a bit of a maverick. He represents the anger of the people.

Is he advocating what the people want? That's debatable. He's got about 25% support among Republican primary voters, while Sanders has about 37% of Democratic primary voters. That might mean something. And he even beats him in most general elections polls. If they are the nominees, I predict Sanders will win.

Both of them are excellent at "channeling the will of the people." They speak with convincing eloquence.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I've had you on ignore here for years now, and my interest in posting here is generational, not political. There are a million places to discuss politics solely, which is all you're interested in.

I'm sure you have me on ignore too, but it amuses me to reply to your contentions.

I'm not sure there are any places to discuss politics. Most forums are about hobbies.

However, I will humor you with one response, because you are amusingly lacking in self awareness. You're a cartoon representation of exactly the Boomer qualities I mentioned in the OP. You are an old white man, in lockstep with a party run by old white people, against a slate of candidates who are young and "diverse". Yet you are desperately clinging to a trend that has already peaked (in the form of Obama) and is being rejected, and claiming to speak for young people and/or "people of color".

Which is really the party of old people? If you look at the politicians, including the Xers who grew up in the age of Reagan, it might look like the Democrats are. But if you look at the voters, even Xers are divided, and Millies are Democratic, while old white men are strongly Republican. The demographics make clear that the party of the old white men (especially old white southern and cowboy men) is losing 2% of the vote per year.

Unlike you, I don't claim to know who will win the 2016 election. All I know is that all of the indicators - polling and economic - and all of the historical trends - like the difficulty of any party winning three terms in the White House - make it highly likely that the next president will be a Republican. Then there is the fact that the Democrats have been decimated in every election since 2008 where Obama was not on the ballot, to the point where Republicans hold more power than they have since before the Great Depression. And to top it off, the Democrats are almost certainly going to nominate a candidate that nobody likes, or trusts, including Democrats who will have to hold their noses to vote for her, who is being investigated by the FBI, and who could very well be indicted before the election.

But you were shocked at the 2012 result, because you thought the 2010 election showed a Republican trend. But it only showed that older people vote in midterms. It showed the millennial generation is still lacking in civic skill and virtue. But they are supposed to have it. So they may well get it as they get older. I don't know if they will. But my crystal ball is generally correct, even if I am sometimes a bit late this year in looking fully into it. The Democrats are favored according to the best indicator. It's true, their likely nominee is weak, even according to my other cosmic indicators. So, it's going to be hard to predict. Even I can't claim to know for sure who will win yet.

Yet you claim the Republican Party is about to cease to exist, and the Democrats will win every presidential election for the next 50 years. If you can't recognize how delusional that is, you should seek psychiatric care.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the attacks in Paris, the Democrats restated their refusal to even name Islam, and worse for them, continued to assert that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but your confidence is extremely misplaced. And it's not even shared by many Democrats.

Well, he's backing the wrong horses if he thinks the Castros are the ticket to Democratic dominance. But the demographics are on his side, as he and I point out. So, call him crazy, but the Republicans are so locked in the past, and their candidates are so poor, that even Hillary Clinton can beat them. And yes, climate change is not only the greatest threat, it also contributes to terrorism, which is obvious in the case of Syria.

Yes, terrorism is a great threat that must be met, and although the Obama administration might avoid using the word Islamic, we all know what the letter I in those initials they mention stands for. It is important to remember that many Muslims are our allies AND the chief victims of the IS and other Islamic terrorists. We can't afford to make this a war on Islam; we must be very careful indeed to see that no-one thinks that it is!

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The government's purpose is not to do what is "morally right" or not. The government's purpose is to implement the will of the people, no matter what that will is. The purpose of the head of state is to channel the collective will of the populace and translate that into policy.

There is this thing called the Constitution that prevents the "tyranny of the majority" and safeguards the rights of minorities. So, no, the purpose of the Government is not always to implement the will of the people, particularly when it impedes the rights of minorities (say Jews or Republicans in the District of Columbia).

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

All I know is that all of the indicators - polling and economic - and all of the historical trends - like the difficulty of any party winning three terms in the White House - make it highly likely that the next president will be a Republican.

And JPT confirms that he is still out of touch with reality. I bet he thinks Obama only won in 2012 because of ACORN, too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But you were shocked at the 2012 result, because you thought the 2010 election showed a Republican trend.

I wasn't shocked by the outcome of the 2012 election. Disappointed, but not shocked. I don't remember every word I typed here 3 years ago, but I never thought Romney was a strong candidate, and I'm sure I said so. The polls leading up to it varied widely in their methodology, and it came down to which ones were accurate in their modeling of the electorate. As it turned out, a president who had a terrible record, whose major policies large majorities disapproved of, was re-elected because of the color of his skin. He was given a pass and/or the benefit of the doubt for many things that other presidents have been punished for. That's the reality.

I don't know if Hillary will win or lose, but I do know that the indicators are against her, or any other Democrat. Obama's job approval has been around 45% for years now. The economy has been limping at around 2% growth for 7 years, which means everyone's standard of living has been falling for 7 years (aside from Obama's big donors from Wall Street, Silicon Valley and government, who have received massive infusions of taxpayer funds, and have been living wild). 64% of the public believes the country is on the wrong track.

What always happens in politics is that a pendulum swings from one direction to another. The left has moved so far left and pushed so hard, that a swing back in the other direction is inevitable. In fact, it has already been happening, as I mentioned above. The Democrats are at their lowest ebb of elected office in almost 100 years. Almost all of the major "victories" of the left wing have been achieved undemocratically, through the courts and executive orders, with propaganda blaring 24/7 from their supporters in the media. Something's got to give.

But because the Republicans, even while winning elections, are still very unpopular with their own voters, things are more interesting and more volatile than usual. Hence Trump, and other phenomena. Many people are recognizing the real problem is an elite class of powerful, connected interests that seeks to impose its will and policies on the people without their consent.

In terms of the raw numbers, what is happening is this: the Democrats are still fanatically attached to their long worn ideological dogma, led by aging Boomers and Silents who live in the past. They are unified, and have a high floor of support. They have about 45% of the electorate that will stick with them no matter what, while the Republicans have a much lower level of guaranteed, lockstep voters. However, the Democrats cannot improve on the base turnout they had with Obama. It was completely maxed out. Which means if their turnout falls off, and they lose swing voters, they're in for a massive loss.

The Republicans, meanwhile, are fractured and in upheaval because of an intense, unsettled debate about what the future direction of the party (and country) should be. So if the Republicans coalesce around a legitimate "voice of the people" agenda and candidate, rather than perpetuating business as usual, that will more than likely be where the country heads in a big way after 2016. In my opinion, nominating Jeb Bush is the only way the Republicans could tilt things back to an even field. Otherwise, I think they have a clear advantage. But who knows what will ultimately happen. It's still a year away.

To put it another way, the Democrats have a narrow range of support, with a high floor and low ceiling, while the Republicans have a wide range of potential support, with a low floor and high ceiling. If the Republicans coalesced around the right candidate and policies, they could probably win 55% of the vote in a presidential election and completely obliterate the Democrats. If they stick to business as usual, another narrow win or loss is more likely, with a slight tilt in their favor in 2016 for the reasons stated above.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I've had you on ignore here for years now, and my interest in posting here is generational, not political. There are a million places to discuss politics solely, which is all you're interested in.

What you say of Eric also applies to me... especially if you consider 59 'old'. I'd like to believe that I still have some mental flexibility, but my wrinkles, graying and thinning hair, and plentiful warts show my age -- as does talking about certain events as if I saw them on live TV because I saw them on live television. Of course, life is not all politics and economics, and the ugliness of contemporary politics in America will subside by necessity or because one side will prevail and ram its political agenda down the throats of everyone else. I prefer that government redirect itself to service instead of getting all for one side at the expense of another side.

However, I will humor you with one response, because you are amusingly lacking in self awareness. You're a cartoon representation of exactly the Boomer qualities I mentioned in the OP. You are an old white man, in lockstep with a party run by old white people, against a slate of candidates who are young and "diverse". Yet you are desperately clinging to a trend that has already peaked (in the form of Obama) and is being rejected, and claiming to speak for young people and/or "people of color".

"My" Democratic Party is far more diverse, and I welcome younger people of all origins because their participation gives us a chance for victory. That is the only way for us to win. We prefer service to a set image. Wins by Democrats will often imply that young Democrats who are either non-white, non-Christian, non-Anglo, and non-straight supplant older Republicans who are more likely white, Christian, Anglo, and straight.

...I don't claim to know who will win the 2016 election. All I know is that all of the indicators - polling and economic - and all of the historical trends - like the difficulty of any party winning three terms in the White House - make it highly likely that the next president will be a Republican. Then there is the fact that the Democrats have been decimated in every election since 2008 where Obama was not on the ballot, to the point where Republicans hold more power than they have since before the Great Depression. And to top it off, the Democrats are almost certainly going to nominate a candidate that nobody likes, or trusts, including Democrats who will have to hold their noses to vote for her, who is being investigated by the FBI, and who could very well be indicted before the election.

The only Presidential elections that are truly alike involve the same participants, and in the last century that means Eisenhower against Stevenson. Do you really think that John McCain and Mitt Romney were all that similar?

Can a Party elect three consecutive winners for the Presidency? Sure. The elder Bush got elected following two terms of Ronald Reagan. FDR won two terms and Truman followed with a win. 2000 could have very easily given us President Al Gore winning a succession to Bill Clinton. It is tougher to win a third term with a second Presidential nominee for the same Party, but it is far from impossible. Much must go right for the incumbent Party. I see President Obama, in view of his political skills, as a left-wing mirror of Ronald Reagan with much the same abilities. Add about 5% to his total vote to account for racial bias on the net, and Obama wins like Reagan... two landslides.

All sorts of crazy things can happen in a Presidential election, and anyone who thinks that the results of 2016 are already set in stone is a fool. Complacency about a Presidential election is a good way to lose. Much must go well for Hillary Clinton to win the Presidency -- no economic collapse, no military or diplomatic disasters, and no scandals that one can attribute to the predecessor. But so far those things hold. A year from now?

In 2012 Democrats won the majority of votes for the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, failing to win the House of Representatives only because of gerrymandering that ensured a Republican majority unless Democrats won the popular vote for the House by about a 55-45 margin. In 2014, of course, as in 2010, the Republicans prevailed.

Prospective Republican nominees aren't all that strong -- or they give cause for one to question their ability to win. Establishment candidates within the GOP are doing badly. The current leaders (Trump and Carson) have no experience in prior elections, and they have plenty of ways to show flaws as nominees if nominated. The stronger nominee, the one with more experience in elected office, typically wins. That edge goes to Hillary Clinton even over Marco Rubio.

Based upon what I now see -- Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination for President and wins the Presidency because of the weaknesses of the Republican opponents. Democrats retake the Senate because the Democrats have few seats that they can lose and Republicans have far more due to the 2010 election. Democrats will get the majority of popular votes for the House of Representatives but fall short of winning the House because they will not win the popular vote for the House 55-45 as is necessary for winning the House. The Congressional investigation of Hillary Clinton has imploded.

Note the qualification -- "what I now see". Should the Dow lose 5000 points in the next year, then Democrats lose big. There will be vulnerable Senate seats where they are not now. But so far many incumbent Republican Senators have abysmal levels of approval typical of incumbents who have more chance of losing than winning.

Yet (Eric) claims (that) the Republican Party is about to cease to exist, and the Democrats will win every presidential election for the next 50 years. (Insult redacted).

What is different in this Crisis Era from others? The Republican Party is already an authoritarian political party with little room for internal dissent. It operates on with a Commie-style democratic centralism as a norm. It has already shown its willingness to entrench power by ensuring that it has the advantage in the critical elections. It represents two authoritarian currents -- economic elites and Christian Protestant fundamentalists -- that have found how to avoid going after each others' throats while going after everything else. That sort of Party either consolidates complete power even if it allows some token opposition -- or fails. Think of the Communist Party of China or the old Nationalist Party of South Africa.

I can't speak for Eric on that, but the Republican Party will either entrench itself permanently, ensuring that anyone who wants political power or goodies from government will need to align itself with the permanent majority. Because Big Business has the objective of ensuring that all wealth comes under and stays under its control, do not expect to find some economic interstices. Under a dominant GOP, American democracy will become a sick joke. So will any opportunity, even to attend schooling that does not lead to a menial job, outside of having connections to the Party unless one emigrates.

Now what if the Republican Party as it is now constituted implodes? The Democrats get a short Era of Good Feeling, this time at the 4T/1T. But it will be short-lived. The Democrats will find themselves representing interests with diametrically-opposed interests, which will guarantee rifts. As after the demise of the Federalists and Whigs, the unwieldy majority Party (in both cases the Democrats, which would be mere coincidence) will split. Or the remnant of the Republican party will lose its authoritarian tendencies and start inviting and attracting dissident Democrats of people who might see themselves in a permanent second place in primary elections. The Democratic Party has practically no authoritarian tendencies.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the attacks in Paris, the Democrats restated their refusal to even name Islam, and worse for them, continued to assert that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism.

Islam is not the problem. Criminality, thuggery, and sociopathy that have used Islam as its garb make the problem. Maybe Islam needs to clean up some of its loose ends -- but just remember: the Nazis and the Italian Fascisti were at least nominal Christians. So if you were a Jew in a Nazi labor or extermination camp would you blame Christianity for your plight? Not if you recognized that FDR and Churchill and most of the Polish Underground were devout Christians at the time. Islam will need to repudiate those who have hijacked Islam, just as Christianity has repudiated the Nazis, Fascists, and the Klan.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but your confidence is extremely misplaced. And it's not even shared by many Democrats.

Not one vote has yet been cast.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The polls leading up to it varied widely in their methodology, and it came down to which ones were accurate in their modeling of the electorate. As it turned out, a president who had a terrible record, whose major policies large majorities disapproved of, was re-elected because of the color of his skin.

The demographics show that hispanics are replacing the old white dudes in the electorate who agree with your view of Obama's record and policies, at the rate of about 1 or 2% per election cycle, at least. The electorate is likely getting more diverse and more democratic, not less, and so they may come out and vote for Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump, who insults this demographic. So we'll see which side benefits from the election turnout. Fewer blacks may vote than in 2012, but it will still be a considerable black turnout and Democratic vote. And Hillary will also have the benefit of the majority of the voters being women.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I've had you on ignore here for years now, and my interest in posting here is generational, not political. There are a million places to discuss politics solely, which is all you're interested in.

However, I will humor you with one response, because you are amusingly lacking in self awareness. You're a cartoon representation of exactly the Boomer qualities I mentioned in the OP. You are an old white man, in lockstep with a party run by old white people, against a slate of candidates who are young and "diverse". Yet you are desperately clinging to a trend that has already peaked (in the form of Obama) and is being rejected, and claiming to speak for young people and/or "people of color".

Unlike you, I don't claim to know who will win the 2016 election. All I know is that all of the indicators - polling and economic - and all of the historical trends - like the difficulty of any party winning three terms in the White House - make it highly likely that the next president will be a Republican. Then there is the fact that the Democrats have been decimated in every election since 2008 where Obama was not on the ballot, to the point where Republicans hold more power than they have since before the Great Depression. And to top it off, the Democrats are almost certainly going to nominate a candidate that nobody likes, or trusts, including Democrats who will have to hold their noses to vote for her, who is being investigated by the FBI, and who could very well be indicted before the election.

Yet you claim the Republican Party is about to cease to exist, and the Democrats will win every presidential election for the next 50 years. If you can't recognize how delusional that is, you should seek psychiatric care.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the attacks in Paris, the Democrats restated their refusal to even name Islam, and worse for them, continued to assert that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but your confidence is extremely misplaced. And it's not even shared by many Democrats.

You talk about trends and indicators, and all you offer up is the "three terms meme." I suggest you take a dose of reality with Nate Silver -

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...t-a-metronome/

The White House is Not a Metrodome

You state I'm trying to speak for young people or "people of color" (I note you're not bringing up women; funny ) and simply ignore the facts of polling and actual voting where the voters simply lean strongly against your Party and ideology - it's just reality, dude.

You cling to the desperate hope that HC is going to somehow be caught doing something, anything, that will discredit her, when nearly everyone who is anyone in Right wingnut land has moved on with their tails tucked between their legs after the Benghazi hearing - enjoy your fantasy, but be sure to turn the lights out when your done.

And oh yea, keep pushing for another big incursion into the Middle East and see where that gets you.

You note the success that the GOP has had in mid-term elections; you're right. I'll even go farther and throw in the GOP wins in state elections that occur outside of the 2-year national election cycles - for example the recent state elections in Virginia. Your conclusion that Obama wasn't on the ballot so the GOP won is simply sophomoric, masking a delusional hope. What you ignore is the reality of these all being very low turnout elections. That is not going to be the case in 2016 or any other subsequent Presidential election cycle. From now on: high turnout = Dem in WH. And that is going to change the SCOTUS into a Progressive court and play havoc with the GOP's rearguard actions of gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Koch Bro campaign financing. I doubt the GOP will hold a Senate majority in 2016, but what is certain is they will never get enough votes to override a veto. Demographics are going to eventually make a Dem Senate majority a permanent reality, but yes, the House will take longer - the 2020 state elections being key to overturning the GOP gerrymandering advantage. Also, as the gap between the national popular vote and the House representation becomes more and more obviously wider, the credibility of the House will become increasingly suspect; this will become even more apparent in states like PA, VA, TX resulting in more lawsuits against the gerrymandering being taken in front of an increasingly Progress court.

I'm not trying to change your mind; I have come to the conclusion that a big part of the problem with Progressives is that too many of us still believe they can have rational arguments with the amygdala-dominated - it simply is not possible. All I'm trying to do is to perhaps introduce to you some slight questions of your reality so that when it all comes crashing down on you again next November you might avoid a repeat of the breakdown you had back in 2012. I don't expect you to stop watching Faux News, but maybe when Karl Rove is on you could take a break?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I wasn't shocked by the outcome of the 2012 election. Disappointed, but not shocked. I don't remember every word I typed here 3 years ago, but I never thought Romney was a strong candidate, and I'm sure I said so. The polls leading up to it varied widely in their methodology, and it came down to which ones were accurate in their modeling of the electorate. As it turned out, a president who had a terrible record, whose major policies large majorities disapproved of, was re-elected because of the color of his skin. He was given a pass and/or the benefit of the doubt for many things that other presidents have been punished for. That's the reality.

Mitt Romney ran in part on his expertise as a businessman, and with that came his record of creating profits by trimming jobs and especially closing plants. It is not enough to show competence as a businessman to win the Presidency; one must also show that what one does for the good of Business is good for Humanity as a whole. Adding to that he got recorded saying some insults of poor people for their non-payment of federal income taxes that makes those poor people "takers".

Even if Mitt Romney is technically right, if what he says offends people, then those who dislike his message have a right to vote against him. (Really, it is pointless to tax the poor except perhaps to tax them out of self-destructive behavior. For good reason most states do not levy sales taxes upon food).

I don't know if Hillary will win or lose, but I do know that the indicators are against her, or any other Democrat. Obama's job approval has been around 45% for years now. The economy has been limping at around 2% growth for 7 years, which means everyone's standard of living has been falling for 7 years (aside from Obama's big donors from Wall Street, Silicon Valley and government, who have received massive infusions of taxpayer funds, and have been living wild). 64% of the public believes the country is on the wrong track.

Reactionaries have thwarted much of the Obama agenda that the Left desires. So he has not achieved what he promised? Those promises remain popular. It would be impolite to estimate how much of the disdain for the President is pure racism. Take that factor away or at least replace it with the pattern of disdain for female authority, and one gets a fair estimate of the likely vote for Hillary Clinton.

You also ignore that the GOP agenda is itself unpopular. Approval ratings for Congress are abysmal. Republicans own that. They have yet to convince Americans that tax cuts for the rich, lower wages, and more monopolization of the economy will be good for them.

What always happens in politics is that a pendulum swings from one direction to another. The left has moved so far left and pushed so hard, that a swing back in the other direction is inevitable. In fact, it has already been happening, as I mentioned above. The Democrats are at their lowest ebb of elected office in almost 100 years. Almost all of the major "victories" of the left wing have been achieved undemocratically, through the courts and executive orders, with propaganda blaring 24/7 from their supporters in the media. Something's got to give.

Without question, the Republican Party is well organized to win local skirmishes. It has gerrymandered Congressional seats so that Democrats have no chance of winning the House of Representatives unless they get 55% of the popular vote for Congress. Republicans operate with the lockstep characteristic of a fascist, Commie, or Ba'athist Party. A Democrat in a Republican House district is politically irrelevant except for the Presidency or statewide elections. Republicans have found the seams in our political system. They have used 'majority of a majority' politics to ensure that they can win with less than a majority. (It may be a surprise to you that the word Bolshevik means exactly that).

The only ALEC for whom I have any use is the late, distinguished actor Alec Guinness.

But because the Republicans, even while winning elections, are still very unpopular with their own voters, things are more interesting and more volatile than usual. Hence Trump, and other phenomena. Many people are recognizing the real problem is an elite class of powerful, connected interests that seeks to impose its will and policies on the people without their consent.

The Republican concept of the 'elite' is sophisticated, educated people such as creative elites (the "Hollywood Elite") and such types as college professors able to expose the intellectual emptiness and moral depravity of right-wing politics. So what intellectual leadership do Republicans want us to have? Of course -- the junk thought of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, etc. -- and the wayward preaching of televangelists like Pat Robertson. Such junk thought defers to the desires of the economic elites who dominate the Republican Party, people who want low wages, mass privatization, unions emasculated (if not outlawed), education solely as job preparation, loan-sharking as the mandatory alternative to welfare, and big cuts in government spending except on wars for profit. Such is pure plutocracy.

If 64% of Americans think that America is on the wrong track, then Congressional Republicans are much of the problem.

In terms of the raw numbers, what is happening is this: the Democrats are still fanatically attached to their long worn ideological dogma, led by aging Boomers and Silents who live in the past. They are unified, and have a high floor of support. They have about 45% of the electorate that will stick with them no matter what, while the Republicans have a much lower level of guaranteed, lockstep voters. However, the Democrats cannot improve on the base turnout they had with Obama. It was completely maxed out. Which means if their turnout falls off, and they lose swing voters, they're in for a massive loss.

Both Parties have locked up, at least for now, about 45% of the electorate. If Barack Obama, one of the shrewdest and most competent campaigners in American history, could not get 54% of the popular vote in an election in which the other Party was linked to an economic meltdown and wars going badly, then that says that roughly 45% of the American electorate will never vote Democratic. If George W. Bush could not approach a landslide victory despite recent successes in wars (while ignoring signs of looming trouble) and with a speculative boom in high gear in 2004 against one of the weakest campaigners ever, then such suggests that roughly 45% of the American public will not vote Republican.

Electoral coalitions, at least for the Presidency, are far from static. Just look at how states went in Presidential elections involving Eisenhower and Obama:




gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

(This site uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans... I do not make waves about that in that website).

...In 2012 President Obama did not carry any state that Eisenhower did not carry twice. (OK, you may say -- Obama carried only one state that Nixon did not win in 1972 and only one state that Reagan failed to win in 1984. But Ike won those two states (Massachusetts and Minnesota) twice, which suggests that most swing segments of the electorate between Truman and Eisenhower largely went to Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Now, Carter vs. Obama:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012



Carter 1976, Obama twice red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost after 1988, and some states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas.

Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio were legitimate swing states in 1976 and since 2000. Pennsylvania was on the fringe of contention in the same years; Virginia was a legitimate swing state in 1976, 2008, and 2012. But other than that, Presidential politics are not what they used to be. Democrats have never won the Presidency without winning at least one former-Confederate state, and that will likely hold in 2016. But the most likely former-Confederate state that the Democratic nominee for President will win will be the one such state (Virginia) that Jimmy Carter lost.

The Republicans, meanwhile, are fractured and in upheaval because of an intense, unsettled debate about what the future direction of the party (and country) should be. So if the Republicans coalesce around a legitimate "voice of the people" agenda and candidate, rather than perpetuating business as usual, that will more than likely be where the country heads in a big way after 2016. In my opinion, nominating Jeb Bush is the only way the Republicans could tilt things back to an even field. Otherwise, I think they have a clear advantage. But who knows what will ultimately happen. It's still a year away.

The Republican Party is now a coalition between some of the crassest materialists (economic elites who want all for themselves so that they can enjoy sybaritic excesses) who have ever lived and some of the most blatant anti-materialists (people who will sacrifice any material happiness so long as God allegedly demands such). The latter believe that Republican success will allow them to impose their ways upon the rest of America. Of course the economic elites are not going to abandon the basis of their sybaritic excesses, let alone their sybaritic excesses, on behalf of Jesus. Although both would subject the middle class that uses its minds on the job and destroy the rights of workers to collective bargaining, the economic elites will not give up their grand lives and accept Protestant fundamentalism. The current Republican coalition can fracture.

Do Republicans have a credible "voice of the people"? Establishment Republicans like Bush, Kasich, and Walker are faring badly. I see Jeb Bush running a lackluster campaign in part because the media will dredge up more stuff on him in the 2000 Presidential election.

Cruz and Rubio can fire up the right-wing Cuban-American vote... but that can help only in Florida. Such will fail in Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico where the Hispanic vote is not right-wing Cuban-Americans. Carson, Fiorina, and Trump will all show, if nominated, that experience in electoral campaigns matters very much. It is not enough to have a "voice of the people", one needs a credible "voice of the people".

To put it another way, the Democrats have a narrow range of support, with a high floor and low ceiling, while the Republicans have a wide range of potential support, with a low floor and high ceiling. If the Republicans coalesced around the right candidate and policies, they could probably win 55% of the vote in a presidential election and completely obliterate the Democrats. If they stick to business as usual, another narrow win or loss is more likely, with a slight tilt in their favor in 2016 for the reasons stated above.

The Republicans also have a high ceiling and a low floor. They can win, barring Democratic disaster, nationally only in elections in which voter turnout is low, as in 2002, 2010 and 2014. Presidential elections have typically been high-turnout elections, and I see no cause to believe that 2016 will be a break from that pattern. Republicans can win big when Democrats panic at the incompetence of their elected officials -- for which I see no signs.

Republicans for now need a "new Ronald Reagan" to win the Presidency. They have no such politician.