dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

cshort wrote:I have to think at some point a 3rd party has to form. There are too many disenfranchised people in the center that are getting screwed by the primaries of both parties.

What if the Dems just traded the unions for a bunch of rich socially liberal or at least socially don't care Republicans? Can't that work?

That's basically what has happened. No Democrat over the last couple decades has been really strong for the unions, with some good consequences (education reform gaining momentum) and bad (inequality getting worse and worse; you don't want spending power to get too concentrated in a consumption-driven economy).

The new Democratic "base" is people like us: social liberals with a lot of education and good professional networks. Fifty years ago we would have been Rockefeller Republicans, like my grandfather basically was.

(Right, Paul?)

just curious.... what is the "over/under" on a lot of education?

A BA at a minimum. Which isn't to say that a majority of four-year college graduates consistently vote Democrat--think this was (barely) true in 2008, but it never had been before--but the trend is in that direction, and the prominence of proud ignoramuses like Palin won't reverse that soon.

My real point is that "economic anxiety," the gut-churning worry about losing your job or not being able to meet basic expenses, might now be more remote for core Democratic constituencies (by which I mean the people that give money, volunteer, organize, etc) other than unions, than for Republican groups. Look at unemployment broken down by educational attainment, or earning power. The Great Recession mostly has been an abstraction for "knowledge workers."

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

cshort wrote:I have to think at some point a 3rd party has to form. There are too many disenfranchised people in the center that are getting screwed by the primaries of both parties.

What if the Dems just traded the unions for a bunch of rich socially liberal or at least socially don't care Republicans? Can't that work?

That's basically what has happened. No Democrat over the last couple decades has been really strong for the unions, with some good consequences (education reform gaining momentum) and bad (inequality getting worse and worse; you don't want spending power to get too concentrated in a consumption-driven economy).

The new Democratic "base" is people like us: social liberals with a lot of education and good professional networks. Fifty years ago we would have been Rockefeller Republicans, like my grandfather basically was.

(Right, Paul?)

The Dem base is a bunch of different things. Blacks accounted for 23% of Obama's votes in a the 2008 election, so they'd have to be in the discussion right off the bat. Obama got 11% of his vote from Latinos. Working class, manufacturing unions might not play as key of a role as they did in the past, but Obama got 22% of his votes from union households, winning them 59-39. SEIU, teacher's unions, etc are the new key Dem pillars from the union movement. Obama got about 18% of his votes from people with postgrad education, winning them 58-40. So he won them by a lot, but not by as much as a lot of other key groups. Obviously the rich people matter more as donors, but they aren't the party's electoral base nationally.

Obama won people who did not graduate from college 53-46% and people who did graduate from college 53-45%. Obama won every education segment, although did best among people who did not graduate from high school, followed by people with postgrad education, followed by people who graduated from high school. McCain's two best segments were college dropouts and college graduates.

cshort wrote:I have to think at some point a 3rd party has to form. There are too many disenfranchised people in the center that are getting screwed by the primaries of both parties.

If so, it'll probably come from the fringes than the center.

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

cshort wrote:I have to think at some point a 3rd party has to form. There are too many disenfranchised people in the center that are getting screwed by the primaries of both parties.

What if the Dems just traded the unions for a bunch of rich socially liberal or at least socially don't care Republicans? Can't that work?

That's basically what has happened. No Democrat over the last couple decades has been really strong for the unions, with some good consequences (education reform gaining momentum) and bad (inequality getting worse and worse; you don't want spending power to get too concentrated in a consumption-driven economy).

The new Democratic "base" is people like us: social liberals with a lot of education and good professional networks. Fifty years ago we would have been Rockefeller Republicans, like my grandfather basically was.

(Right, Paul?)

You misunderstand me, I didn't say educated people, I said rich people. The people like you that are Dem should basically invite the rich people into your tent and give them control of the wallet (which means no helping poor people and no fighting dark people) as long as they leave all the social stuff to you. I contend that you'd have a very happy voting group. It would be about 10% of the nation, but at least it would make sense.

Also, at what point Jersey would you leave the Republicans? How many O'Donnells would have to be selected in the primary? Would you be more forgiving if they won more in the general? Or would you start to think this party no longer looks like you?

jeff2sf wrote:Also, at what point Jersey would you leave the Republicans? How many O'Donnells would have to be selected in the primary? Would you be more forgiving if they won more in the general? Or would you start to think this party no longer looks like you?

It's hard to say. We're a long way away from that. I can see myself not voting for Palin if she is the nominee in two years, but as for not calling myself a Republican, I still agree with them on far more issues than I agree with the Democrats. And I think it's silly not to be a member of one of the two parties.

I don't have a problem with the party nominating people more conservative than I am. The problem with O'Donnell is she's a wholly unimpressive person whose accomplishments to this point in life make the fact that she's a major party's nominee to the world's greatest deliberative body embarrassing. O'Donnell is the only tea party nominee who is that bad. Angle is probably next closest, but at least she's a former state legislator. Joe Miller, Mike Lee and Rand Paul have all done something worthwhile in their lives.

jeff2sf wrote:You misunderstand me, I didn't say educated people, I said rich people. The people like you that are Dem should basically invite the rich people into your tent and give them control of the wallet (which means no helping poor people and no fighting dark people) as long as they leave all the social stuff to you. I contend that you'd have a very happy voting group. It would be about 10% of the nation, but at least it would make sense.

I'm not sure it does, or maybe I just don't entirely get what you're saying. I think what you're suggesting is that the two parties become indistinguishable on economic issues--both for free trade, deregulation, fine with inequality/concentration of wealth, unconcerned about negative externalities (e.g. global warming) but the Democrats are okay with two dudes getting hitched and little to no church attendance, and the Republicans are all about preserving precious bodily fluids?

I guess you also might be saying that the Democrats embrace a sort of isolationism and leave the Republicans as the party of the neo-cons and security state fetishists. That at least would be a difference, though probably not one that helps the Democrats win elections.

Not sure that making the Democrats more welcoming to the Koch brothers is that good of an idea for the country or even the Democrats--even if you dispute the premise PtK et al would offer that they're pretty much already there.

But what if i want to help poor people?

jeff2sf wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

cshort wrote:I have to think at some point a 3rd party has to form. There are too many disenfranchised people in the center that are getting screwed by the primaries of both parties.

What if the Dems just traded the unions for a bunch of rich socially liberal or at least socially don't care Republicans? Can't that work?

That's basically what has happened. No Democrat over the last couple decades has been really strong for the unions, with some good consequences (education reform gaining momentum) and bad (inequality getting worse and worse; you don't want spending power to get too concentrated in a consumption-driven economy).

The new Democratic "base" is people like us: social liberals with a lot of education and good professional networks. Fifty years ago we would have been Rockefeller Republicans, like my grandfather basically was.

(Right, Paul?)

You misunderstand me, I didn't say educated people, I said rich people. The people like you that are Dem should basically invite the rich people into your tent and give them control of the wallet (which means no helping poor people and no fighting dark people) as long as they leave all the social stuff to you. I contend that you'd have a very happy voting group. It would be about 10% of the nation, but at least it would make sense.

IOW, turn D into R sans the Jesus freaks and racists?

jerseyhoya wrote:It's hard to say. We're a long way away from that. I can see myself not voting for Palin if she is the nominee in two years.

You can see yourself not voting for Palin?

How about this, I agree to never vote for Kucinich if you never vote for Palin. That's a fair trade.

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:You misunderstand me, I didn't say educated people, I said rich people. The people like you that are Dem should basically invite the rich people into your tent and give them control of the wallet (which means no helping poor people and no fighting dark people) as long as they leave all the social stuff to you. I contend that you'd have a very happy voting group. It would be about 10% of the nation, but at least it would make sense.

I'm not sure it does, or maybe I just don't entirely get what you're saying. I think what you're suggesting is that the two parties become indistinguishable on economic issues--both for free trade, deregulation, fine with inequality/concentration of wealth, unconcerned about negative externalities (e.g. global warming) but the Democrats are okay with two dudes getting hitched and little to no church attendance, and the Republicans are all about preserving precious bodily fluids?

I guess you also might be saying that the Democrats embrace a sort of isolationism and leave the Republicans as the party of the neo-cons and security state fetishists. That at least would be a difference, though probably not one that helps the Democrats win elections.

Not sure that making the Democrats more welcoming to the Koch brothers is that good of an idea for the country or even the Democrats--even if you dispute the premise PtK et al would offer that they're pretty much already there.

I've done a poor job of explaining myself, if PIP's the only one who gets me. But no, the party of the poor (white) people will be the Republicans. They like protectionism, they'd be down with unions, etc. They want to spend like there's no tomorrow. They probably want smaller taxes, but they'll live with it if they get two dudes not marrying and all sorts of other goodies.

So put Dem financial policies (including funding wars) on the Repub ledger, put sane Republican financial policies (limited spending, pro business, an international bent, yada yada yada) on the Dem side.

I think you'd have a lot of coherence there into people's world views. It makes no sense that unions are on the Dem side who loves all nations and colors. It also makes no sense that Republican businessmen are anti-immigration, isolationist, etc.

kopphanatic wrote:Man, the right is all over Rove today.

You know he was the basic architect for Bush's amnesty program.

jeff2sf wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:You misunderstand me, I didn't say educated people, I said rich people. The people like you that are Dem should basically invite the rich people into your tent and give them control of the wallet (which means no helping poor people and no fighting dark people) as long as they leave all the social stuff to you. I contend that you'd have a very happy voting group. It would be about 10% of the nation, but at least it would make sense.

I'm not sure it does, or maybe I just don't entirely get what you're saying. I think what you're suggesting is that the two parties become indistinguishable on economic issues--both for free trade, deregulation, fine with inequality/concentration of wealth, unconcerned about negative externalities (e.g. global warming) but the Democrats are okay with two dudes getting hitched and little to no church attendance, and the Republicans are all about preserving precious bodily fluids?

I guess you also might be saying that the Democrats embrace a sort of isolationism and leave the Republicans as the party of the neo-cons and security state fetishists. That at least would be a difference, though probably not one that helps the Democrats win elections.

Not sure that making the Democrats more welcoming to the Koch brothers is that good of an idea for the country or even the Democrats--even if you dispute the premise PtK et al would offer that they're pretty much already there.

I've done a poor job of explaining myself, if PIP's the only one who gets me. But no, the party of the poor (white) people will be the Republicans. They like protectionism, they'd be down with unions, etc. They want to spend like there's no tomorrow. They probably want smaller taxes, but they'll live with it if they get two dudes not marrying and all sorts of other goodies.

So put Dem financial policies (including funding wars) on the Repub ledger, put sane Republican financial policies (limited spending, pro business, an international bent, yada yada yada) on the Dem side.

I think you'd have a lot of coherence there into people's world views. It makes no sense that unions are on the Dem side who loves all nations and colors. It also makes no sense that Republican businessmen are anti-immigration, isolationist, etc.

What you say makes sense if you neglect the last 70 years or so of American history. There's a lot more coherence to a liberalism based on a combination of JS Mill's social philosophy and Keynesian economics than you might think.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

cshort wrote:I have to think at some point a 3rd party has to form. There are too many disenfranchised people in the center that are getting screwed by the primaries of both parties.

What if the Dems just traded the unions for a bunch of rich socially liberal or at least socially don't care Republicans? Can't that work?

That's basically what has happened. No Democrat over the last couple decades has been really strong for the unions, with some good consequences (education reform gaining momentum) and bad (inequality getting worse and worse; you don't want spending power to get too concentrated in a consumption-driven economy).

The new Democratic "base" is people like us: social liberals with a lot of education and good professional networks. Fifty years ago we would have been Rockefeller Republicans, like my grandfather basically was.

(Right, Paul?)

You misunderstand me, I didn't say educated people, I said rich people. The people like you that are Dem should basically invite the rich people into your tent and give them control of the wallet (which means no helping poor people and no fighting dark people) as long as they leave all the social stuff to you. I contend that you'd have a very happy voting group. It would be about 10% of the nation, but at least it would make sense.

IOW, turn D into R sans the Jesus freaks and racists?

Pretty close D=R-union-GODLOVERS/RACISTS

TenuredVulture wrote:What you say makes sense if you neglect the last 70 years or so of American history. There's a lot more coherence to a liberalism based on a combination of JS Mill's social philosophy and Keynesian economics than you might think.

Things change.

Between jeff2sf suggesting setting up a new political party around his basic ideological leanings and dajafi asserting he's the new base of the Democratic Party, there's a lot of wanting being disguised as analysis here.

That would definitely be a party that would consistently get my vote. I'd still probably want a more progressive party as an option too though.

jerseyhoya wrote:Between jeff2sf suggesting setting up a new political party around his basic ideological leanings and dajafi asserting he's the new base of the Democratic Party, there's a lot of wanting being disguised as analysis here.

Come on now, JH. I mean aren't you a social liberal? I mean if we took economics and war out of the equation and you had two slates, which are you choosing? If it's Republicans, why?

I think there's already plenty of people that live in the Northeast that are already making this calculus - Republicans generally have a better idea on economics and Dems have a better idea of social stuff.

jerseyhoya wrote:Between jeff2sf suggesting setting up a new political party around his basic ideological leanings and dajafi asserting he's the new base of the Democratic Party, there's a lot of wanting being disguised as analysis here.

I still think Texas is going to be a contested state sometime in the future. Probably offset by state(s) getting more red though so I don't think its necessarily a political holocaust for republicans.

jeff2sf wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Between jeff2sf suggesting setting up a new political party around his basic ideological leanings and dajafi asserting he's the new base of the Democratic Party, there's a lot of wanting being disguised as analysis here.

Come on now, JH. I mean aren't you a social liberal? I mean if we took economics and war out of the equation and you had two slates, which are you choosing? If it's Republicans, why?

I think there's already plenty of people that live in the Northeast that are already making this calculus - Republicans generally have a better idea on economics and Dems have a better idea of social stuff.

Based on what evidence do Republicans have a better idea of economics? I agree this is a commonly held belief, but that's it.