Author Topic: GOP Battledome Trump v Ryan (Read 4994 times)

Kat Kid · « **Reply #25 on:** October 10, 2016, 07:49:18 PM »

If you actually look at what ends up happening in multi party parliamentary systems is that they form coalitions and function either very similarly to the US, or they are much, much more unstable. The us is never going to change from our constitutional design in my lifetime and to my mind the stability is a feature not a bug.

If the smaller parties were legislative only or regional i might be more willing to concede it is possible that the parties become more loosely aligned coalitions with more distinct caucuses, but that it will have no impact on presidential politics.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sys · « **Reply #26 on:** October 10, 2016, 07:57:59 PM »

Quote from: Kat Kid on October 10, 2016, 07:49:18 PM

If you actually look at what ends up happening in multi party parliamentary systems is that they form coalitions and function either very similarly to the US, or they are much, much more unstable.

alliances in parliamentary systems seem more flexible than the coalitions grouped into a single party that we have, but yes, i agree, functionally they are very similar. good post.

CNS · « **Reply #27 on:** October 10, 2016, 08:03:37 PM »

The two party system is not in the Constitution

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

sys · « **Reply #28 on:** October 10, 2016, 08:12:04 PM »

dunno if that's true or not, but i'm not emo, so i also don't care.

Kat Kid · « **Reply #29 on:** October 10, 2016, 08:15:44 PM »

Quote from: CNS on October 10, 2016, 08:03:37 PM

The two party system is not in the Constitution

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

The legislative and executive branches being distinct is. I was talking about parliamentary systems prior to that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Panjandrum · « **Reply #30 on:** October 11, 2016, 09:32:02 AM »

Quote from: sys on October 10, 2016, 07:57:59 PM

Quote from: Kat Kid on October 10, 2016, 07:49:18 PM
If you actually look at what ends up happening in multi party parliamentary systems is that they form coalitions and function either very similarly to the US, or they are much, much more unstable.

alliances in parliamentary systems seem more flexible than the coalitions grouped into a single party that we have, but yes, i agree, functionally they are very similar. good post.

I never said it was going to be easy, and I never said it was preferred. However, people very much care how they are labeled, and loose coalitions under one party may not work as Millennials get older.

I'm not sure how it happens, and I personally don't want it to happen because I don't want 33% of some crackpot party getting a majority, but I think the cracks in the foundation plus a changing electorate will continue chipping away at the two party system.

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #31 on:** October 11, 2016, 10:20:01 AM »

I would be curious to see a plot of the odds of someone being both a registered voter and also not registered to one of the two major parties compared with age. I would guess that younger people are more likely to register as independent.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 11, 2016, 10:36:05 AM »

I don't think I've ever registered for a party. I just registered in MO and I don't remember it asking for a party. I don't even know how you go about that

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #33 on:** October 11, 2016, 10:37:13 AM »

States are different.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #34 on:** October 11, 2016, 10:44:16 AM »

When I registered, they just asked me which party I wanted.

cfbandyman · « **Reply #35 on:** October 11, 2016, 10:50:52 AM »

Party changes in terms of what each party represents and their platform happen all the time. It's why we don't have Federalists and Democratic Republicans, it's why we people so often look at the name "Democrat" in the 1860's and seem them as the party that voted against 13th amendment and all of that, not realizing that both parties had "conservative" and "liberal" right-left elements within them both.

All we're witnessing is what happens when a party has co-opted a losing strategy and losing outlook. We're no longer becoming this majority nation of white, Christian, heterosexual only, male dominated society, and all of this turmoil from the Republicans, and the infectious Tea Party people is basically the realization of that coming. Those who are in power, or perceive they are in power don't leave it quietly. It's basically the death throws of it. Sure, we got a long way to go before any of that is normalized, but it is clearly the trend.

If the Republicans didn't double down on trying to exclude everyone (and Democrats therefore have been more than happy to let basically anyone in, which will hurt them once the Republican recalibrate) they could get plenty of conservative gay men to their banner, or if they didn't hate immigrants/Mexicans, their more conservative outlook would actually be more appealing to rather conservative views of Catholic Hispanics and Muslims, but right now, they aren't welcome. And if they didn't have so many open racists they could get way more of the African American vote. But since they didn't do that and instead go and against all these groups, the lose, and have lost over time, increasingly larger amounts of voters.

It wasn't that long ago you didn't have to even worry about those groups, they were small and politically marginalized both all parties. It wasn't that long ago that this concept of a "real" American even came into being. It's rather recent, like Nixon recent with the "silent majority" that this idea of a "real" America even was a thought. And back in the 60's, that ideal did match reality, well that reality doesn't match that ideal anymore.

Once the republicans shed the dead weight around their neck, get more in touch with what actually makes them conservative, and can stop trying to exclude everyone, they will pull people way from the Democrats, and they will undergo a similar transformation if/when the Republicans start winning against. Both are inevitable, both have to happen as time goes on, and unless we radically change our political system, two parties is all that this country will have. Sit back and enjoy the song and dance.

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #36 on:** October 11, 2016, 10:57:15 AM »

I think urbanization has a larger impact than you're giving it credit for (none) in your post.

cfbandyman · « **Reply #37 on:** October 11, 2016, 01:01:08 PM »

Quote from: Emo EMAW on October 11, 2016, 10:57:15 AM

I think urbanization has a larger impact than you're giving it credit for (none) in your post.

Surely a part of it, it does bring people from many backgrounds together in ways we're not used to. I see it more as a catalyst, rather than the reason. Globalization in general is more of a obviously bigger by-product of it all, as does the internet. We simply now know about more things, and more things about each other, right or wrong, than we have ever before. People also have an outlet (social media) so expound both prophetic and insanely stupid comments. Urbanization helps this along, but I don't think it is the reason for the right taking on the characteristics of being exclusionary that they have. Changing demographics, and the failure to recognize that do.

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #38 on:** October 11, 2016, 01:28:04 PM »

I think it's just a ratio thing. People living in cities have different values, concerns, perspective than rural folks. Less rural people more city people and states like Minnesota Michigan Illinois Wisconsin that were once red are now blue and they'll stay that way unless the GOP changes.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #39 on:** October 11, 2016, 01:35:35 PM »

Changes the GOP should make:

1. Reform immigration to eliminate quotas and provide work visas to anyone who can find a job.

2. Support measures to make police accountable.

3. Work to repeal the Patriot Act.

4. Support reasonable gun control.

That's really all they need to do to be competitive again.

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #40 on:** October 11, 2016, 01:48:49 PM »

I think with those 4 they'd lose more than they gain.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #41 on:** October 11, 2016, 01:52:37 PM »

Quote from: Emo EMAW on October 11, 2016, 01:48:49 PM

I think with those 4 they'd lose more than they gain.

Who would they lose and where would they go?

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #42 on:** October 11, 2016, 02:10:16 PM »

Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on October 11, 2016, 01:52:37 PM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on October 11, 2016, 01:48:49 PM
I think with those 4 they'd lose more than they gain.

Who would they lose and where would they go?

I think they'd lose the #MakeAmericaGreatAgain folks and they just would go back to not voting (assuming they do vote this time around). I guess the devil is in the details but, using your numbers:

1. This would take tremendous spin. Lots of unemployed white folks looking for a scapegoat.
2. (This is purely judging from my Facebook feed) We are so bipartisan these days, and with every issue you are either for or against, and it seems the more conservative folks are taking a stand in support of the police, against Colin Kaepernick, etc.
3. Okay, I think this would be a small net gain. No one really cares about this stuff as a top 3 issue.
4. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #43 on:** October 11, 2016, 02:12:13 PM »

I think most of the #MAGA people are going to be dead in 10 years, so the republicans are going to lose them no matter what they do.

sys · « **Reply #44 on:** October 11, 2016, 02:13:44 PM »

the idea that magaites are new voters is a myth. they are mostly regular voters (to a certain extent, they were general election only voters that participated in the gop primary this year).

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #45 on:** October 11, 2016, 02:17:12 PM »

I would suspect the MAGA folks actually decreased the median age of the people voting R in the presidential election this year. I think they lost the old Christian conservatives. I haven't seen any data or anything so just going on feel. If you have some I'd love to read it.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #46 on:** October 11, 2016, 02:21:29 PM »

The republicans are getting destroyed with their stance on immigration. I doubt they win another national election until they can get at least 40% of the Latino vote. Their last real chance at a win will be in 4 years.

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #47 on:** October 11, 2016, 02:26:05 PM »

Their stance will always be more conservative than the D stance (amnesty). They won't pick up any net votes until their stance is like amnesty plus admission of all your family still in Mexico.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 11, 2016, 02:35:26 PM »

Hard to compete with free crap hur hur hur

Maybe Republicans should just start small and not call Hispanics mostly rapists and thieves and a few good ones (maybe)

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #49 on:** October 11, 2016, 02:35:47 PM »

Quote from: Emo EMAW on October 11, 2016, 02:26:05 PM

Their stance will always be more conservative than the D stance (amnesty). They won't pick up any net votes until their stance is like amnesty plus admission of all your family still in Mexico.

I don't view amnesty for illegal immigrants who have jobs as a bad thing at all. Their stance should be that if you can get a job, you can stay in the US until you lose that job. That might not be enough to win the Latino vote, but they wouldn't be losing 80-20.