H’s speech just finished and it made me tear up a little.
Peter Porcupinesays
Finally. Thank God it’s over.
Christophersays
jus’ sayin’
Peter Porcupinesays
And the entire news cycle is still consumed by that too.
The media is like touts who continue to try to sell race tickets as the horses pass the clubhouse turn
sabutaisays
Trump will do about as well as Goldwater, but the media will keep pretending it’s a race. Which doesn’t do the less-crazy Republicans running for office any favors.
jconwaysays
Two best speeches of her career. I particularly liked the outreach to Sen. Sanders and his supporters tonight with a focus on a unifying campaign to be waged in all 50 states. We are definitely in the midst of a political realignment and the paradigms of the past will no longer apply.
centralmassdadsays
That seems like a rather significant conclusion, based on the available evidence, which is that a left-wing candidate for President did surprisingly well on the Democratic side, but lost, and that the winning candidate on the GOP side is pure FoxNews. I would define “realignment” as a sea change. Like CA, NY, NJ and MA are solidly GOP; or KS, AK, MS, and UT are solidly Dem; or that the control of lots of state legislatures or governor’s offices changes.
So far, this election looks like all of the others since 2000: in the Presidential race, the solidly blue states are solidly blue, and the solidly red states are solidly red, and the few purple states are in play and will be close, and may ride on the personal idiosyncrasies of the candidates as well as tactical decisions made in the fall; that the Senate may change over by a thin margin; and that neither the House, nor any of the state legislatures are likely to change by much at all.
There was a realignment in the 90s, in which the solidly Democratic Congress became solidly Republican, except for the occasional unsustainable win by Dems; and the solidly GOP Presidence became competitive, with an edge to the Dems that doesn’t guaranty victory.
Mullaley540says
Should this election return Texas to blue, THAT would be a realignment!
Trump’s repulsion of Hispanics is making that a reality — much like Pete Wilson helped turn California blue.
jconwaysays
This Republican primary was supposed to be a clash between conservatives and moderates, and ended up leading to the nomination of a total outsider in neither wing with vague and inconsistent social positions winning on the strength of appeals to blatant racism and bigotry and nationalist appeals. You don’t think future Republicans will follow that template to win the nomination? Even if he loses big this year, how will a Ryan or Romney style candidate win a primary that wants more Trumps?
This isn’t like Goldwater where the moderates can retake control for a decade and have a more charismatic (and people forget pragmatic and palatable) conservative take over in the 80s. This is turning the GOP into a party who’s only goal is defend the future white minority from the emerging majority minority America.
Our coalition will be a coastal and cosmopolitan coalition committed to social inclusivity and fairness, global capitalism with a human face, and tinkering with the market. Even Obama didn’t really alter the Clinton formula on economics, he moved left of the DLC on social policy where there was ample room to do so and seized the mantle of economic centrism from Clinton and foreign policy realism from the HW Bush Republicans. That’s the formula Hillary will likey govern by. It’s a formula this student of history can be patient with, but I doubt my fellow Sanders primary voters will be.
So the Goldwater/Reagan conservatives are politically homeless, the neocons and Rockefeller Republicans will become Democrats for a few cycles, and the Sanders wing will be ascendent presenting risks and opportunities for all involved. If the Bernie movement can start winning Congressional primaries it could have a tea party affect from the left. Which will sow instability in the 60% coalition Hillary is envisioning.
After losing two or three more presidential elections, not an unlikely prospect at this point, I could see the GOP as we know it go the way of the Whigs and the real post-culture war ideology will be between progressive and moderate Democrats who could very fell splinter as the Jefferson-Jackson Democrats did after vanquishing the Federalists, with the populist wing staying put and the Clay/Adams wing becoming the Whigs. We only have a one party dominance for a few decades before the opposition reinvents itself or splinters into new factions. And sometimes the dominant party splinters into factions too as it did during the first party system.
Michael Lind, Matthew Dowd, and others are pointing to this trend.
Many of these predictions could take decades to come true, but like LBJ’s victory over Goldwater was fleeting as his coalition splintered over Vietnam, we will see a real cleaving in the years to come between the Sanders and Clinton wings.
I prefer my grandfathers party system, a coalition system where the working man’s party was the Dems and the owners party was the GOP on economics, even if their northern and western wings disagreed on social questions and foreign policy. Instead we are seeing the final complete inversion of that with this election, as the cosmopolitan ownership class abandons the racist GOP and is comfortable with Clinton Democrats and the white working class succumbs to right wing populism and nationalism. That’s inherently a less stable system open to disruption and change. And it’s also going to lead
to even more polarization. We will see far less Charlie Bakers and Sam Nunns than we used to.
Mullaley540says
Your predictions are definitely within the realm of possibility. But in the short term, Social Security and Medicare will be safe from Republicans.
merrimackguysays
Note “splintering.” as you describe it. is part of a mega-trend. It aligns with what we (societal forward-edge we) want with everything (media, food, transportation, even work, home, relationships) to be in the format, quantity, and time frame that we desire. “The market of one” some people called it years ago. We now want a party and candidates that aligns closely (more closely than before it seems) with our views and we’re not getting it.
So every candidate/elected official seeking reelection, depending on district/state, will need to ignore some part of their party membership, and reach out to a segment of the opposing party. Baker clearly had to do that.
You will probably see (as you hope for) more primaries coming from the left. The GOP hasn’t been shy about launching challengers from the right- centrist Sen Kelly Ayotte in NH has a primary opponent from the right. for example.
jconwaysays
I think it would be healthier for the MA Democrats to be more progressive and for the MA GOP to be more moderate. And of course I think both wings could co exist in my party either as a caucus or group we endorse or as elected members. That’s where ideal policy can be made.
Idealists with big bold plans and pragmatists keeping an eye on the budget and long term effects. In theory this is how liberals and conservatives work together organically to create change. Wouldn’t it be cool if porcupine, you, and some of us lefties were under one roof improving one another’s positions?
Last night Bill Weld said that his ticket was drawing anti-Clinton Bernie supporters from the left and never trump conservatives and moderates from the right. Our membership is close to that, a lot of volunteers voted for Bernie or Kasich, with the Kasich supporters pining for Bloomberg. So if this trend goes national it could make some interesting and strange bedfellows.
I’m still shocked locally that the progressive caucus and GOP don’t work together more against DeLeo in the House. They have the numbers to cause serious damage.
JimCsays
Last night Bill Weld said that his ticket was drawing anti-Clinton Bernie supporters from the left and never trump conservatives and moderates from the right. Our membership is close to that, a lot of volunteers voted for Bernie or Kasich, with the Kasich supporters pining for Bloomberg. So if this trend goes national it could make some interesting and strange bedfellows.
Where else, exactly, would a third party draw supporters? There aren’t that many potential sources since Connecticut for Lieberman shut down.
jconwaysays
Why would Sanders supporters back Johnson, who is diametrically opposed to “statism” let alone socialism, instead of Jill Stein or one of the many “real” socialists running? Why go with Johnson/Weld?
kbuschsays
The 1968 Republican convention was very enthusiastic about Reagan and it was a mixture of pragmatism and Nixon’s pact with Strom Thurmond that won him the nod. They were pretty conservative even then.
jconwaysays
It’s unlikely anyone with that background or pedigree, like Baker for instance, would be on it today. Even Rocky has to be dumped for Dole. But yeah it was transitioning away form being the New Deal lite party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller and towards the western conservatism of Reagan. Nixons political genius was always being in the center of that axis and acceptable to both sides. He signed the EPA but he also tried (and failed thanks to liberal Republican defections) to put an unapologetic segregationist on the bench.
When I was born (1988) there was a substantial minority of truly liberal
or moderate Republicans in office. Many of them in New England. Today there are maybe 5 genuinely centrist house members, and just as many senators. That’s it. I think that’s a huge shift. Granted there are substantially fewer conservative Democrats then there were in 1988 as well.
So will this polarized era, an anomaly compared to the 20th century (which had more polarization within parties rather than between them) continue forever? Hard to say. I think a lot of folks on the left, right and middle feel left behind by what Washington is doing and want something new. Where they go and what that looks like is anyone’s guess.
merrimackguysays
That compares the ideological overlap (on a per member basis) in Congress of the two parties, versus the divided Congress of today.
Those people in the middle formed alliances where “things got done” in prior years.
centralmassdadsays
But what I see is that the GOP has been de facto ideology-free for the better part of 20 years. We have been saying since 2000 that they are nihilist rather than conservative, and in 2016 they remain so. They are going to control most state legislatures, most governorships, the House, and unless Dems are really lucky, the Senate. That doesn’t seem extinct.
I also don’t see much evidence of some split in the Democratic Party either. It seems possible, even likely (based on Sanders’ conduct so far), that the Sanders people are going to hamstring HRC in November. Even if they succeed in tanking the Dem ticket, I don’t see much of a movement there at all. Are the supposedly evil Wall Street Dems in the Congress getting any backlash at all? No. One is about to be elected Minority Leader. The only effort like this at all has been the feeble opposition to Rep. Wasserman-Shultz, and even that has less to do with payday lending than with perceived slights of Bernie Sanders.
Even if they successfully tank the ticket, I just don’t see anything to suggest that Sanders is anything more than Nader 2.0. Movements don’t happen in presidential campaigns. They happen at mid-terms and off-year elections.
Honestly, at this point I have even less respect for the Bernie or Bust types than I did at a similar point of the “No more Republicrat” Nader people. And they, arguably, got a few million people killed and created an awful lot of wounded American veterans.
jconwaysays
I have the opposite reaction to the Sanders Nader comparison. He did a huge service working within the party, though I am annoyed that he have a fairly graceless speech last night in contrast to Clinton. The reality denial on that side is getting annoying.
The key is getting Bernie brigades to vote, run and primary folks in mid terms. If they can do that they are going to be a force, if they won’t, they’ll fade out. Critique the Tea Party for purity all you want, they knew how to wield electoral power and to work within the confines of our existing system. That’s pragmatic means to serve pure ends. The problem with the left is insisting on pure means as well, leading to more drum circles than lefty senators.
merrimackguysays
The parties don’t have philosophies that transcend even local regions. Even in MA there’s claims that we’re really looking at an Middlesex/Suffolk Dem party. Southern and Western state GOP party ideology won’t fly with suburban Republicans in the East or Midwest etc.
It’s obvious why it’s hard to be national. The coalition that gets you to 50+ percent is not a broad swath- it’s targeted groups.
Or maybe the GOP evolves to “get over” losing issues.
Maybe the GOP figures out how to better target their “other.” They figure out how to be tolerant of gays* and talk a better talk about women and Hispanics — focusing their vitrol more narrowly on terrorists, for example. Maybe the GOP figures out that being on the wrong side of climate change science is unsustainable, and instead acknowledge it’s cause and harm and merely debate just what the US should do about it.
Maybe the GOP evolves to become reasonable to people who in 2016 are 40 and under. Because if they can’t figure it out, they will continue to lose ground due to two distinct demographic changes: current 21-40 year olds becoming a larger and larger share of the electorate, and that same electorate becoming less and less white.
Maybe splinter. Maybe evolve.
* to the point of being indifferent, like their relationship with the left handed, for example.
jconwaysays
That’s why if the GOP continues to lose elections it either evolves as the Democrats did with the DLC, which seems highly unlikely to be tolerated by their primary base like it was with the Dems, or it becomes irrelevant with the remaining moderates joining with the Democrats as Jeffords, Specter and McCain nearly did and the rest joining with a rejuvenated libertarian party or something new. The Democrats would then have a presidency or two before they begin to splinter, as it did in the 60s over Vietnam.
Who knows though? The Democrats perservered as a rump regional party for decades after the Civil War only winning the presidency when the Republicans were divided like in 1884 and 1912. The GOP could share the same fate and endure despite it, ironically in much the same territory that eras Democrats were confined to.
centralmassdadsays
I am pretty sure I see one– the Presidential, and that’s always iffy. Dems lost 3 in a row from 1980 to 1988, and it would have been 6 in a row absent Nixon being a paranoid dumbass, without splintering. I am not sure why losing three presidentials in a row will somehow destroy the GOP, particularly when its stranglehold of state legs and, consequently, the Congress, is increasing rather than decreasing.
Dead it ain’t.
jconwaysays
That census won’t make America any whiter, and if their totals with women and minorities stay at the current levels it will begin to negatively effect then downballot after that census.
centralmassdadsays
To draw the districts. That’s the 2018 election. I am skeptical.
I’ve been hearing that the demographics should shift Arizona since Reagan was president. We are still waiting.
And it I suppose the demographic thing will eventually be a factor, but that is something more likely to be seen by my grandkids if I have any than me.
jconwaysays
And it’s an area where progressives just haven’t invested the infrastructure, even to improve blue states as you well know.
Christophersays
…of a majority of pledged delegates tonight. That should seal this deal beyond all doubt.
fredrichlaricciasays
by reaching out to Senator Sanders and his supporters with magnanimity.
We can only hope that they will unite quickly around our common cause for the good of our country.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
JimCsays
it’s seemed inevitable for so long (and for the second time), that we can forget the significance of this. Congratulations to Hillary, and on to November.
methuenprogressivesays
Meets with President Obama.
Meets with Sen. Reid.
Holds rally in D.C.
I sincerely hope Bernie does the right thing Thursday night.
ljtmaldensays
…if he’s consistent with what he said last night, and with his overall message. I listened to both speeches this morning and they were very different–and both very meaningful. Both were about making history and about the future. Both were strong on the importance of defeating Trump (I hope the Bernie or Bust people heard that). Sanders was talking about a movement for change much more than a candidacy. Clinton was talking about organizing–and governing. I’d love to be a fly on the wall at the Obama meeting, and I don’t know what Sanders will decide to do with the platform he (still) has. He knows the nomination won’t be his. But he is taking the movement to the convention. Can I say “I’m with both of them?” I believe they will both have a very beneficial impact on senate and congressional races.
HR's Kevinsays
so the optics may be better for him to drop out of the race before next Tuesday. I don’t think it matters very much either way.
jconwaysays
Which might as well be like Clemenza meeting with Tom Hayden at this point.
johntmaysays
Has been removed from my Scion FR-S….and now, I will wait patiently for at least four years, maybe eight until we can elect the first progressive Democrat in the 21st Century. It will bring a tear to my eye if we manage to get it done.
H’s speech just finished and it made me tear up a little.
Finally. Thank God it’s over.
jus’ sayin’
And the entire news cycle is still consumed by that too.
The media is like touts who continue to try to sell race tickets as the horses pass the clubhouse turn
Trump will do about as well as Goldwater, but the media will keep pretending it’s a race. Which doesn’t do the less-crazy Republicans running for office any favors.
Two best speeches of her career. I particularly liked the outreach to Sen. Sanders and his supporters tonight with a focus on a unifying campaign to be waged in all 50 states. We are definitely in the midst of a political realignment and the paradigms of the past will no longer apply.
That seems like a rather significant conclusion, based on the available evidence, which is that a left-wing candidate for President did surprisingly well on the Democratic side, but lost, and that the winning candidate on the GOP side is pure FoxNews. I would define “realignment” as a sea change. Like CA, NY, NJ and MA are solidly GOP; or KS, AK, MS, and UT are solidly Dem; or that the control of lots of state legislatures or governor’s offices changes.
So far, this election looks like all of the others since 2000: in the Presidential race, the solidly blue states are solidly blue, and the solidly red states are solidly red, and the few purple states are in play and will be close, and may ride on the personal idiosyncrasies of the candidates as well as tactical decisions made in the fall; that the Senate may change over by a thin margin; and that neither the House, nor any of the state legislatures are likely to change by much at all.
There was a realignment in the 90s, in which the solidly Democratic Congress became solidly Republican, except for the occasional unsustainable win by Dems; and the solidly GOP Presidence became competitive, with an edge to the Dems that doesn’t guaranty victory.
Should this election return Texas to blue, THAT would be a realignment!
Trump’s repulsion of Hispanics is making that a reality — much like Pete Wilson helped turn California blue.
This Republican primary was supposed to be a clash between conservatives and moderates, and ended up leading to the nomination of a total outsider in neither wing with vague and inconsistent social positions winning on the strength of appeals to blatant racism and bigotry and nationalist appeals. You don’t think future Republicans will follow that template to win the nomination? Even if he loses big this year, how will a Ryan or Romney style candidate win a primary that wants more Trumps?
This isn’t like Goldwater where the moderates can retake control for a decade and have a more charismatic (and people forget pragmatic and palatable) conservative take over in the 80s. This is turning the GOP into a party who’s only goal is defend the future white minority from the emerging majority minority America.
Our coalition will be a coastal and cosmopolitan coalition committed to social inclusivity and fairness, global capitalism with a human face, and tinkering with the market. Even Obama didn’t really alter the Clinton formula on economics, he moved left of the DLC on social policy where there was ample room to do so and seized the mantle of economic centrism from Clinton and foreign policy realism from the HW Bush Republicans. That’s the formula Hillary will likey govern by. It’s a formula this student of history can be patient with, but I doubt my fellow Sanders primary voters will be.
So the Goldwater/Reagan conservatives are politically homeless, the neocons and Rockefeller Republicans will become Democrats for a few cycles, and the Sanders wing will be ascendent presenting risks and opportunities for all involved. If the Bernie movement can start winning Congressional primaries it could have a tea party affect from the left. Which will sow instability in the 60% coalition Hillary is envisioning.
After losing two or three more presidential elections, not an unlikely prospect at this point, I could see the GOP as we know it go the way of the Whigs and the real post-culture war ideology will be between progressive and moderate Democrats who could very fell splinter as the Jefferson-Jackson Democrats did after vanquishing the Federalists, with the populist wing staying put and the Clay/Adams wing becoming the Whigs. We only have a one party dominance for a few decades before the opposition reinvents itself or splinters into new factions. And sometimes the dominant party splinters into factions too as it did during the first party system.
Michael Lind, Matthew Dowd, and others are pointing to this trend.
Many of these predictions could take decades to come true, but like LBJ’s victory over Goldwater was fleeting as his coalition splintered over Vietnam, we will see a real cleaving in the years to come between the Sanders and Clinton wings.
I prefer my grandfathers party system, a coalition system where the working man’s party was the Dems and the owners party was the GOP on economics, even if their northern and western wings disagreed on social questions and foreign policy. Instead we are seeing the final complete inversion of that with this election, as the cosmopolitan ownership class abandons the racist GOP and is comfortable with Clinton Democrats and the white working class succumbs to right wing populism and nationalism. That’s inherently a less stable system open to disruption and change. And it’s also going to lead
to even more polarization. We will see far less Charlie Bakers and Sam Nunns than we used to.
Your predictions are definitely within the realm of possibility. But in the short term, Social Security and Medicare will be safe from Republicans.
Note “splintering.” as you describe it. is part of a mega-trend. It aligns with what we (societal forward-edge we) want with everything (media, food, transportation, even work, home, relationships) to be in the format, quantity, and time frame that we desire. “The market of one” some people called it years ago. We now want a party and candidates that aligns closely (more closely than before it seems) with our views and we’re not getting it.
So every candidate/elected official seeking reelection, depending on district/state, will need to ignore some part of their party membership, and reach out to a segment of the opposing party. Baker clearly had to do that.
You will probably see (as you hope for) more primaries coming from the left. The GOP hasn’t been shy about launching challengers from the right- centrist Sen Kelly Ayotte in NH has a primary opponent from the right. for example.
I think it would be healthier for the MA Democrats to be more progressive and for the MA GOP to be more moderate. And of course I think both wings could co exist in my party either as a caucus or group we endorse or as elected members. That’s where ideal policy can be made.
Idealists with big bold plans and pragmatists keeping an eye on the budget and long term effects. In theory this is how liberals and conservatives work together organically to create change. Wouldn’t it be cool if porcupine, you, and some of us lefties were under one roof improving one another’s positions?
Last night Bill Weld said that his ticket was drawing anti-Clinton Bernie supporters from the left and never trump conservatives and moderates from the right. Our membership is close to that, a lot of volunteers voted for Bernie or Kasich, with the Kasich supporters pining for Bloomberg. So if this trend goes national it could make some interesting and strange bedfellows.
I’m still shocked locally that the progressive caucus and GOP don’t work together more against DeLeo in the House. They have the numbers to cause serious damage.
Where else, exactly, would a third party draw supporters? There aren’t that many potential sources since Connecticut for Lieberman shut down.
Why would Sanders supporters back Johnson, who is diametrically opposed to “statism” let alone socialism, instead of Jill Stein or one of the many “real” socialists running? Why go with Johnson/Weld?
The 1968 Republican convention was very enthusiastic about Reagan and it was a mixture of pragmatism and Nixon’s pact with Strom Thurmond that won him the nod. They were pretty conservative even then.
It’s unlikely anyone with that background or pedigree, like Baker for instance, would be on it today. Even Rocky has to be dumped for Dole. But yeah it was transitioning away form being the New Deal lite party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller and towards the western conservatism of Reagan. Nixons political genius was always being in the center of that axis and acceptable to both sides. He signed the EPA but he also tried (and failed thanks to liberal Republican defections) to put an unapologetic segregationist on the bench.
When I was born (1988) there was a substantial minority of truly liberal
or moderate Republicans in office. Many of them in New England. Today there are maybe 5 genuinely centrist house members, and just as many senators. That’s it. I think that’s a huge shift. Granted there are substantially fewer conservative Democrats then there were in 1988 as well.
So will this polarized era, an anomaly compared to the 20th century (which had more polarization within parties rather than between them) continue forever? Hard to say. I think a lot of folks on the left, right and middle feel left behind by what Washington is doing and want something new. Where they go and what that looks like is anyone’s guess.
That compares the ideological overlap (on a per member basis) in Congress of the two parties, versus the divided Congress of today.
Those people in the middle formed alliances where “things got done” in prior years.
But what I see is that the GOP has been de facto ideology-free for the better part of 20 years. We have been saying since 2000 that they are nihilist rather than conservative, and in 2016 they remain so. They are going to control most state legislatures, most governorships, the House, and unless Dems are really lucky, the Senate. That doesn’t seem extinct.
I also don’t see much evidence of some split in the Democratic Party either. It seems possible, even likely (based on Sanders’ conduct so far), that the Sanders people are going to hamstring HRC in November. Even if they succeed in tanking the Dem ticket, I don’t see much of a movement there at all. Are the supposedly evil Wall Street Dems in the Congress getting any backlash at all? No. One is about to be elected Minority Leader. The only effort like this at all has been the feeble opposition to Rep. Wasserman-Shultz, and even that has less to do with payday lending than with perceived slights of Bernie Sanders.
Even if they successfully tank the ticket, I just don’t see anything to suggest that Sanders is anything more than Nader 2.0. Movements don’t happen in presidential campaigns. They happen at mid-terms and off-year elections.
Honestly, at this point I have even less respect for the Bernie or Bust types than I did at a similar point of the “No more Republicrat” Nader people. And they, arguably, got a few million people killed and created an awful lot of wounded American veterans.
I have the opposite reaction to the Sanders Nader comparison. He did a huge service working within the party, though I am annoyed that he have a fairly graceless speech last night in contrast to Clinton. The reality denial on that side is getting annoying.
The key is getting Bernie brigades to vote, run and primary folks in mid terms. If they can do that they are going to be a force, if they won’t, they’ll fade out. Critique the Tea Party for purity all you want, they knew how to wield electoral power and to work within the confines of our existing system. That’s pragmatic means to serve pure ends. The problem with the left is insisting on pure means as well, leading to more drum circles than lefty senators.
The parties don’t have philosophies that transcend even local regions. Even in MA there’s claims that we’re really looking at an Middlesex/Suffolk Dem party. Southern and Western state GOP party ideology won’t fly with suburban Republicans in the East or Midwest etc.
It’s obvious why it’s hard to be national. The coalition that gets you to 50+ percent is not a broad swath- it’s targeted groups.
Or maybe the GOP evolves to “get over” losing issues.
Maybe the GOP figures out how to better target their “other.” They figure out how to be tolerant of gays* and talk a better talk about women and Hispanics — focusing their vitrol more narrowly on terrorists, for example. Maybe the GOP figures out that being on the wrong side of climate change science is unsustainable, and instead acknowledge it’s cause and harm and merely debate just what the US should do about it.
Maybe the GOP evolves to become reasonable to people who in 2016 are 40 and under. Because if they can’t figure it out, they will continue to lose ground due to two distinct demographic changes: current 21-40 year olds becoming a larger and larger share of the electorate, and that same electorate becoming less and less white.
Maybe splinter. Maybe evolve.
* to the point of being indifferent, like their relationship with the left handed, for example.
That’s why if the GOP continues to lose elections it either evolves as the Democrats did with the DLC, which seems highly unlikely to be tolerated by their primary base like it was with the Dems, or it becomes irrelevant with the remaining moderates joining with the Democrats as Jeffords, Specter and McCain nearly did and the rest joining with a rejuvenated libertarian party or something new. The Democrats would then have a presidency or two before they begin to splinter, as it did in the 60s over Vietnam.
Who knows though? The Democrats perservered as a rump regional party for decades after the Civil War only winning the presidency when the Republicans were divided like in 1884 and 1912. The GOP could share the same fate and endure despite it, ironically in much the same territory that eras Democrats were confined to.
I am pretty sure I see one– the Presidential, and that’s always iffy. Dems lost 3 in a row from 1980 to 1988, and it would have been 6 in a row absent Nixon being a paranoid dumbass, without splintering. I am not sure why losing three presidentials in a row will somehow destroy the GOP, particularly when its stranglehold of state legs and, consequently, the Congress, is increasing rather than decreasing.
Dead it ain’t.
That census won’t make America any whiter, and if their totals with women and minorities stay at the current levels it will begin to negatively effect then downballot after that census.
To draw the districts. That’s the 2018 election. I am skeptical.
I’ve been hearing that the demographics should shift Arizona since Reagan was president. We are still waiting.
And it I suppose the demographic thing will eventually be a factor, but that is something more likely to be seen by my grandkids if I have any than me.
And it’s an area where progressives just haven’t invested the infrastructure, even to improve blue states as you well know.
…of a majority of pledged delegates tonight. That should seal this deal beyond all doubt.
by reaching out to Senator Sanders and his supporters with magnanimity.
We can only hope that they will unite quickly around our common cause for the good of our country.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
it’s seemed inevitable for so long (and for the second time), that we can forget the significance of this. Congratulations to Hillary, and on to November.
Meets with President Obama.
Meets with Sen. Reid.
Holds rally in D.C.
I sincerely hope Bernie does the right thing Thursday night.
…if he’s consistent with what he said last night, and with his overall message. I listened to both speeches this morning and they were very different–and both very meaningful. Both were about making history and about the future. Both were strong on the importance of defeating Trump (I hope the Bernie or Bust people heard that). Sanders was talking about a movement for change much more than a candidacy. Clinton was talking about organizing–and governing. I’d love to be a fly on the wall at the Obama meeting, and I don’t know what Sanders will decide to do with the platform he (still) has. He knows the nomination won’t be his. But he is taking the movement to the convention. Can I say “I’m with both of them?” I believe they will both have a very beneficial impact on senate and congressional races.
so the optics may be better for him to drop out of the race before next Tuesday. I don’t think it matters very much either way.
Which might as well be like Clemenza meeting with Tom Hayden at this point.
Has been removed from my Scion FR-S….and now, I will wait patiently for at least four years, maybe eight until we can elect the first progressive Democrat in the 21st Century. It will bring a tear to my eye if we manage to get it done.