Has the regeneracy arrived?

[Mikebert]

[X_4AD_84] No, not yet. It has not arrived. There has not been anything sufficient to unify around.  I'm not suggesting 100% of the people will become aligned. But I do believe a substantial majority will.  We'll know it when we see it.

[Mike]This concept of unity has been misleading forum members for 16 years.  The unity is formed around the successful faction in the intra-societal conflict that forms the core of the 4T.  That is it happens AFTER the conflict ends, and the ideology of the winning faction becomes the ideology about which unification occurs.

The resolution of this conflict can occur at anything during the 4T or even after.  It can happen early, e.g. 1781, which was closer to the start than the end of the 1773-1794 4T. It can happen late, e.g. 1876*, which was in the 1865-1886 1T. For the last 4T, unification came in 1942 with WW II.

It is abundantly clear that this conflict is still going on now and unification is in the future.  According to S&H's Civil War dating, this can actually happen after the 4T is over, so we can conclude nothing about the timing of the current 4T based on the absence of unity. 

Now I do not agree with S&H's Civil War dates.  I prefer Dave Krein's 1860-1877 date, since this corresponds to the values given in the literature.  In this case unification would always be a 4T phenomenon, which can happen as late as  the end of the 4T.  In fact, one can argue that this unification, as signified by the deal made to resolve the 1876 election (end Reconstruction in exchange for letting the Republican candidate who did not win the popular vote become president) ended the 4T when the troops were withdrawn in 1877.

For the current 4T, we have had two opportunities for unification so far.  In 2001 we had 911.  The Red faction got the credit for the response (WoT) which was seen as unsuccessful by some as early as 2002 (Tora Bora) and by most people by 2006 (Dem landslide leading to Rumsfeld getting axed).  In 2008 we had the financial crisis.  The Blue faction got the credit for the response (Wall St. bailout and stimulus) which was advertised as preventing the worst-case situation of 10% unemployment. It was seen as unsuccessful by some in 2009 when the worst case unemployment happened anyways and by most people in 2010 (the 2010 landslide). 

The 2016 election has seen the phenomenon of Donald Trump, a Republican nominee who has utterly rejected the core ideology of the Republican party since 1980. Such an unbelievable situation suggests things are different now, implying that some sort of resolution will come soon, probably in the next presidential term, followed by a rally around the winner that will move us into the 1T. 

I think it will take the following form.  In the next few years a crisis will occur, it might be another financial panic, a terrorist attack, an environmental catastrophe, etc. The crisis will either be addressed successfully or not.  If it is addressed, unity will form around the faction seen as responsible for performing the successful policy, probably the faction represented by the president. If it is not addressed, unity will form around the faction opposed to the faction seen as responsible for failing to address the crisis.  In this case the solution will actually be implemented in the 1T.

*The Civil War did not resolve the issues of the the Civil War as shown by what I call the Klan Wars (1866-1876) which followed immediately after. The Klan wars which  resulted in nearly 2000 killed in 177 separate episodes of internal sociopolitical instability.  This period was the third most deadly episode of internal conflict after the Civil and Revolutionary wars.

[Kinser79]

(05-17-2016, 09:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well...  Idealist dreams have been known to fail disastrously, but in general I'll not argue against dreams.

The best of idealists speculate on what one ought to want, the best of materialists speculate on how to get it.  Unfortunately there are many idealists who reject reality.  I'll leave those on the forum like that nameless.  I'm sure you already know which Obtuse person I'm referring to.

Quote:An argument over land between Saxon and Norman has nothing to do with progress.  That's just humans being humans, the bloody Agricultural Age status quo.  If Robber Barons are trying to take power away from agricultural land owners, or if advocates of democracy are taking power away from kings, then you can talk about progress from the perspective of a Whig.  I see many crises in the Anglo-American series being about a transition from the basic Agricultural Age pattern to the Industrial Age pattern.  If you go back before the Black Plague and printing press, the Whig march of progress hasn't really started.

Arguably, with the suppression of the last fascist and communist major powers, the Robber Barons have essentially won the contest with the autocratic tyrants.  It is time and past time when the arrow of progress involves taking power away from the Robber Barons.  How to go about that successfully is the question.

But within the time where the democracies were suppressing the tyrants, yes, there was an arrow of progress.

But here is the rub, wherever there is an elite, and I think it arguable that excluding hunter-gatherer societies there will be an elite that elite is subject to corruption and abuse.  This existed in the Agriculutral age (which is perhaps three ages rather than one), the Industrial age, and whatever you'd call our current age.

As it stands, I really can't tell the difference between Normans and Saxons.  

Quote:Do you ever go back and re-read your own posts?

All the time.  I still don't bash boomers, I merely tell the truth about them.  That truth isn't pretty.

Quote:

(05-16-2016, 07:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: You mean there is conceivably something good to be said about Bush 43?

There are rumors that he once loved his mother?

Perhaps.  Sounds unsubstantiated to me

Quote:I don't see it as good will.  I see it as self interest.  During the bipolar Cold War era, it was in the interests of the Europeans, Japanese and Koreans to support the US.  After the Berlin Wall came down, not so much.  This is one of those things that ought to be obvious with 20 20 hindsight but might be impossible to see in real time when one is a veteran politician who has seen the world work in a particular way for his entire career.  This is the blindness of a long established world view in action.

Or at least that's the closest I can come to an excuse for the Bush 43 administration.  They had a lot of experienced and well educated people setting their policies, yet they blew it and their leader is commonly perceived of as an idiot.  I tried at the time to find a plausible reason for the mistake.  The best I could come up with is a Cold War world view setting up an expectation of how the world would react, when in fact the world had changed...  big time.

In the context of the Cold War and Korea it was/is self-interest.  In the absence of the Cold War American presence is viewed with suspicion, at best, outside the Anglosphere, and is present even there to a lesser degree.  As for why Bush 43 and his administration failed and are viewed as idiots there is probably a two fold reason.

1.  They expected the world to react in the context of the cold war, which it didn't due to the absence of the cold war.

2.  After the passing from political life the generations that lived through WW2, the newer younger generations were growing tired of continued US presence.

[Mikebert]

(05-15-2016, 12:31 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but in the 1930s congress was just as divided.  FDR himself was called everything under the sun.  That is a feature of our particular system, not a bug, so getting around it isn't that much of a problem.

Sure, my own grandfather referred to FDR as "that man".  But the numbers tell a different story.  In 1930 the GOP held the presidency and 60% of both houses.  In 1937 Democrats held the presidency and EIGHTY percent of both house.  Democrats could pass anything they wanted with a two-thirds majority of Democrats.  Republicans were a non-issue and could be ignored.  The faction they had to pay attention to was the South.  Southern Democrats were strongly in favor of New Deal social welfare programs because Northerners paid for it while the benefits went disproportionately to the South, which was desperately poor at the time.  The only stumbling block for them was racial politics.  As long as FDR did not interfere with Jim Crow and designed his programs to exclude blacks, they were on board. 

FDR's stumbling block was the Republican Supreme Court.  But in the end they capitulated just like today's Republican Court capitulated on Obamacare and gay marriage.

[Mikebert]

(05-15-2016, 12:31 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: That being said, I would say that a regeneracy is noted by a recognition that the status quo is not working, and cannot be made to work by tinkering around the edges.  

I don't think this is right.  It has been recognized for a long time that the status was not working and that fundamental change is necessary.  But, as the bearded Spock would say, "one must have the power".  FDR had 80% majorities in both houses.  Obama had a 60% majority in one house for less than six months, and has faced Republican control of the House for 3/4's of his term.  There is no "recognition" involved, it is a matter of winning the political war. 

Sanders understands this aspect, but ran a losing campaign.  He might have won with a decent message.  But his message of raise taxes and hand out goodies is basically saying there is nothing wrong with our system that a thicker safety net can solve.  What kind of a socialist says this?

Its true that the New Deal involved a lot of Sanderesque goodies.  But that is not all the New Dealers did.  The important work they did was in the structural changes to the economy they initiated.  They greatly enabled the labor movement.  They passed higher taxes.  They got the Fed to directly target long-term rates, and deliberated manipulated the labor markets so as to compress the real wage distribution, boosting those on the bottom up, and reducing those at the top.  The took an economy with high inequality and by government order, made it far more equal.  This was deliberate policy ordered by FDR.

Sanders could have talked much more about programs that would hire people to do needed stuff, like fix our cities water systems so shot like Flint doesn't happen anymore.  During the 1930's the Socialist government of Milwaukee built public baths called natatoriums so that the population who did not have indoor plumbing had a place to bathe and swim for recreation.  I learned to swim in one of these.  Every school, private or public had a school nurse, provided by the City of Milwaukee department of public health. MDPH gave out vaccinations free of charge.  I got my polio shots at an inner city junior high school in the early 1960's.  Milwaukee had a bus system (and earlier, street cars)  with lines running on a grid, rather than a spoke model, so that one could get from anywhere to anywhere in the city, often with just one transfer.  I learned this system as a child and used it to do my gift shopping on my own, I didn't need someone to drive me places.  This is the sort of system poor folks need, the spoke model is designed for commuters only--it assumes they have a car at home with which they do their shopping.

Socialists of that time were all about clean government and public works, so much so they got called "sewer socialists".  We did not have the mob violence like Chicago because unlike Chicago's Democrats, Milwaukee's socialists could not be bribed.

[Mikebert]

[Kinser]It is my view that following this election the GOP will become, however, begrudgingly the party of social libertarianism and of nationalism, protectionism and isolationism, and that further this will be the basis of building the new order.  

[Mike] I don’t see this as possible. Nationalism comes with social conservatism.  In fact it is a kind of conservatism.  It makes far more sense for the GOP to become the party of social conservatism, nationalism, protectionism, isolationism and white people.  In fact this is more or less the Trump faction right now.

The question would be where does the business and labor factions go?  I would argue Labor will go to the party Business does not choose.  Business is pretty much OK with social liberalism, and could find a place in the Democratic party, if they were willing to shed some of their more extreme economic libertarian views.  Business did just that in the Eisenhower and Nixon years. If they were willing to do this, the Democrats could become the  party of big business, high taxes (with  balanced budget), public infrastructure, social liberalism, open borders, and minorities.  And Labor would then go to the Republicans.

That is, the Republicans would more or less become old-style Democrats, the party of Jackson, Jefferson and FDR. The Democrats would become old-style Republican/Whig/Federalist, the party of Lincoln, Hamilton and T. Roosevelt.

Note I don’t want this to happen, but it seems a lot easier since we are pretty close to that now.

[pbrower2a]

(05-19-2016, 09:41 AM)Mikebert Wrote: [Kinser]It is my view that following this election the GOP will become, however, begrudgingly the party of social libertarianism and of nationalism, protectionism and isolationism, and that further this will be the basis of building the new order.  

[Mike] I don’t see this as possible. Nationalism comes with social conservatism.  In fact it is a kind of conservatism.  It makes far more sense for the GOP to become the party of social conservatism, nationalism, protectionism, isolationism and white people.  In fact this is more or less the Trump faction right now.

The question would be where does the business and labor factions go?  I would argue Labor will go to the party Business does not choose.  Business is pretty much OK with social liberalism, and could find a place in the Democratic party, if they were willing to shed some of their more extreme economic libertarian views.  Business did just that in the Eisenhower and Nixon years. If they were willing to do this, the Democrats could become the  party of big business, high taxes (with  balanced budget), public infrastructure, social liberalism, open borders, and minorities.  And Labor would then go to the Republicans.

That is, the Republicans would more or less become old-style Democrats, the party of Jackson, Jefferson and FDR. The Democrats would become old-style Republican/Whig/Federalist, the party of Lincoln, Hamilton and T. Roosevelt.

Note I don’t want this to happen, but it seems a lot easier since we are pretty close to that now.

Does this say something?

100 years apart, overlay between William Howard Taft and Barack Obama, 1908/2008.

Taft ® 51.6/321 - Bryan (D) 43.0/162 - Debs (S) 2.8/0
Obama (D) 52.9/365- McCain ® 45.6/173

Similar percentages of the electoral vote for the winners.



Taft/ McCain blue
Taft/Obama yellow
Bryan/Obama red
Bryan/McCain green

Bryan won all of the former secessionist states, Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Nevada.  Bryan won seven states by 9% or less; Taft won six states by 9% or less.  Other states were blow-outs.

Clearly different in 1908 from a century later: Alaska, Arizona, Dee Cee,  Hawaii, and New Mexico weren't voting. There was no television or even radio in 1908. Above all, several Southern states did not have free and fair elections (blacks were effectively barred from voting).

...The political parties of a century ago aren't what they are today. Or even between Eisenhower and Obama:




dark blue -- Republican all four times
light blue -- Eisenhower twice, Obama once
light green -- Eisenhower once, Obama never
dark green -- Eisenhower never, Obama never
pink -- Eisenhower never, Obama once

No state went Democratic all four times, so I show no true red here.

(I assume that the Nebraska districts including Greater Omaha would have gone to Eisenhower).
white -- Eisenhower and Obama twice)

I am tempted to believe that many of the people of some swing demographics that voted for Eisenhower voted for Barack Obama. Republicans used to have a huge advantage among people with above-average incomes, and that was reversed in 2008. As a proxy for economic success, an above-average level of formal education made one a likely voter for the Republican nominee for President until about 2008. Barack Obama had a huge advantage among such people.

You will also notice that Taft and Eisenhower won some states that long went Democratic except in Republican blowouts, Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the only non-Southern states that voted against  Herbert Hoover in 1928; Massachusetts and Minnesota were the only states that Nixon lost in 1972 and Reagan lost in 1984, those being the two worst states for the Republican winners of 49-state blowouts. It is not a surprise that Obama won those -- the surprise is that Eisenhower won those twice.

(Of course Eisenhower and Obama seem to have similar temperaments as President, which may say much about the generational cycle despite the vastly-different curricula vitae of the two Presidents. I also see them similarly competent).

[Mikebert]

The Obama = Roosevelt/Taft (1904-1912) cycle match is one of the options I considered.  Here is how that looks:

Year         Event              Year         Event
1912        Wilson wins      2016        Clinton wins  
1919        Red Summer     2019        BLM explodes in riots across the nation
1919-20   Red Scare         2017-20   Terror paranoia
1918        Sedition Act      2018        Law enabling American citizens to be sent to Gitmo
1919-20   9 terror attacks  2018-20    ISIS inspired terror attacks
1920        unrest peak       2020        unrest peak
1920        Harding wins     2020       Trump-style Republican wins
1921-4    Immigration red. 2021-4     Immigration reduced.
1930       Tariiff boosted    2021        Free trade abandoned
1929       Depression         2026        Depression
1932       Dem landslide     2028        Dem Landslide
1930  End of Sec Cycle      2030        End of Sec cycle

Looks beguiling, with a fair number of parallels that mostly make some sense.  For example 1919 was a time of racial unrest, I could see that happening in the next four years.  1918-20 was a time of terrorism and terror paranoia, I can see that today.  Immigration and trade got shut down over 1921-30.  I can see that happening today also.  But then this is Karl Rove's idea and he is an idiot, so there is that.  Also 1896 was a critical election and 2000 sure as hell was not.  On the other hand, Iraq sure looks like Philippines.  And Bush looks like a Republican Progressive (No Child Left behind/Medicare drug benefit).  Obama does not fit in with Taft though.  Obama is more consequential, more like Wilson when we got Fed Reserve (= Dodd-Frank) Income Tax (=Obama care) Woman's Suffrage (=gay marriage).  Note: this scenario is based entirely on the secular cycle, it ignores the the S&H dynamics.  I don't think this is valid. 

The scenario below is mostly based on the saeculum and K-cycle with only a minor input from the secular cycle.

There is the possibility that Trump wins.  This would make 2016=1920.  Obama now is Wilson, Sanders is Eugene Debs (his hero).  Clinton is the hapless Democrat (Davis I think).  Trump then comes in and curtails immigration and free trade, just like last time.  The market crashes during his first term and we get a panic.  Trump goes along with what Congress wants and we get a depression (this is the 1920-21 depression in secular time, but the 1929-33 depression in saecular time). 

1932 happens in 2020. Elizabeth Warren wins in a landslide and implements the Depression fix in her first term (even Larry Summers(!) is starting to see what is necessary--it is that obvious).  The 4T ends in 2024, 16 years after the the start of K-winter (last cycle the 4T ended 17 years after).  The saeculum then ends in 2024 at 78 years in length, right on the money.

If Trump wins it would seem that 2008 is not a critical election, as I think it is  But if we apply Marc Lamb's 40-year rule, then Obama =Nixon, Trump = Carter and Warren = Reagan.  She would serve two terms and if she is followed by a Democrat=Bush then the analogy works.  In this case 2008 would be critical in the same way 1968 is and 2020 would be critical in the way 1980 is.  Both occur in a social moment turnings like 1968/1980 and the critical election problem is solved.

I really love this scenario. everything fits...But I don't think Trump is going to win.


If I assume a Clinton victory it is really a mess.  That is why I think she will win.*  But if folks like Kinser manage to elect Trump, well I will then wait for the market to reach my targets and then buy--I could end up doing very well. This is the strongest reason for believing that it will not work out this way, my bad luck is legendary.

*Also I want her to win.  I am not a misanthrope.

[JonLaw]

(05-19-2016, 09:41 AM)Mikebert Wrote: That is, the Republicans would more or less become old-style Democrats, the party of Jackson, Jefferson and FDR. The Democrats would become old-style Republican/Whig/Federalist, the party of Lincoln, Hamilton and T. Roosevelt.

Note I don’t want this to happen, but it seems a lot easier since we are pretty close to that now.

The Republican party is transforming into the party of labor as we speak. You can pretty much watch it in real time as the Establishment Republicans keep talking about how they are leaving the party/voting for Clinton/in denial about economic reality.

It's fun to watch. You might as well enjoy watching it, since you can't unring the bell.

The Republican party is the more democratic party, hence Trump.

The Democratic party is more controlled by the political elites, which means that labor is not going to take it over. The salaried professionals who make up the Democratic party elite think labor is some sort of combination of sad/icky because they are paid by the hour to do non-awesome things.

[Eric the Green]

(08-02-2016, 02:58 PM)JonLaw Wrote:

(05-19-2016, 09:41 AM)Mikebert Wrote: That is, the Republicans would more or less become old-style Democrats, the party of Jackson, Jefferson and FDR. The Democrats would become old-style Republican/Whig/Federalist, the party of Lincoln, Hamilton and T. Roosevelt.

Note I don’t want this to happen, but it seems a lot easier since we are pretty close to that now.

The Republican party is transforming into the party of labor as we speak. You can pretty much watch it in real time as the Establishment Republicans keep talking about how they are leaving the party/voting for Clinton/in denial about economic reality.

It's fun to watch. You might as well enjoy watching it, since you can't unring the bell.

The Republican party is the more democratic party, hence Trump.

The Democratic party is more controlled by the political elites, which means that labor is not going to take it over. The salaried professionals who make up the Democratic party elite think labor is some sort of combination of sad/icky because they are paid by the hour to do non-awesome things.

The Republican Party remains controlled by the billionaire corporate upper 1%, which is whom they represent. Trump's policies only boost their power. Trump and his GOP congress would lower their taxes and regulations precipitously. Trump also wants more military spending, which will be great for the 1%'s military industrial complex. He wants to curb immigration and keep out refugees, which will hurt the economy and thus labor, of all ethnicities, not just Mexicans and Muslims. He will not carry out his policies on trade, because he will revert to his ways and use the system for his own benefit as he has always done. A hypocrite cannot be a champion of labor. No, Hillary is the one who will enforce fair trade, if we keep the pressure on her to do so. A Trump Supreme Court will keep the billionaires buying our elections, taking away our voting rights, ruining our climate and abusing labor.

Some Establishment Republicans are deserting Trump, but others support him even as they denounce what he says. "Political elites" are not the Establishment; they are whom the people elect. They are our representatives. To the extent that the Establishment can fool the people into voting against their interests, using slogans of freedom from big government and taxes, and racist dog-whistles, then the Establishment's Republican representatives get into office and represent the Establishment. It is up to the people not to be fooled again, and stop voting the Establishment's representatives, the Republicans and Trump, into office again and again as they have done for 36 years and counting.

Those "sad/icky" labor folks, like I once was, had better realize which party represents their interests. Every policy of the Democratic Party favors them, and every policy of the Republican hoodlums is against them. They had better support the Democratic Party's safety-net and retraining programs, and not fall for the dog whistles about welfare, immigrants and taxes, because otherwise they will have nothing, as the "non-awesome things" they do get more and more taken over by the Establishment's computers and by the new green energy companies.

[radind]

(08-02-2016, 04:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 02:58 PM)JonLaw Wrote:

(05-19-2016, 09:41 AM)Mikebert Wrote: That is, the Republicans would more or less become old-style Democrats, the party of Jackson, Jefferson and FDR. The Democrats would become old-style Republican/Whig/Federalist, the party of Lincoln, Hamilton and T. Roosevelt.

Note I don’t want this to happen, but it seems a lot easier since we are pretty close to that now.

The Republican party is transforming into the party of labor as we speak.  You can pretty much watch it in real time as the Establishment Republicans keep talking about how they are leaving the party/voting for Clinton/in denial about economic reality.

It's fun to watch.  You might as well enjoy watching it, since you can't unring the bell.

The Republican party is the more democratic party, hence Trump.

The Democratic party is more controlled by the political elites, which means that labor is not going to take it over.  The salaried professionals who make up the Democratic party elite think labor is some sort of combination of sad/icky because they are paid by the hour to do non-awesome things.

The Republican Party remains controlled by the billionaire corporate upper 1%, which is whom they represent. Trump's policies only boost their power. Trump and his GOP congress would lower their taxes and regulations precipitously. Trump also wants more military spending, which will be great for the 1%'s military industrial complex. He wants to curb immigration and keep out refugees, which will hurt the economy and thus labor, of all ethnicities, not just Mexicans and Muslims. He will not carry out his policies on trade, because he will revert to his ways and use the system for his own benefit as he has always done. A hypocrite cannot be a champion of labor. No, Hillary is the one who will enforce fair trade, if we keep the pressure on her to do so. A Trump Supreme Court will keep the billionaires buying our elections, taking away our voting rights, ruining our climate and abusing labor.

Some Establishment Republicans are deserting Trump, but others support him even as they denounce what he says. "Political elites" are not the Establishment; they are whom the people elect. They are our representatives. To the extent that the Establishment can fool the people into voting against their interests, using slogans of freedom from big government and taxes, and racist dog-whistles, then the Establishment's Republican representatives get into office and represent the Establishment. It is up to the people not to be fooled again, and stop voting the Establishment's representatives, the Republicans and Trump, into office again and again as they have done for 36 years and counting.

Those "sad/icky" labor folks, like I once was, had better realize which party represents their interests. Every policy of the Democratic Party favors them, and every policy of the Republican hoodlums is against them. They had better support the Democratic Party's safety-net and retraining programs, and not fall for the dog whistles about welfare, immigrants and taxes, because otherwise they will have nothing, as the "non-awesome things" they do get more and more taken over by the Establishment's computers and by the new green energy companies.

You ignore all the big money going to Clinton. It is not the GOP vs the people. It is all the super wealthy in both parties vs the people.

[Mikebert]

In response to Jon Law about GOP becoming the labor party:

I have thought along these lines.  But you are neglecting a couple of key elements. One is Corporate America.  The Republican party (and their Whig forebearers) has been the party of corporations since before there were corporations.  Where do they go, Democrats? To the party of government regulation? Seriously?  Think about how many constituencies the Democrats would have to alienate to make a bid for corporate America.

Also the core of Labor are immigrants.  Long-time American workers with enough on the ball to organize are no longer unskilled working class (the sort of worker who most benefits from a union).  Immigrants combine energy and moxie with a lower-end jobs. An American Labor party must necessarily be pro-immigrant.  This is a non-starter for the Republicans. 

[Mikebert]

 
When the dust settles I cannot see corporate America leaving the GOP.  It is their party.  Trump is one man.  The rest of Republican dominance was in place before Trump came along and will still be there when he is gone.  Nevertheless Trump has revealed the hollowness of the Republican operating orthodoxy of the last 40 years--what is called movement conservatism.
 
The analysis I have seen is that the core of Trump’s appeal is his anti-immigrant stance, and his strongman shtick.  The Republicans have been performing the strongman shtick for sixty years, so that’s no problem.  One of the founding elements of the GOP was the xenophobic American Party (Know-Nothings) so anti-immigrant is in the GOP DNA. The pro-corporate GOP curtailed immigration in 1924. They can certainly do it again and remain pro-corporate.
 
I see no problem with the GOP keeping the Trump base with just a few changes.  First they have to drop the war on entitlements.  Nothing screams elite like wanting to take away your social security/Medicare that you have been counting on receiving. They can waffle on trade.  Trade is a big issue for Trump (its been a thing with him for 30 years).  But it is not the main source of his appeal.
 
Republicans have spent 40 years cultivating social conservatives.  All they need do is act as conservatives and slow the onrush of social liberalism spewing forth from the Democrats and the declining number of social conservatives will continue to pull the level for the GOP. 
 
One quarter of the Democratic party are no liberal white voters.  As Democrats embrace more things push by the other three quarters of the party (reparations for blacks, amnesty for other minorities, transgender rights for while liberals). I’ll bet there are far more of non-liberal white Democrats willing to consider the post-Trump GOP than libertine republicans who might consider Democrats. 

[MillsT_98]

I think with the recent wave of patriotism and unity at the DNC, the regeneracy has finally arrived! I think with a Clinton victory, this regeneracy will be reassured. However, if Trump wins, I feel he would be massively unpopular, and after he passes some very controversial policies, there will be a Democratic backlash that will solidify the regeneracy around the Democrats. However, should Trump's policies be met with praise instead of criticism, the regeneracy will solidify around him rather than Clinton. No matter what, I think this election will decide the fate of the 4T and assure the regeneracy.

[Eric the Green]

(08-02-2016, 06:55 PM)radind Wrote: You ignore all the big money going to Clinton. It is not the GOP vs the people. It is all the super wealthy in both parties vs the people.

I don't ignore the big money going to Hillary C.; I know about it. I just think Hillary did not have enough confidence in her popularity to go the Bernie Sanders route. Plus, Sanders is a pioneer; he ran on individual contributions averaging $27, but this began only after Hillary had already raised money from the rich, interest groups and corporate sources (going back years too; it would have been tougher for her to dump all of those sources). That has been the way the game is played, so Democrats have played it. Sanders took the plunge, and he had the ability and the appeal to make it work (note his impressive horoscope score too). Most candidates can't do that.

The real issue is which party has favored reform. It's no contest. It's obvious. All 5 of the justices on the Supreme Court who voted to keep money dominating politics ("the Citizens United decision") were appointed by Republican presidents. All 4 of the justices who voted to take the money out, were appointed by Democrats. Trump has pledged to appoint more justices just like the 5 who voted for the big money. Hillary has pledged to appoint justices like the ones who voted to take the money out. It's clear cut, it's fact, and therefore it's not really debatable. If you want big money dominating our politics, vote Republican. If you want government given back to the people, vote Democratic.

Yes indeed; it IS just that. It's the GOP vs. the people.

[radind]

(08-03-2016, 02:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 06:55 PM)radind Wrote: You ignore all the big money going to Clinton. It is not the GOP vs the people. It is all the super wealthy in both parties vs the people.

I don't ignore the big money going to Hillary C.; I know about it. I just think Hillary did not have enough confidence in her popularity to go the Bernie Sanders route. Plus, Sanders is a pioneer; he ran on individual contributions averaging $27, but this began only after Hillary had already raised money from the rich, interest groups and corporate sources (going back years too; it would have been tougher for her to dump all of those sources). That has been the way the game is played, so Democrats have played it. Sanders took the plunge, and he had the ability and the appeal to make it work (note his impressive horoscope score too). Most candidates can't do that.

The real issue is which party has favored reform. It's no contest. It's obvious. All 5 of the justices on the Supreme Court who voted to keep money dominating politics ("the Citizens United decision") were appointed by Republican presidents. All 4 of the justices who voted to take the money out, were appointed by Democrats. Trump has pledged to appoint more justices just like the 5 who voted for the big money. Hillary has pledged to appoint justices like the ones who voted to take the money out. It's clear cut, it's fact, and therefore it's not really debatable. If you want big money dominating our politics, vote Republican. If you want government given back to the people, vote Democratic.

Yes indeed; it IS just that. It's the GOP vs. the people.

We continue to disagree. 
I expect Clinton to be elected, so will we see later what develops on the big money front.

[Eric the Green]

We'll see; but I don't think it's a "dialogue" to just write "we continue to disagree." What facts that I related, do you "disagree" with? What "facts" did I get "wrong?"

It expect even if Hillary Clinton is elected, it will still take time to get money out of politics. Money is the highest value in our society. The R&B hit that The Beatles also sang "trumps" the Beatles own song.

The Supreme Court may eventually rule on Citizens United and throw it out. Still, it will take a congress willing to pass meaningful campaign finance reform, and further legislation to combat the loopholes and runarounds. Public financing will be needed, and as long as Republicans have any power in our government, that won't happen.

So, there's no illusion that electing Hillary alone will fix the problem. But at least we'll have a chance, with a Supreme Court that won't automatically throw out any reform that is passed. If Trump is elected, the opposite will be the case; we'll have no chance.

Again, there's no basis for "disagreeing" with this last statement. That's all on the record. You are not entitled to your own public record.

[radind]

(08-03-2016, 02:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We'll see; but I don't think it's a "dialogue" to just write "we continue to disagree." What facts that I related, do you "disagree" with? What "facts" did I get "wrong?"

It expect even if Hillary Clinton is elected, it will still take time to get money out of politics. Money is the highest value in our society. The R&B hit that The Beatles also sang "trumps" the Beatles own song.

The Supreme Court may eventually rule on Citizens United and throw it out. Still, it will take a congress willing to pass meaningful campaign finance reform, and further legislation to combat the loopholes and runarounds. Public financing will be needed, and as long as Republicans have any power in our government, that won't happen.

So, there's no illusion that electing Hillary alone will fix the problem. But at least we'll have a chance, with a Supreme Court that won't automatically throw out any reform that is passed. If Trump is elected, the opposite will be the case; we'll have no chance.

Again, there's no basis for "disagreeing" with this last statement. That's all on the record. You are not entitled to your own public record.

I see no hope of agreement.
We have different worldviews and more opinions and speculation on the future appear useless.
Actual data is required and this will take time.

[Eric the Green]

(08-03-2016, 02:53 PM)radind Wrote: I see no hope of agreement.
We have different worldviews and more opinions and speculation on the future appear useless.
Actual data is required and this will take time.

No, this is not a matter of worldviews, but of "actual data." Which I posted.

[radind]

(08-03-2016, 02:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:53 PM)radind Wrote: I see no hope of agreement.
We have different worldviews and more opinions and speculation on the future appear useless.
Actual data is required and this will take time.

No, this is not a matter of worldviews, but of "actual data." Which I posted.

We will probably never agree.

[Odin]

(08-02-2016, 02:58 PM)JonLaw Wrote:

(05-19-2016, 09:41 AM)Mikebert Wrote: That is, the Republicans would more or less become old-style Democrats, the party of Jackson, Jefferson and FDR. The Democrats would become old-style Republican/Whig/Federalist, the party of Lincoln, Hamilton and T. Roosevelt.

Note I don’t want this to happen, but it seems a lot easier since we are pretty close to that now.

The Republican party is transforming into the party of labor as we speak.  You can pretty much watch it in real time as the Establishment Republicans keep talking about how they are leaving the party/voting for Clinton/in denial about economic reality.

It's fun to watch.  You might as well enjoy watching it, since you can't unring the bell.

The Republican party is the more democratic party, hence Trump.

The Democratic party is more controlled by the political elites, which means that labor is not going to take it over.  The salaried professionals who make up the Democratic party elite think labor is some sort of combination of sad/icky because they are paid by the hour to do non-awesome things.

Fascists pander to the working class right up until they take power, then they stab them in the back, like Hitler did with Ernst Rohm and the Strasserites.