United States 7th Party System Discussion Thread

[Nouveau Yathrib]

I've wanted to do a thread on this for a long time. The Post-2016 Dems thread and the Post-2017 GOP thread kind of touched on this but I thought it deserves its own thread.

Those of you who are familiar with US electoral politics probably know that there are two major parties- the Republicans and the Democrats. Because of how our democratic system evolved, the US has almost always had two main big-tent parties, with each party representing a range of ideologies and interest groups united by a single cause. The issues uniting/dividing the parties have changed over time, such that the composition of the two main parties has changed quite a bit over the years, with a major change usually occurring every 30-40 years or so. (Source 1, source 2), more detail on Party System history courtesy of Shofercia.

First Party System (1800-1824)- Federalist Party vs Democratic-Republican Party. Federalists favor a strong central gov't, Dem-Reps favor a weak central gov't. Ended due to the emergence of popular democracy under Andrew Jackson.

Second Party System (1828-1860)- Democratic Party vs Whig Party. Democrats are pro-expansion, Whigs are pro-industrialization. Ended due to slavery (this destroyed the Whigs) and the Civil War (started by Abe Lincoln’s election to the White House).

Third Party System (1860-1890s)- Democratic Party vs Republican Party. Republicans stronger in the North and among businessmen/professionals, Democrats stronger in the South and among immigrants. Ended due to recession and US overseas expansion.

Fourth Party System (1896-1932)- Republican Party vs Democratic Party. Republican and Democratic coalitions similar as before, political focus is on social reform (Progressive era). Ended due to Great Depression.

Fifth Party System (1933-1970s)- Democratic Party vs Republican Party. This is when the modern "economic left-right" split between the two parties emerges. Dems are the party of the working-class, labor, South, and minority groups. GOP is the party of the middle-class, business interests, and small-government advocates. Ended largely due to the Civil Rights and Counterculture movements.

Sixth Party System (1970s-2010s)- Republican Party vs Democratic Party. This is when the modern "social liberal-conservative" split between the two parties emerges- think race relations, feminism, LGBT rights, abortion rights, the Religious Right, the New Left, environmentalism, etc. Dems are the party of urban areas and racial/ethnic minorities, GOP is the party of suburban/rural areas and white Southerners.

So where are we now heading into 2018 and the 2020s? Considering it's been anywhere between 30-50 years since the last realignment took place, we're probably due for another one this decade. Some of the major themes of last year's election was immigration and free trade- issues that weren't as divisive during the Sixth Party System when liberals and conservatives were battling over LGBT rights, abortion, and feminism, or during the Fifth Party System when the main political cleavage was between labor and capital.

Michael Lund has made two slightly different predictions on how this new post-Sixth Party System cleavage will play out, one in 2014 and the other in 2016 in the middle of campaign season. Both involve continued cleavage along urban/suburban lines, but with an emphasis on liberaltarianism/populiberalism in the first scenario, and globalism/nationalism in the second.

My argument is that, as a result of spreading social liberalism, in the realm of public philosophy today’s divisions among liberals, conservatives, populists, and libertarians will gradually be simplified into a binary division among liberaltarians and populiberals who share social liberalism but disagree on other things. Each of these worldviews, moreover, is likely to have a home address—the income-stratified communities of Densitaria, in the case of liberaltarianism, and the less unequal communities of Posturbia, in the case of populiberalism.

To be sure, other factors—ethnic, regional, economic, religious—will complicate this picture. And the two major political parties will continue to be coalitions of other groups in the electorate and the donor class, at the price of inconsistency.

Nevertheless, it seems safe to predict that, if American attitudes evolve along the lines that I have suggested, liberaltarians will be more concentrated in one party and populiberals more concentrated in its rival. Which public philosophy is likely to dominate which party? Different scenarios can be imagined.

In the second scenario, the trend toward the identification of the Democrats with the economic elites of Wall Street and the FIRE sector, which began with Clinton and has continued to some degree under Obama, would make the Democrats the liberaltarian party. Even more than at present, the Democrats would be the party of Densitarian populations—the downtown and edge city elites and their supporting staff of disproportionately foreign-born, low-wage service workers.

In this scenario, the Republicans would become the Populiberal party of Posturbia. By dropping the coded racist appeals that have been used by Republican politicians since the backlash against the Civil Rights revolution, the GOP might attempt to join blacks and Latinos to a more socially liberal, white working-class base.

But a populiberal Republican Party, based among the multiracial working class and middle class of low-density areas, would need to abandon economic libertarianism, in favor of support for a universalist welfare state instead of a means-tested safety net. The intellectuals, politicians, and donors on the right for whom the holy grail is the destruction of middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare would need to be marginalized in the Republican Party or driven to a more liberaltarian Democratic Party, which embraced means-testing even as the GOP abandoned it.

If I am right, then those who predict a permanent Democratic majority based on the relative growth of the nonwhite population may be wrong. At present the Democrats enjoy the support of majorities of Latinos and supermajorities of black Americans. This permits the Democrats to champion expansions both of means-tested welfare programs and of universal social insurance—while Republicans attack both versions of the welfare state.

But this situation is unlikely to last. For one thing, as white voters with residual racist attitudes dwindle as a share of the electorate, Republicans who seek to create a more racially inclusive party are likely to succeed in making their party more friendly to racial and religious minorities, undercutting the advantage of the Democrats.

At the same time, the increasing racial liberalism of American society may also lead to greater emphasis on economic divides, rather than racial divisions. The latent tension within the Democratic coalition between the urban poor who depend on means-tested welfare and the suburban working-class and middle-class Americans of all races who make too much money to be eligible for most means-tested anti-poverty programs might turn into a chasm between two transformed parties. If anti-Latino nativism on the right fades, there is no reason to believe that assimilated, middle-class Latinos in a few generations will vote like poor recent immigrants from Latin America in the downtowns of Densitaria rather than like their own non-Latino neighbors who live next door in Posturbia. Instead of a politics of cross-class coalitions within races, a much less racist America might witness the emergence of more important cross-racial coalitions within classes.

The outlines of the two-party system of the 2020s and 2030s are dimly visible. The Republicans will be a party of mostly working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort—programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.

They will oppose increases in both legal and illegal immigration, in some cases because of ethnic prejudice; in other cases, for fear of economic competition. The instinctive economic nationalism of tomorrow’s Republicans could be invoked to justify strategic trade as well as crude protectionism. They are likely to share Trump’s view of unproductive finance: “The hedge-fund guys didn’t build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky.”


The Democrats of the next generation will be even more of an alliance of upscale, progressive whites with blacks and Latinos, based in large and diverse cities. They will think of the U.S. as a version of their multicultural coalition of distinct racial and ethnic identity groups writ large. Many younger progressives will take it for granted that moral people are citizens of the world, equating nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism.

The withering-away of industrial unions, thanks to automation as well as offshoring, will liberate the Democrats to embrace free trade along with mass immigration wholeheartedly. The emerging progressive ideology of post-national cosmopolitanism will fit nicely with urban economies which depend on finance, tech and other industries of global scope, and which benefit from a constant stream of immigrants, both skilled and unskilled.

While tomorrow’s Republican policymakers will embrace FDR-to-LBJ universal entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, future Democrats may prefer means-tested programs for the poor only. In the expensive, hierarchical cities in which Democrats will be clustered, universal social insurance will make no sense. Payroll taxes on urban workers will be too low to fund universal social insurance, while universal social benefits will be too low to matter to the urban rich. So the well-to-do in expensive, unequal Democratic cities will agree to moderately redistributive taxes which pay for means-tested benefits—perhaps even a guaranteed basic income—for the disproportionately poor and foreign-born urban workforce. As populist labor liberalism declines within the Democratic party, employer-friendly and finance-friendly libertarianism will grow. The Democrats of 2030 may be more pro-market than the Republicans.

How do you see the parties evolving in the next 10-20 years? Do you think Prediction 1 or Prediction 2 is more likely? And which party do you think will dominate after 2020? I personally think the Populiberal Republicans would dominate in Scenario 1 and the Multicultural Globalist Democrats would dominate in Scenario 2, but am not sure which is more likely after Trump leaves the White House.

I would be considered a reliable Democrat under the 6th Party System, mostly because I'm not a fan of the Religious Right or the GOP establishment. Most of you would probably assume I'd be a solid Democrat under the 7th Party System as well, given my status as a relatively upscale, non-white, non Christian, multicultural West Coast (sub)urbanite, my support for environmentalism, and my participation in the new globalized Knowledge Economy. But the possibility of the parties being split on environmental issues or race scares me- the first because climate change and infrastructure development absolutely require bipartisan cooperation, the second because I don't want our country to be politically split along racial lines even more than it already is (white = GOP, POC = Dems). And while I can't see myself switching from Dems to GOP in the foreseeable future (that would require a lot more than a nationalism-globalism policy realignment), I'm also not sure if I'm fully comfortable with a neoliberal SJW Clintonite Democratic Party.

What "Populism vs Elitism" might look like for the parties:

The forthcoming “alignments” are speculative, but a proposition that is increasingly supported by the movements of the two parties.

The Republicans will be the party of Nationalism. “America first” will become their prime mantra. Every action will have the patina of nationalism with a hint of xenophobia. They will view the American Dream as something under siege by outside forces and in need of defense. Ideologically the party will be diverse, comprised of a spectrum of protectionists: the white working class, socialists, market interventionists, social conservatives, manufacturers, nativists and organized labor. The core of the party being Trumpian “Economic Nationalists” and Bernie Sanders style “Democratic Socialists.”

The diversity of political views within the party, ranging from TEA Partiers to “Sandernistas,” will lead to some internal fracturing, especially in the realm of taxation, and some social issues, such as abortion and the legalization of marijuana. However they will be united in opposing trade deals, immigration and economic liberalization, and will be very hesitant to support America’s allies abroad. Economic interventionism will become the norm within the party, typically through strong-arming businesses and playing favorites with companies that do their bidding (see Trump’s Carrier deal).

Unlike their disparate political views, the factions within the Republican party will share much in their methods. The party will grab populism in a deep embrace, claiming to fight for the little guys against the establishment and the Globalists. The party will favor grand gestures over small ones and will be hostile to the opinions of experts (including mainstream economists, sociologists and intelligence figures). Additionally there will be a strong authoritarian streak in the party, favoring “winners” and powerful men as leaders, and possibly a hostility to portions of the Constitution (see Trump’s threat to sue his detractors for libel).

The Democrats will be the Globalist party. “America is for everyone” will become a major mantra. They will emphasize the American “duty” to help maintain the global free order, as well as allowing new people in to participate in the American Dream. Ideologically the party will be comprised of several large blocks, instead of dozens of smaller ones. These will be immigrants, business leaders, social liberals, urbanites and foreign policy hawks.

Similarly, the policies of the Democratic party will be fairly homogenous, spanning a moderately sized concinnity, rather than the stark difference between Republican factions. Policies favored by the Democrats will be moderately business friendly, in favor of international trade, advocating immigration and an open economy, as well as fighting for a continued and strong American international presence. They would seek to take a strong stance against Russian and Chinese aggression and advocate for America to retain its role as the “world’s policeman” keeping everything tidy so that goods, capital, people and ideas (especially American ideas) can continue to spread around the globe.

The methods of the Democratic party will be opposite those of the Republicans. Instead of eye catching grand gestures, the Party will focus on incremental change, more policy than personality. Additionally significant weight will be placed on experts and expert opinion, as opposed to gut feeling. A restrained, yet focused, party also has a long precedent in American politics. The Republicans before the 1990s could be described this way, smaller but more united and more professional, and putting great weight on the policies of experts within their fields.

Nuances of American nationalism and multicultural globalism:

The culture war and partisan realignment are over; the policy realignment and “border war” — a clash between nationalists, mostly on the right, and multicultural globalists, mostly on the left — have just begun.

For the nationalists, the most important dividing line is that between American citizens and everyone else—symbolized by Trump’s proposal for a Mexican border wall. On the right, American nationalism is tainted by strains of white racial and religious nationalism and nativism, reinforced by Trump’s incendiary language about Mexicans and his proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

But while there is overlap between nationalists and racists, the two are not the same thing. The most extreme white nationalists don’t advocate nationalism as a governing philosophy in our multiracial country; they hope to withdraw from American life and create a white homeland within the nation-state. Nationalism is different than white nationalism, and a populist American nationalism untainted by vestiges of racial bigotry might have transracial appeal, like versions of national populism in Latin America.

The rise of populist nationalism on the right is paralleled by the rise of multicultural globalism on the center-left.

For multicultural globalists, national boundaries are increasingly obsolete and perhaps even immoral. According to the emerging progressive orthodoxy, the identities that count are subnational (race, gender, orientation) and supranational (citizenship of the world). While not necessarily representative of Democratic voters, progressive pundits and journalists increasingly speak a dialect of ethical cosmopolitanism or globalism — the idea that it is unjust to discriminate in favor of one’s fellow nationals against citizens of foreign countries.

This difference in worldviews maps neatly into differences in policy. Nationalists support immigration and trade deals only if they improve the living standards of citizens of the nation. For the new, globally minded progressives, the mere well-being of American workers is not a good enough reason to oppose immigration or trade liberalization. It’s an argument that today’s progressive globalists have borrowed from libertarians: immigration or trade that depresses the wages of Americans is still justified if it makes immigrants or foreign workers better off.

Non-Americans: what are your thoughts on the topic? How do you see the two parties evolving in the near future?

Thomas Frank: Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump: Here's Why

Why Democrats are Becoming the Party of the 1 %

How Trump's Campaign Could Redraw Voter Allegiances

Towards a Working-Class Environmentalism

The Pittsburgh Conundrum

Red state, blue state? The urban-rural divide is more significant.

Thought Leaders and the Plutocrats Who Love Them

Grand White Party vs. Grand Middle Party- Which will the GOP choose?

Democrat or Republican, Oklahoma has always been conservative

[Washington Resistance Army]

I would simply love for the GOP to drop all the silly neoconservative garbage and become an actual nationalist party. I'd consider joining at that point.

[Methodological Individualism]

I would simply love for the GOP to drop all the silly neoconservative garbage and become an actual nationalist party. I'd consider joining at that point.

Define "nationalism."

I'm reading "organizations I like" in your sig, and I'm actually genuinely curious.

[Methodological Individualism]

But while there is overlap between nationalists and racists, the two are not the same thing. The most extreme white nationalists don’t advocate nationalism as a governing philosophy in our multiracial country; they hope to withdraw from American life and create a white homeland within the nation-state. Nationalism is different than white nationalism, and a populist American nationalism untainted by vestiges of racial bigotry might have transracial appeal, like versions of national populism in Latin America.

That overlap isn't really an accident, though. Nationalism is a general ideology that emphasizes a shared group identity -- like race, religion, cultural practices, etc. No, strictly speaking, you don't have to be a Nazi to be a nationalist, but, to the extent that the point of nationalism is the glorification of a shared specific identity (and thus a rejection of those not adhering to said specific identity), said Nazis are very likely (read: always going?) to be the logical conclusion of the general tendency.

What are the characteristics that will unite a multiracial/multicultural nationalism against all the forces working to tear it apart, and what will make this nationalism more effective than just straight-up multiculturalism?

[Wahlid]

But while there is overlap between nationalists and racists, the two are not the same thing. The most extreme white nationalists don’t advocate nationalism as a governing philosophy in our multiracial country; they hope to withdraw from American life and create a white homeland within the nation-state. Nationalism is different than white nationalism, and a populist American nationalism untainted by vestiges of racial bigotry might have transracial appeal, like versions of national populism in Latin America.

That overlap isn't really an accident, though. Nationalism is a general ideology that emphasizes a shared group identity -- like race, religion, cultural practices, etc. No, strictly speaking, you don't have to be a Nazi to be a nationalist, but, to the extent that the point of nationalism is the glorification of a shared specific identity (and thus a rejection of those not adhering to said specific identity), said Nazis are very likely (read: always going?) to be the logical conclusion of the general tendency.

What are the characteristics that will unite a multiracial/multicultural nationalism against all the forces working to tear it apart, and what will make this nationalism more effective than just straight-up multiculturalism?

Multiculturalism and nationalism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive ideas. Scenario 1 assumes that the spreading social liberalism of our generation(s) extends to race relations, and that socioeconomic tensions within racial minority communities (old-school African-Americans vs African immigrants and their children, "assimilated" vs Spanish-speaking Latinos, SE Asian + Muslim-South-Asian Americans vs. affluent Chinese + Indian Americans, etc.) could undermine their common political identity as POC or POC groups.
Within 20 or 30 years, this could be enough to get suburban working-class and (lower) middle-class POC and/or mixed-race people to vote consistently Republican (I can't see this happening for the next 10). I guess it depends on how globalization and automation affect the quality of life in urban and suburban areas, and what the post-Millennial generation's take on "social justice" is.

[Senkaku]

Your prediction 1 seems odd- I can't see both parties going w/socially liberal views, one is going to have to play the conservatives.

[Bakery Hill]

These predictions are so shit.

[Bakery Hill]

It's like the worst liberal projection, where all their enemies coalesce under the Republicans in a horrible evil racist nationalist and socialist coalition of absolute idiots, and the Democrats stay West Wing w o k e.

[The Liberated Territories]

I'm not going to be happy until the two party system is destroyed. And even then

[Nouveau Yathrib]

Your prediction 1 seems odd- I can't see both parties going w/socially liberal views, one is going to have to play the conservatives.

My source for Prediction 1 is literally "The Coming Realignment- Cities, Class, and Ideology After Social Conservatism". It mentions God, gays, and guns but not abortion (on which there's no evidence us Millennials and post-Millennials are any more liberal than our elders). Most likely the Democrats end up playing non-white and otherwise cosmopolitan/urban religious conservatives, while the Republicans continue playing the rest.

God, gays, and guns. The era in which controversies over so-called social issues like these defined the Right and the Left in American politics is rapidly coming to an end, thanks to the pronounced liberalism of the youngest cohort of Americans—the Millennial generation, whose members were born in 1981 or later.

God? Millennials are the least religious of Americans. A quarter are “nones” or unaffiliated, according to a Gospel Coalition poll, and fewer than one in ten say that religion is important in their lives.1

Guns? According to a Gallup poll, fewer Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 own guns (20 percent) than the national average (30 percent).2 And a majority of Millennials support gun control: 56 percent, according to a National Journal poll,3 and 59 percent, according to Pew.4

Gays? According to a Pew poll, the Millennials are the only cohort in which a majority (70 percent) support gay marriage.5

Millennials are also more likely than members of older generations to describe themselves as liberal, according to a 2009 Pew poll: 29 percent, compared to 40 percent moderate and 28 percent conservative.6 Only 20 percent of members of Generation X, 18 percent of Baby Boomers, and 15 percent of members of the Silent Generation describe themselves as liberal.7 While individuals often become somewhat more conservative as they grow older, it seems likely that the Millennial generation will permanently shift American attitudes to the left—on social issues, if not necessarily on economics.

Thanks to generational shifts in values like these, it is likely that in the decades ahead there will be a dramatic realignment in American politics. Although it is likely to reshape the two major parties, it will not be a mere “partisan realignment” of the kind studied by political scientists. Rather, it will be a realignment of American public philosophies or political worldviews. This worldview realignment will be accentuated by a number of long-term demographic and cultural changes. But the chief catalyst of the realignment will be the near-universal victory of social liberalism. In a nation in which both parties are socially liberal, existing coalitions are likely to break up and reform in striking ways.

It's like the worst liberal projection, where all their enemies coalesce under the Republicans in a horrible evil racist nationalist and socialist coalition of absolute idiots, and the Democrats stay West Wing w o k e.

Or maybe it's a projection of who voted for who in the 2016 election onto where the parties will evolve. I'm not the biggest fan of where the Democratic Party seems to be heading either, but that probably won't stop me from voting blue so long as the GOP panders to white nationalism and anti-science populism.

[Bakery Hill]

Your prediction 1 seems odd- I can't see both parties going w/socially liberal views, one is going to have to play the conservatives.

My source for Prediction 1 is literally "The Coming Realignment- Cities, Class, and Ideology After Social Conservatism". It mentions God, gays, and guns but not abortion (on which there's no evidence us Millennials and post-Millennials are any more liberal than our elders). Most likely the Democrats end up playing non-white and otherwise cosmopolitan/urban religious conservatives, while the Republicans continue playing the rest.

God, gays, and guns. The era in which controversies over so-called social issues like these defined the Right and the Left in American politics is rapidly coming to an end, thanks to the pronounced liberalism of the youngest cohort of Americans—the Millennial generation, whose members were born in 1981 or later.

God? Millennials are the least religious of Americans. A quarter are “nones” or unaffiliated, according to a Gospel Coalition poll, and fewer than one in ten say that religion is important in their lives.1

Guns? According to a Gallup poll, fewer Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 own guns (20 percent) than the national average (30 percent).2 And a majority of Millennials support gun control: 56 percent, according to a National Journal poll,3 and 59 percent, according to Pew.4

Gays? According to a Pew poll, the Millennials are the only cohort in which a majority (70 percent) support gay marriage.5

Millennials are also more likely than members of older generations to describe themselves as liberal, according to a 2009 Pew poll: 29 percent, compared to 40 percent moderate and 28 percent conservative.6 Only 20 percent of members of Generation X, 18 percent of Baby Boomers, and 15 percent of members of the Silent Generation describe themselves as liberal.7 While individuals often become somewhat more conservative as they grow older, it seems likely that the Millennial generation will permanently shift American attitudes to the left—on social issues, if not necessarily on economics.

Thanks to generational shifts in values like these, it is likely that in the decades ahead there will be a dramatic realignment in American politics. Although it is likely to reshape the two major parties, it will not be a mere “partisan realignment” of the kind studied by political scientists. Rather, it will be a realignment of American public philosophies or political worldviews. This worldview realignment will be accentuated by a number of long-term demographic and cultural changes. But the chief catalyst of the realignment will be the near-universal victory of social liberalism. In a nation in which both parties are socially liberal, existing coalitions are likely to break up and reform in striking ways.

It's like the worst liberal projection, where all their enemies coalesce under the Republicans in a horrible evil racist nationalist and socialist coalition of absolute idiots, and the Democrats stay West Wing w o k e.

Or maybe it's a projection of who voted for who in the 2016 election onto where the parties will evolve. I'm not the biggest fan of where the Democratic Party seems to be heading either, but that probably won't stop me from voting blue so long as the GOP panders to white nationalism and anti-science populism.

No the idea that Sanders Social Democracy and Trump National Conservatives will fuse is completely ridiculous. This is the type of lunacy only beltway Third Way wonks could think up and phrase in their special little language. They're competing ideas. Sanders Social Democracy can win potential Trump voters over, but the base of each group and the core messages they put forward cannot be easily married.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

My source for Prediction 1 is literally "The Coming Realignment- Cities, Class, and Ideology After Social Conservatism". It mentions God, gays, and guns but not abortion (on which there's no evidence us Millennials and post-Millennials are any more liberal than our elders). Most likely the Democrats end up playing non-white and otherwise cosmopolitan/urban religious conservatives, while the Republicans continue playing the rest.

Or maybe it's a projection of who voted for who in the 2016 election onto where the parties will evolve. I'm not the biggest fan of where the Democratic Party seems to be heading either, but that probably won't stop me from voting blue so long as the GOP panders to white nationalism and anti-science populism.

No the idea that Sanders Social Democracy and Trump National Conservatives will fuse is completely ridiculous. This is the type of lunacy only beltway Third Way wonks could think up and phrase in their special little language. They're competing ideas. Sanders Social Democracy can win potential Trump voters over, but the base of each group and the core messages they put forward cannot be easily married.

My bad, that's from a different guy from my Prediction 1. That quote was meant to explain what "elitism vs populism" is supposed to look like, not how a Liberaltarian vs Populiberal split would play out.

But yeah, you're completely right- there's absolutely no way Bernie Bros and Trump's base (which is a subset of the people who voted for him!) would accept being in the same party as each other. Definitely not while Trump and Pence are in the White House.

[Bakery Hill]

No the idea that Sanders Social Democracy and Trump National Conservatives will fuse is completely ridiculous. This is the type of lunacy only beltway Third Way wonks could think up and phrase in their special little language. They're competing ideas. Sanders Social Democracy can win potential Trump voters over, but the base of each group and the core messages they put forward cannot be easily married.

My bad, that's from a different guy from my Prediction 1. That quote was meant to explain what "elitism vs populism" is supposed to look like, not how a Liberaltarian vs Populiberal split would play out.

But yeah, you're completely right- there's absolutely no way Bernie Bros and Trump's base (which is a subset of the people who voted for him!) would accept being in the same party as each other. Definitely not while Trump and Pence are in the White House.

Bernie's base is more young women if the demographics are to be believed but yes, agreed.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

My bad, that's from a different guy from my Prediction 1. That quote was meant to explain what "elitism vs populism" is supposed to look like, not how a Liberaltarian vs Populiberal split would play out.

But yeah, you're completely right- there's absolutely no way Bernie Bros and Trump's base (which is a subset of the people who voted for him!) would accept being in the same party as each other. Definitely not while Trump and Pence are in the White House.

Bernie's base is more young women if the demographics are to be believed but yes, agreed.

I registered as a Democrat last year just so I could vote for Bernie in the primaries, so I guess that makes me a cisgender Bernie Bro. Still voted for Hillary in the general election because Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were just awful.

[Bakery Hill]

Bernie's base is more young women if the demographics are to be believed but yes, agreed.

I registered as a Democrat last year just so I could vote for Bernie in the primaries, so I guess that makes me a cisgender Bernie Bro. Still voted for Hillary in the general election because Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were just awful.

I prefer the term "Brothers in Bernard".

[Pax Nerdvana]

Bernie's base is more young women if the demographics are to be believed but yes, agreed.

I registered as a Democrat last year just so I could vote for Bernie in the primaries, so I guess that makes me a cisgender Bernie Bro. Still voted for Hillary in the general election because Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were just awful.

All of the canidates this year were terrible. If I were old enough to vote, I would've voted McMullin.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

How does everyone see the Democratic and Republican coalitions changing in the 2020s, which is when all the Post-Millennials on here start voting en masse?

[Saiwania]

Historians aren't yet in agreement as to whether the US has had 6 or only 5 party systems so far.

The 1st party system was dominated by the Democratic-Republicans, the Federalists to my knowledge; only held power once. Federalists disbanded because of the Hartford convention, where they appeared to be traitors during the War of 1812; when it appeared that the British would win over the US. When the Battle of New Orleans was won by Andrew Jackson, the potential plan to have New England states secede backfired. Federalist party never recovered again afterwards.

The timeline in the OP is all screwed up.

[Dranchund]

Whatever happens, hopefully one of the results is more than 2 parties having power. (too bad that's even less likely than Bernie Bros/Brothers in Brenard merging with the Trump Base)

[Thermodolia]

How does everyone see the Democratic and Republican coalitions changing in the 2020s, which is when all the Post-Millennials on here start voting en masse?

My guess is that nothing will really change. Many millennials and post-millennials will more than likely not vote.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

How does everyone see the Democratic and Republican coalitions changing in the 2020s, which is when all the Post-Millennials on here start voting en masse?

My guess is that nothing will really change. Many millennials and post-millennials will more than likely not vote.

Interesting, quite a few people have predicted an anti-“SJW” backlash in the coming years (more than just teenage NSGers and 4chaners griping about feminism and BLM and whatnot), although it isn’t yet obvious if that will result in a generation of relatively hardcore Republicans.

[Shofercia]

I would simply love for the GOP to drop all the silly neoconservative garbage and become an actual nationalist party. I'd consider joining at that point.

You have to keep in mind that the GOP's primary beneficiaries are the wealthy; according to an election poll, the majority of people making $50,000 or more voted for Trump. So if the GOP goes nationalist, but continues to support Corporate Greed, would you still consider joining them?

It's like the worst liberal projection, where all their enemies coalesce under the Republicans in a horrible evil racist nationalist and socialist coalition of absolute idiots, and the Democrats stay West Wing w o k e.

Yep.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I would simply love for the GOP to drop all the silly neoconservative garbage and become an actual nationalist party. I'd consider joining at that point.

Define "nationalism."

I'm reading "organizations I like" in your sig, and I'm actually genuinely curious.

Cutting foreign aid and dumping all those billions into helping low income Americans. Generic America First rhetoric and stuff. Bullying commies more. Actually admitting when we're getting screwed in trade and trying to change that, which is something I actually kinda like about Trump even if he does in the most bombastic and idiotic way possible. Clamping down on illegal immigration and trying to prevent it which is also something I can appreciate about the modern GOP even if things like the wall are silly. Telling the UN they're useless. etc etc

Some of these answers may be less serious than others but it's late and I'm sleepy so I'll probably post more later.

I would simply love for the GOP to drop all the silly neoconservative garbage and become an actual nationalist party. I'd consider joining at that point.

You have to keep in mind that the GOP's primary beneficiaries are the wealthy; according to an election poll, the majority of people making $50,000 or more voted for Trump. So if the GOP goes nationalist, but continues to support Corporate Greed, would you still consider joining them?

Given you could quite easily make the claim that both parties do that given the way the system is structured I'd consider it, yeah.

[Shofercia]

Regarding the OP, a couple of points:

The US wasn't Federalist under Washington; the US was non-partisan. The Partisanship began with Jefferson using it to oust Adams, and crush the Federalists. Until 1828, the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans ruled the White House. Then you had a populist reaction to the elitists, ushering in Jackson and van Buren. The Panic of 1837 ousted the Jacksonians, setting up a confrontation between the Whigs and the Democrats. However, the birth of the Republicans killed the Whigs. Granted, the Whigs were having issues before, but the voters that they lost to the Republicans was their death knell. And with the election of a Republican, the country headed into a Civil War.

But it wasn't a smooth ride for the Republicans either, as none of their candidates could quite rise up to Lincoln's level, leading the Democrats to ally with the South and end Reconstruction. This enabled the KKK to intimidate the blacks, and for the Democrats to carry the South, giving birth to modern political struggle. You're welcome to study how close Republicans came to defeat against Tilden and against Hancock.

This struggle between the Democrats and Republicans lasted until the Great Depression, where another Great American Leader emerged, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. However, the Democrats dominance during the FDR years was due to FDR, not the Democratic Party. Once he died, they started going downhill, and Ike's Republicans took charge. After Ike left politics, the Democrats came back, and so the Cult of Personality was born.

The problem with the OP's approach is that it misses the role of the Jeffersonians making it Partisan, of the Jacksonians making it Populist, of the Panic of 1837 and the shift towards Elitist Whigs, who were crushed under the Republicans, and of the modern system born as a result of the End of Reconstruction and the Start of Jim Crow.

Key leaders and key events help the campaigns as much as the issues did. Focusing solely on the issues gets you defeated, much to my chagrin, and those who don't know History, such as Partisanship and Populism, are doomed to be pwnd by Trump during the Elections, erm, I meant are doomed to repeat it.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

Regarding the OP, a couple of points:

The US wasn't Federalist under Washington; the US was non-partisan. The Partisanship began with Jefferson using it to oust Adams, and crush the Federalists. Until 1828, the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans ruled the White House. Then you had a populist reaction to the elitists, ushering in Jackson and van Buren. The Panic of 1837 ousted the Jacksonians, setting up a confrontation between the Whigs and the Democrats. However, the birth of the Republicans killed the Whigs. Granted, the Whigs were having issues before, but the voters that they lost to the Republicans was their death knell. And with the election of a Republican, the country headed into a Civil War.

But it wasn't a smooth ride for the Republicans either, as none of their candidates could quite rise up to Lincoln's level, leading the Democrats to ally with the South and end Reconstruction. This enabled the KKK to intimidate the blacks, and for the Democrats to carry the South, giving birth to modern political struggle. You're welcome to study how close Republicans came to defeat against Tilden and against Hancock.

This struggle between the Democrats and Republicans lasted until the Great Depression, where another Great American Leader emerged, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. However, the Democrats dominance during the FDR years was due to FDR, not the Democratic Party. Once he died, they started going downhill, and Ike's Republicans took charge. After Ike left politics, the Democrats came back, and so the Cult of Personality was born.

The problem with the OP's approach is that it misses the role of the Jeffersonians making it Partisan, of the Jacksonians making it Populist, of the Panic of 1837 and the shift towards Elitist Whigs, who were crushed under the Republicans, and of the modern system born as a result of the End of Reconstruction and the Start of Jim Crow.

Key leaders and key events help the campaigns as much as the issues did. Focusing solely on the issues gets you defeated, much to my chagrin, and those who don't know History, such as Partisanship and Populism, are doomed to be pwnd by Trump during the Elections, erm, I meant are doomed to repeat it.

Thank you for providing the detail and nuance I was too lazy to put in the OP. I mostly wanted to summarize what the main differences were between the parties prior to the 1970s because they aren’t directly relevant to the situation today.

The difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 is mainly the extent to which the Republicans are able to convince younger, nonwhite, and otherwise socially liberal voters hardened against the “neoliberal SJW elitist Dems” to join their rebranded “Grand Middle Party”, and the extent to which the Democrats are able to smear the GOP as an exclusionary, out of touch “Grand Old White Party”. I can honestly see Scenario 1 happening further down the road (assuming Trump doesn’t do too much damage) but admit that the immediate future will look more like Scenario 2.