Will the US become permanently Democrat-controlled?

[Italian Wine]

With mass illegal migration into the United States through the southern border, especially if Republicans lose Texas which is very close in that same area do you think Donald Trump will be the last Republican president in the United States. I mean, what other way can the US Republican Party do to continue national electoral relevance without becoming just as the same as the Democrats? A quasi one-party Democrat-controlled WH or federal legislature makes me feel pretty nervous about my country's own future and integrity.

What are the opinions of other NSers particularly from America on this one?

No, the senate is made to check populist surges. This and some particular sources I look at cite the fact that Mexican and other central, southern American migrants aren't reliably democrat voters. Check Florida.
The reliable source of voters for democrats are in fact the college educated. With higher reluctance to take the college bills this bloc of voters will shrink. Pair that with American as well as other lefties being less likely to procreate due to their concerns around warming means the progressives of either party will lose influence in a real slow shift.
Only time will tell though.
As for California I don't know. That's an entirely different topic. There's simply going to be nothing left with first the exodus of Republicans across the country, now the flight of Democrats. It's America's dumpster fire.

[Kaystein]

Most posts in this thread read 'delusional' to me.

[Telconi]

if the U.S. becomes permanently democratic imma find another country to go to that wouldnt be a train wreck

Literally no other Western nation/democracy is accepting of or as extreme as the GOP is when it comes to right wing policies and beliefs. Hell, most "Right wing" politicans in other Western Democracies are comparable to the US' Democrats.

Good luck.

You do realize there are countries that are neither "Western" nor "Democracies" right?

[The Two Jerseys]

Nope. The Democrats can't pander to everyone and then fail to deliver forever without losing voters.

[Yirophia]

Free trade is good and exposure to new trading partners and new immigrants and new ideas will inevitably erode dictatorships and keep them peaceful and pacified until they do crumble to dust.

Then why didn't that happen with China? Or Vietnam? Meanwhile, US incomes have remained stagnant and the middle class has been hollowed out. Gee thanks.

Ah yes, the usual Objectively Bad Party bait-and-switch. Screw everything up as much as possible and then scream that Objectively Good Party did it the moment they get in power. How the US electorate has continually been conned into ignoring causality and apparently believing the Democratic Party possesses time travel capabilities, I'm unsure. As for China, the issue is that it takes a while, and dictatorships tend to get bloody before they get dead. China is tightening its grip, but the tighter it squeezes the more will slip through its fingers.

The Bush Jr. admin started the Iraq War and introduced the PATRIOT act, and the Bush Sr. admin started the Gulf War for that matter.

I clarified along with the neocons. They are part of that same Clintonite/Blue Reaganite class you discussed. It's the establishment. Bush and Clinton agree on foreign policy, they disagree on execution.

Oh no not "the establishment!" Woe betide us all, the people following the ideology that is objectively, totally, and definitionally against oppression and human suffering is going to make us all into slaves. Perhaps you would prefer the Actual Genuine Oppressive Regime special, who am I to judge? Do you prefer the cherry flavour, the swastika sprinkles on top, or the classic unflavoured "divine right to rule"?

The Dems didn't destroy Libya, it was already a burbling crisis kettle ready to boil over and just happened to do so while Dems were in charge in the US;

Libya was the wealthiest country in Africa on a per capita basis. Obama destroyed it.

Literally what. Where did you hear such madness?

the whole sum of the state of the world does not turn on a dime with the USA.

Then why you do support people who believe that to be true?

Can we get some maintenance in here? There's a strawman on the debating field. Someone please do remove it.

Intervention in Syria under Obama was utterly, tokenly minor and only done in the face of pre-existing total breakdown of order caused by yet another tinpot dictatorship losing its grip.

It was losing its grip because we armed so-called "moderate rebels" that turned out to be Islamic terrorists.

Second "literally what." This is just plainly non-fact and I haven't even heard this conspiracy theorist-ass talking point. With how cutting edge your lies are I could see you on Putin's payroll. If you're not, perhaps you could find a profitable career.

And if "sucking up to Corporate America" includes a long history of increased redistributive taxation, better funding of social programmes, etc., then sure, if you like, you communist, you.

Those are things the Democrats all supported when they were actually the party of the working class. You literally just called those people "Sanders supporting communists with no power in the party" a few posts ago.

No, those are things the liberal Democrats have always supported, and continue to support. Sanders et al. are a relatively recent outburst and are much more of a "take a wrecking ball to one of the largest economies in the world because my ideological presumptions and ego demand to not be wrong even if base reality insists otherwise" bent.

[Dangine]

Literally no other Western nation/democracy is accepting of or as extreme as the GOP is when it comes to right wing policies and beliefs. Hell, most "Right wing" politicans in other Western Democracies are comparable to the US' Democrats.

Good luck.

You do realize there are countries that are neither "Western" nor "Democracies" right?

Don't know why you brought that up when their post was specifically talking about western nations and democracies. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that they don't understand that.

[New haven america]

You do realize there are countries that are neither "Western" nor "Democracies" right?

Don't know why you brought that up when their post was specifically talking about western nations and democracies. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that they don't understand that.

They were trying to sound clever.

"Trying" being the key word here.

[Telconi]

You do realize there are countries that are neither "Western" nor "Democracies" right?

Don't know why you brought that up when their post was specifically talking about western nations and democracies. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that they don't understand that.

Because their post was specifically referring to western nations and democracies. When the previous subject had no such specification.

[Yirophia]

Literally no other Western nation/democracy is accepting of or as extreme as the GOP is when it comes to right wing policies and beliefs. Hell, most "Right wing" politicans in other Western Democracies are comparable to the US' Democrats.

Good luck.

You do realize there are countries that are neither "Western" nor "Democracies" right?

Oh by all means, if you're so scared of the Dems feel free to move to a non-western dictatorship. You might not live long, and if you do you'll quickly realise just how much you don't know what you've got until it's gone, but assuming you can procure the means there's technically nothing stopping you.

[Telconi]

You do realize there are countries that are neither "Western" nor "Democracies" right?

Oh by all means, if you're so scared of the Dems feel free to move to a non-western dictatorship. You might not live long, and if you do you'll quickly realise just how much you don't know what you've got until it's gone, but assuming you can procure the means there's technically nothing stopping you.

I'm fully aware of what I have, which is why I don't want it.

[Yirophia]

Oh by all means, if you're so scared of the Dems feel free to move to a non-western dictatorship. You might not live long, and if you do you'll quickly realise just how much you don't know what you've got until it's gone, but assuming you can procure the means there's technically nothing stopping you.

I'm fully aware of what I have, which is why I don't want it.

The problem with politics of tribalism and oppression is that people think they're in a zoo, getting their sick sadistic kicks from behind the glass watching the tiger maul some poor sack of meat.

But they're not, they never can be. In politics, if you're close enough to cheer the tiger on, you're in the pit with it.

To those curiously lacking in empathy, misery is all well and good until it inevitably, and invariably, comes their way.

[Telconi]

I'm fully aware of what I have, which is why I don't want it.

The problem with politics of tribalism and oppression is that people think they're in a zoo, getting their sick sadistic kicks from behind the glass watching the tiger maul some poor sack of meat.

But they're not, they never can be. In politics, if you're close enough to cheer the tiger on, you're in the pit with it.

To those curiously lacking in empathy, misery is all well and good until it inevitably, and invariably, comes their way.

Is there a point to this spiel?

[Yirophia]

The problem with politics of tribalism and oppression is that people think they're in a zoo, getting their sick sadistic kicks from behind the glass watching the tiger maul some poor sack of meat.

But they're not, they never can be. In politics, if you're close enough to cheer the tiger on, you're in the pit with it.

To those curiously lacking in empathy, misery is all well and good until it inevitably, and invariably, comes their way.

Is there a point to this spiel?

Of course there is.

You're in the tiger pit. And not only that, you seem inclined to give the tiger a great big hug. The tiger is far less enthusiastic about your romantic advances.

[Telconi]

Is there a point to this spiel?

Of course there is.

You're in the tiger pit. And not only that, you seem inclined to give the tiger a great big hug. The tiger is far less enthusiastic about your romantic advances.

I'm confused, who's the tiger now?

[Yirophia]

Of course there is.

You're in the tiger pit. And not only that, you seem inclined to give the tiger a great big hug. The tiger is far less enthusiastic about your romantic advances.

I'm confused, who's the tiger now?

The tiger is a metaphor for essentially any affront to egality, genuine meritocracy, freedoms of all kinds both positive and negative whether economic or political or civil, etc.

And yes, if you're insinuating that the prototypical modern liberal party, from the USA, is something that you don't like in power, and that if it were persistently so you would actively seek to go to some place that may potentially not even be western or a democracy, you are practically flirting with the tiger. And you are most certainly not, in fact, one who has a fondness for freedom, justice, or prosperity by any definitions that are compatible with even the most permissive of dictionaries.

[The Black Forrest]

Political movement is like a pendulum.

[Telconi]

I'm confused, who's the tiger now?

The tiger is a metaphor for essentially any affront to egality, genuine meritocracy, freedoms of all kinds both positive and negative whether economic or political or civil, etc.

And yes, if you're insinuating that the prototypical modern liberal party, from the USA, is something that you don't like in power, and that if it were persistently so you would actively seek to go to some place that may potentially not even be western or a democracy, you are practically flirting with the tiger. And you are most certainly not, in fact, one who has a fondness for freedom, justice, or prosperity by any definitions that are compatible with even the most permissive of dictionaries.

We're not talking about a modern liberal party, we're talking about the U.S. Democratic Party.

[Yirophia]

The tiger is a metaphor for essentially any affront to egality, genuine meritocracy, freedoms of all kinds both positive and negative whether economic or political or civil, etc.

And yes, if you're insinuating that the prototypical modern liberal party, from the USA, is something that you don't like in power, and that if it were persistently so you would actively seek to go to some place that may potentially not even be western or a democracy, you are practically flirting with the tiger. And you are most certainly not, in fact, one who has a fondness for freedom, justice, or prosperity by any definitions that are compatible with even the most permissive of dictionaries.

We're not talking about a modern liberal party, we're talking about the U.S. Democratic Party.

Yes, we are not talking about merely "a" liberal party but rather one specific liberal party which is commonly known as the Democratic Party of the USA. You are correct. This is not especially relevant to the points brought up, though.

[Kowani]

Political movement is like a pendulum.

Well…that’s a bit of an oversimplification.

[Myrensis]

Realistically no, our system is pretty much designed to entrench two political parties.(For a bunch of smart guys who didn't like the idea of powerful entrenched political factions..the Founders really dropped the ball)

The more likely outcome of any period of Democratic dominance is both parties splintering, the Democrats due to not having to band together against the Republicans anymore, and the Republicans due to the inability of their current coalition to win elections.

Then the various splinter groups will eventually coalesce into two new parties, that may or may not still have the names "Democrat" and "Republican"

Ideally in that scenario though enough of the geriatric assholes will have died off that the new 'conservative' party isn't the malignant cancer of the current one.

[Telconi]

We're not talking about a modern liberal party, we're talking about the U.S. Democratic Party.

Yes, we are not talking about merely "a" liberal party but rather one specific liberal party which is commonly known as the Democratic Party of the USA. You are correct. This is not especially relevant to the points brought up, though.

In what reality are Democrats actually liberal?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Only a relatively small number of candidates have the charisma and vision to move the political centre. In normal circumstances, the parties triangulate and move to positions roughly equidistant from that centre as that's the easiest way to win votes. The Dems went slightly too progressive in the last cycle, which helped open the way for Trumpism as socially centre or conservative-leaning working class voters felt a distance from the Dem vision. Maybe Trump shifts the political centre in the long term if he wins again, maybe there's a backlash and it moves left when he's gone and a lot of the moderate Republicans start to define themselves against Trumpism and try to move the party in another direction. Maybe wider demographic changes alter the political calculations.

Nothing is permanent and political futures are rarely predictable, but the system is designed for two parties and both of those parties want to win elections so it seems infeasible that - unless democracy disappears - one party will permanently be winning either the elections or in setting the agenda.

[Yirophia]

Yes, we are not talking about merely "a" liberal party but rather one specific liberal party which is commonly known as the Democratic Party of the USA. You are correct. This is not especially relevant to the points brought up, though.

In what reality are Democrats actually liberal?

The very one we find ourselves in.

[Drongonia]

Yes, I would imagine so. You would expect that after 2024 some time, maybe 2028 - there won't be another Republican in control unless some significant cultural shift happens.


Looking at this, the Non-Hispanic white population (more specifically NHW male) is the only thing keeping the Republicans in the race here. As the population of NHW individuals diminishes (whether on purpose or natural is another debate) the logical pattern would be that the Republican vote goes down and never comes back up. Hell, Trump lost the popular vote by 2 million or so in 2016 anyway.

You can see the phenomenon of individuals leaving somewhere they don't like and then voting for the things they left in Texas. A bunch of Californians are moving to Texas and Nevada because of lower taxes, better housing affordability and growing job prospects - yet once those people arrive they vote for the same policies that created these issues back in California, it honestly beggars belief. We see it racially, with immigrants voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats even though the left's mismanagement of places like San Francisco has made them (literal) shitholes [search San Francisco poop map or click here.] Maybe it's because they're unaware of these issues or whatever, but I don't know.

Not to mention these Charlie Kirk types who think hosting black and Hispanic leadership summits will win them over are just eternally deluded. Not that any issues Democrats create with immigration or general governance will affect him anyway, with his near 7 figure salary and political/business connections.

[Telconi]

In what reality are Democrats actually liberal?

The very one we find ourselves in.

Naw bro, I exist in the real world.