US 2020 Presidential Election prediction thread

[grumbler]

Your implication that the Trumpist way is a viable path to winning elections is what causes the dread.

I think that there is a fair amount of evidence that the Trumpist Way is only viable for a very few more elections.  Hatred of "The Other" isn't a wining strategy when The Other is a majority of the population.

That's not to say that the republicans won't find another way to divide the electorate to define a new The Other, but it won't be the Trumpist version.

[alfred russel]

Your implication that the Trumpist way is a viable path to winning elections is what causes the dread.

I think that there is a fair amount of evidence that the Trumpist Way is only viable for a very few more elections.  Hatred of "The Other" isn't a wining strategy when The Other is a majority of the population.

That's not to say that the republicans won't find another way to divide the electorate to define a new The Other, but it won't be the Trumpist version.

"The Other" will just shift to "others". It can happen so fast. In 2008 a big turnout issue was opposition to gay marriage--an amendment to ban it passed in California that year--and now conservatives are arguing for harsh policies toward muslim countries due to their anti-gay policies.

Probably a lot of the descendants of the immigrants the know nothings hated are trumpists today.

[Barrister]

Your implication that the Trumpist way is a viable path to winning elections is what causes the dread.

I think that there is a fair amount of evidence that the Trumpist Way is only viable for a very few more elections.  Hatred of "The Other" isn't a wining strategy when The Other is a majority of the population.

That's not to say that the republicans won't find another way to divide the electorate to define a new The Other, but it won't be the Trumpist version.

Things can change.  Trump is actually polling better with hispanics than he did in 2016.

There is an argument whether "Trumpism without Trump" is a viable electoral strategy or not.  But we can tell an awful lot of GOP hopefuls are going to find out.

[grumbler]

Things can change.  Trump is actually polling better with hispanics than he did in 2016.

There is an argument whether "Trumpism without Trump" is a viable electoral strategy or not.  But we can tell an awful lot of GOP hopefuls are going to find out.

He is polling crappily as opposed to shittily among Hispanics.

The Ignorant White Male vote is a decreasing percentage of the population, and relying on it will have decreasing returns.

[Barrister]

He is polling crappily as opposed to shittily among Hispanics.

The Ignorant White Male vote is a decreasing percentage of the population, and relying on it will have decreasing returns.

Yes, but could a "Trumpism without Trump" use populism and nativism, but appeal better to educated whites?  Or bring in hispanics or blacks?

Populism and nativism can be fairly flexible tools.

[katmai]

Things can change.  Trump is actually polling better with hispanics than he did in 2016.

There is an argument whether "Trumpism without Trump" is a viable electoral strategy or not.  But we can tell an awful lot of GOP hopefuls are going to find out.

He is polling crappily as opposed to shittily among Hispanics.

The Ignorant White Male vote is a decreasing percentage of the population, and relying on it will have decreasing returns.

im getting sick  of this nonsense narrative about he's polling so much better than 2016.

[crazy canuck]

He is polling crappily as opposed to shittily among Hispanics.

The Ignorant White Male vote is a decreasing percentage of the population, and relying on it will have decreasing returns.

Yes, but could a "Trumpism without Trump" use populism and nativism, but appeal better to educated whites?  Or bring in hispanics or blacks?

Populism and nativism can be fairly flexible tools.

I am not sure how nativism works across groups of different heritages.  I can understand how a Black population could be nativist - See post revolution Haiti.  Or how uneducated white males can be nativist - see trumpists.  But I don't understand how both exist in the same party.

[Barrister]

He is polling crappily as opposed to shittily among Hispanics.

The Ignorant White Male vote is a decreasing percentage of the population, and relying on it will have decreasing returns.

Yes, but could a "Trumpism without Trump" use populism and nativism, but appeal better to educated whites?  Or bring in hispanics or blacks?

Populism and nativism can be fairly flexible tools.

I am not sure how nativism works across groups of different heritages.  I can understand how a Black population could be nativist - See post revolution Haiti.  Or how uneducated white males can be nativist - see trumpists.  But I don't understand how both exist in the same party.

As AR pointed out groups that were firmly part of the outsiders just a generation or two ago (Irish, Italians) are firmly insiders now.

There's long been a Republican dream to bring african americans into the fold.  Not only is it the Party of Lincoln, but blacks are much more socially conservative.  Theoretically it's possible, though obviously the GOP would have to change its rhetoric and policies a lot.  And blacks can just as easily be nativist as whites - they've lived in that country for centuries too.  Here the "other" isn't based on skin colour, but based on country of origin.

[Valmy]

As AR pointed out groups that were firmly part of the outsiders just a generation or two ago (Irish, Italians) are firmly insiders now.

There's long been a Republican dream to bring african americans into the fold.  Not only is it the Party of Lincoln, but blacks are much more socially conservative.  Theoretically it's possible, though obviously the GOP would have to change its rhetoric and policies a lot.  And blacks can just as easily be nativist as whites - they've lived in that country for centuries too.  Here the "other" isn't based on skin colour, but based on country of origin.

So if a party changed it messaging and its policies they might change the people who support it?

That is a shocking revelation BB.

So what kind of messaging and policies do the Conservatives need to win British Columbia? Surely they are just a small switch of messaging and policy and they can win every Riding in Canada!

Anyway sure the Republicans can swerve to grab up other groups but, just like the Democrats in the 1960s, they will pay a price elsewhere. If it was just a matter of pandering at no cost everybody would do it.

[Barrister]

As AR pointed out groups that were firmly part of the outsiders just a generation or two ago (Irish, Italians) are firmly insiders now.

There's long been a Republican dream to bring african americans into the fold.  Not only is it the Party of Lincoln, but blacks are much more socially conservative.  Theoretically it's possible, though obviously the GOP would have to change its rhetoric and policies a lot.  And blacks can just as easily be nativist as whites - they've lived in that country for centuries too.  Here the "other" isn't based on skin colour, but based on country of origin.

So if a party changed it messaging and its policies they might change the people who support it?

That is a shocking revelation BB.

So what kind of messaging and policies do the Conservatives need to win British Columbia? Surely they are just a small switch of messaging and policy and they can win every Riding in Canada!

Anyway sure the Republicans can swerve to grab up other groups but, just like the Democrats in the 1960s, they will pay a price elsewhere. If it was just a matter of pandering at no cost everybody would do it.

Yes.  And?

[Valmy]

Yes.  And?

Precisely. What exactly are we talking about here? We going to start bringing out the alt-future maps of how dominant the Republicans are going to be once they win over all the black people?

[Barrister]

Yes.  And?

Precisely. What exactly are we talking about here? We going to start bringing out the alt-future maps of how dominant the Republicans are going to be once they win over all the black people?

I said we don't know what the future of the GOP is.  Maybe it is "Trumpism without Trump".  grumbles pointed out that relying on uneducated white men is not a winning coalition.  I agreed, but maybe the GOP would be able to grow it's coalition - and here I suggested either college-educated whites, or blacks or hispanics.

Obviously none of that is easy or straightforward for the reasons you point out.  And maybe none of it is possible.  We'll see what happens.

[The Brain]

What if (it's crazy I know), in the future, they focus on hateful and stupid people?

[alfred russel]

Precisely. What exactly are we talking about here? We going to start bringing out the alt-future maps of how dominant the Republicans are going to be once they win over all the black people?

The two party system is fairly entrenched for a variety of structural reasons. If we don't get the total collapse of one party or the emergence of a truly viable third party--neither of which seems likely--it is hard to imagine that one party is going to move into a dominant position for any length of time. If the Democrats win significant majorities, the center of gravity will move left which will alienate moderates and increase the Republican tolerance of a more moderate agenda.

Look at the republican bench. It isn't hard to imagine the next nominee is Rubio or Cruz - both hispanics - or Nikki Haley - an Indian American woman. All three have become Trumpists in their own ways - Rubio was basically celebrating the truckers that harassed the Biden bus the other day and forced the rally to be canceled. The republican party could broaden from uneducated whites to uneducated other ethnicities fairly easily. I would hope that the racial nonsense of Trump isn't an asset.

[FunkMonk]

Smarter GOP leaders will try to shear off the blatantly racist Trumpian rhetoric while still appealing to the working class through populist economic policies and through the culture war.