Are Trumpism and Clintonism the future of the Republicans and Democrats respectively?

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

It’s based on history. Parties change as their demographics change. The flight of working class whites from the Democratic Party caused it to be run by wealthier liberals as opposed to unions. The Democratic base is minorities and well off whites. The well off whites decide the direction of the party. To think that the party won’t change if minority voters are calling the shots is actually the definition of wishful thinking.

The party might change, but it’s just as likely to change for the better and with a broader coalition. Your concerns are noted, but they’re just guesses based on wishful thinking.

[Count_Blucher]

I had a long post prepped, but in the end… Fuck That and the people who only listen to try to make more evil talking points.
pearl before swine

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

The party might change, but it’s just as likely to change for the better and with a broader coalition. Your concerns are noted, but they’re just guesses based on wishful thinking.

That depends on what you think is better. Again, citing history, populist parties tend to be ugly, while parties run by elites tend to be more high-minded. We haven’t yet seen a populist party that wasn’t about the narrow self interest of its base.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

That depends on what you think is better. Again, citing history, populist parties tend to be ugly, while parties run by elites tend to be more high-minded. We haven’t yet seen a populist party that wasn’t about the narrow self interest of its base.

We haven’t seen such a non-populist party either, in general. Self-interest is mostly how politics work.

[adaher]

From about the 60s to about now, both parties were run by wealthy elites for the most part, thus everyone getting all crazy about campaign finance laws, which isn’t really going to create the change they think they want. But the GOP is now very much in the hands of its voting base, not its donors, to the point where donors are actually on the sidelines now, with guys like Charles Koch considering supporting Clinton. Now it may comfort you to think that our base is uglier than your base, but I say people are people and African-Americans and Latinos are just as full of fear and hate for the other as whites. And it’s not as if Democrats aren’t already above preying on such base fears. They did it in the last election. “If you vote Republican there will be more Fergusons!”

[Johnny_Ace]

I think “If you vote Republican there will be President Trump” will be more persuasive.

[adaher]

I think the more important message is, “If you don’t vote, you’ll see President Trump.” Because for all his other faults, Trump’s supporters will show up. If Hillary’s supporters aren’t motivated or assume she’ll just win easily…

[iiandyiiii]

If only we could bottle and sell adaher’s wishful thinking…

[Johnny_Ace]

@adaher

I think the more important message is, “If you don’t vote, you’ll see President Trump.” Because for all his other faults, Trump’s supporters will show up. If Hillary’s supporters aren’t motivated or assume she’ll just win easily…

Not for this one. Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote against him.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

That depends on what you think is better. Again, citing history, populist parties tend to be ugly, while parties run by elites tend to be more high-minded.

Dunno about that. The original American populist party, the People’s Party wasn’t ugly – stupid, perhaps, in demanding an inflationary Free-Silver monetary policy, but not ugly. Huey Long was corrupt – naturally, he was a successful prewar Louisiana pol, of course he was corrupt – but his populism was not ugly otherwise.