The one good thing about the alt right is that they aren’t that interested in tax cuts for the rich. Which is why Trump is actually not a good representative for them.
Someone in the 2020 thread mentioned Joe Arpaio. That won’t happen, but I think if the GOP does end up on that track that it’ll be someone of humbler means and more truly populist candidate in the Tom Tancredo mold. Heck, Tancredo might even run and have a chance if he says the right things to the right people at the right time.
But Joe Arpaio is probably the type of candidate the alt right would truly love to nominate. Hey, isn’t Steve King still young enough to be that guy?
The best we can do is hope for demographic collapse of the gop. But who knows. The way things are going now, the gop should be in serious trouble by 2030 due to demographics but nobody can predict the future. Maybe the gop actually finds a way to unite white nationalists and racial and cultural minorities.
Also how does the gop maintain a coalition of authoritarians and libertarians? I guess the rise of Johnson shows there is some discord, but will libertarian party votes drop back down to 1% in 2020?
Or the GOP goes away and something else takes its place. Plus assuming that young white liberals won’t become old, bitter, white nationalists is a stretch. In Europe, young people are as likely to be white nationalists as old people. There’s also no guarantee that “white nationalism” won’t morph into something less race based. White nationalists today have a knack for pushing away people of color who are inclined to agree with them about some of the issues they are concerned about, like a flood of cheap labor coming into the country. In the future, there might not be white nationalists, just nationalists.
That’s only a complication if one party becomes clearly more friendly to libertarians. Democrats aren’t becoming more libertarian, they are becoming less as well. This won’t last, because the public is becoming more libertarian at the same time that the parties are becoming less. So as always happens in a democracy, if a group is large enough and not represented, it will eventually be represented. It’s just a matter of who identifies the underserved group first.
They aren’t? If not, then they must be highly politically impotent. I can’t think of a single Republican congressman that doesn’t seem to believe that the answer to all our economic woes is to cut taxes on the rich.
That’s because the alt right doesn’t have an actual leader yet. Trump was the nearest best thing because he appeals to a lot of their anger, but one area where Trump is not is on “the rich”, because he’s rich. For the alt right to get a true leader, it’ll have to be someone who can win a Presidential primary without fame, without money of his own, and in the face of a hostile press.
Since that candidate doesn’t really exist, they may indeed be mostly powerless. But Trump has at least given them a sense that they CAN have power within the GOP coalition. Although in the future it might be more at the Congressional level, electing more Tom Tancredo/Steve King types.
One consequence I can see is the start of a systematic effort to destroy one of the three branches of government. The Republicans have already done 11% of the job, and prominent Republican senators have already vowed that they’ll finish the other 89%.
There is no such effort taking place. I hope that obstruction won’t continue, but it works both ways. If Congress can actually pass legislation, I hope Clinton won’t obstruct.
What, only a four percent advantage? Well, shucks, nothing to see here, then! I mean, its not like such a virtuous bunch like the Republicans would take unfair advantage of such a thing, seeing as how they embody civic virtue!
Of course, if they added some sort of voter suppression efforts on top of that, well, then maybe…just maybe!..that would be something.
Can you clarify whether you misunderstood his comment or if you’re denying that there’s an effort to obstruct the appointment of additional Supreme Court Justices?
Good point! After all, we give a little boost, a “leg-up” for people who are impaired in various ways, why not a little extra help for the cognitively constipated?
I don’t dispute that there’s gerrymandering, but I’m just making the point that Democrats don’t have to move mountains to get Congress back. The actual reason it’s hard is because voters in purple and red districts have stopped believing that their local Democrats will represent them instead of the national party.
You’re wrong. The refusal to even vote on Democratic appointments is a quantum leap in the politicization of the court, and down that road lies the death of its legitimacy. Without respect and legitimacy for the Court, it is powerless. Why should a Governor who has been told that his state’s law violates the Constitution obey a court that is just a Senate subcommittee?
Bullshit. The Dems got more votes than the GOP and lost seats. That speaks far more to gerrymandering than it does dissatisfaction with representatives.
They won seats in 2012, they just didn’t win that many. But that’s understandable given they won 48% of the vote. Typically, you have to get 52% or more to see major movement in the House’s makeup.