***Join the SDMB panel of experts for live debate coverage - 9/26/2016***

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@BobLibDem

Perhaps. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, Republicans were as good or better than Democrats on race issues. Then the Southern Strategy and all the old racist Democrats switched uniforms.

But there are some things that seem quite stable, Republicans have been the party of business since forever and Democrats the party of labor since forever. I don’t really see that changing in the immediate future.

Well if this anti-free trade and isolationist vibe sticks beyond Trump, and the Dems stay moderately pro-business, I could see the Republicans becoming the party of white suburban and rural dwellers, while the Dems become the party of urban dwellers. Where does labor fall into that? I supposed that’s where it might get tricky.

New alignment might look something like:

Dem-- socially left, pro-immigrant, the party of minorities, pro-weed, pro-gay, youth, urban, global-thinking, pro-business, pro-social safety net. Think Millennials who drive Uber, get behind small-business start-ups, global corporations and organizations, new economy and planet-hugging-types, while not being especially religious (at least in the conservative right sense of the word).

Pub- socially right, isolationist, America-first, “traditional” values, rural and suburban, blue collar, pro-gun, anti-regulation, anti-taxation. Think blue collar workers, farmers, largely white, very pro-individual rights, pro worker, adherent to a more-traditional economy and more religious.

It makes it trickier to see where labor would go and business would go. I suppose they could flip allegiances. Or at least be somewhat divided.

[Merneith]

@Happy_Lendervedder

Dem-- socially left, pro-immigrant, the party of minorities, pro-weed, pro-gay, youth, urban, global-thinking, pro-business, pro-social safety net. Think Millennials who drive Uber, get behind small-business start-ups, global corporations and organizations, new economy and planet-hugging-types, while not being especially religious (at least in the conservative right sense of the word).

Pub- socially right, isolationist, America-first, “traditional” values, rural and suburban, blue collar, pro-gun, anti-regulation, anti-taxation. Think blue collar workers, farmers, largely white, very pro-individual rights, pro worker, adherent to a more-traditional economy and more religious.

How is that any different than they’ve been for the last twenty years?

If there’s going to be a realignment - it’s going to be the moneyed Republicans deciding they don’t want to be connected with the Party of Trump and also that they actually don’t give a shit about gay marriage or clinging to their guns, and moving their financial support to the wall street friendly Clinton democrats.

At that point, the Greens will start being more important as the leftist party and the Republicans will dwindle into a rump of rural preppers and bible thumpers.

[bucketybuck]

@Siam_Sam

I’ve been waiting almost 60 years, and it hasn’t happened yet. I too have never and will never vote for a Republican.

Isn’t this the attitude that allows people like Trump to get nominated in the first place?

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@Merneith

How is that any different than they’ve been for the last twenty years?

If there’s going to be a realignment - it’s going to be the moneyed Republicans deciding they don’t want to be connected with the Party of Trump and also that they actually don’t give a shit about gay marriage or clinging to their guns, and moving their financial support to the wall street friendly Clinton democrats.

At that point, the Greens will start being more important as the leftist party and the Republicans will dwindle into a rump of rural preppers and bible thumpers.

I guess the biggest difference is labor will go more toward the Republican Party if the isolationist and free-trade stuff sticks with Republican voters beyond Trump. And, as you say, the moneyed Republicans moving their support to the wall street friendly Clinton Dems.

[elucidator]

@Merneith

…rural preppers…

Huh, wha?

[DigitalC]

@elucidator

Huh, wha?

Guys preparing for the collapse of civilization. “Doomsday preppers”.

[Jack_Batty]

Rupert Rubin rucked a rump of rural preppers.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@Merneith

How is that any different than they’ve been for the last twenty years?

If there’s going to be a realignment - it’s going to be the moneyed Republicans deciding they don’t want to be connected with the Party of Trump and also that they actually don’t give a shit about gay marriage or clinging to their guns, and moving their financial support to the wall street friendly Clinton democrats.

At that point, the Greens will start being more important as the leftist party and the Republicans will dwindle into a rump of rural preppers and bible thumpers.

@Happy_Lendervedder

I guess the biggest difference is labor will go more toward the Republican Party if the isolationist and free-trade stuff sticks with Republican voters beyond Trump. And, as you say, the moneyed Republicans moving their support to the wall street friendly Clinton Dems.

And hey, I still haven’t gotten the kinks worked out on my one-man party realignment thesis, I’m just sort of thinking out loud here.

My observation from the organized labor perspective: This is the first time in my 10+ years doing election work with union members that we’re having a hard time convincing a good chunk of union households to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate.

The union folk loved Bernie on jobs and trade. The Millennials loved Bernie for social issues and safety net issues. A lot of union folk tend to often skew more conservative socially, but still vote for their financial interest. Now a lot of union folk (not all of them or even most of them, but a lot) are saying Trump speaks more for them on jobs than Hillary does.

If the Republicans can convince them that they’re the party of isolationist and America-first economics and jobs and manufacturing, they could shift toward the GOP. Basically being conservative when it comes to holding on to a more traditional economy and workforce. This would be the side that penalizes companies for leaving the US, and thus would push corporate interests away from the Republican Party.

The Dems could pick up Millennials who are socially liberal, but are less concerned with traditional jobs and work-- more into gigs, small business start-up, tech jobs, more accepting of a global economy, etc. Basically being more *progressive *with creating new ways to earn a living. Wealthy corporate interests, seeing more opportunity to make a buck off the new economy than the old economy, would come down on this side of the political spectrum.

Again, I don’t have the kinks worked out, and I’m not a political scientist, just thinking out loud based on observations this year. And I just realized this was a major hijack, so I apologize for that. :o

[Siam_Sam]

@bucketybuck

Isn’t this the attitude that allows people like Trump to get nominated in the first place?

I did not vote for Trump. And there were plenty of other candidates for Republicans to choose. So yours is a bad example.

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@Jack_Batty

Rupert Rubin rucked a rump of rural preppers.

You want a Scooby snack now?

[Morgenstern]

I’ve been listening people on the internet arguing that Trump clearly won, citing “all the polls” that show he won. not specific polls mind you, but “all the polls.” Simple things for simple minds I guess, but seriously, I’m very afraid for America. I hope none of these geniuses are thinking about pursuing a career in medicine.

[ThelmaLou]

@elucidator

If he were the Republican candidate? I would exercise my royal perogative as Queen of Romania and name him the Duke of URL.

Duke-duke-duke–duke of URL…

[ThelmaLou]

@Morgenstern

I’ve been listening people on the internet arguing that Trump clearly won, citing “all the polls” that show he won. not specific polls mind you, but “all the polls.” Simple things for simple minds I guess, but seriously, I’m very afraid for America. I hope none of these geniuses are thinking about pursuing a career in medicine.

Somewhere on one of these threads I suggested it would be good to have a panel that critiqued the performances of the debaters, and someone <see how great my memory is?> said people would be insulted if others told them what was said–that people prefer to make up their own minds. And I said most people don’t know what they believe, what they heard, or what they think until someone else tells them.

This “poll” thing is exactly what I’m talking about. These dufuses (dufi?) are looking at so-called polls to tell them what their opinions are. Is any one of these people* capable of saying, “I watched it and IMHO Trump beat Hillary”? No. Because they don’t know what they think until someone tells them. Sheep. Empty-headed sheep.

*Not referring to anyone on this board, so if you think I’m pointing at you, I’m not.

Ok. I feel better. Carry on.

[marshmallow]

I was looking at some Trump forums and here’s the most popular CTs I saw:

1. Hillary used secret hand signals (scratching her face) to ask the moderator to step in and help her or let her get in a zinger.

2. Hillary received the questions ahead of time.

3. There was a small screen in Hillary’s podium you can see lighting up as she walks up to it. She read the answers off it.

4. Hillary’s earring was actually a small receiver.

[DoctorJ]

I think the split screen is the worst thing to ever happen to debates like this. We end up talking as much about the candidates’ facial expressions as much as we talk about what they say.

That said, if they’re going to do it, I think Hillary should make use of the standard jerking-off pantomime and/or a small Wile E. Coyote-style sign that says “BITCH PLEASE”.

[Morgenstern]

@ThelmaLou

…
This “poll” thing is exactly what I’m talking about. These dufuses (dufi?) are looking at so-called polls to tell them what their opinions are. Is any one of these people* capable of saying, “I watched it and IMHO Trump beat Hillary”? No. Because they don’t know what they think until someone tells them. Sheep. Empty-headed sheep.

…

Someone with photoshopping skills needs to prepare a picture of Trump at one if his rallies wearing long robes and holding a shepherd’s staff.

[bucketybuck]

@Siam_Sam

I did not vote for Trump. And there were plenty of other candidates for Republicans to choose. So yours is a bad example.

I shouldn’t have said “nomination” but the principle is still the same. You would refuse to vote for any Republican just like many Republicans would refuse to vote for a democrat, and the end result of that is people voting for a cretin like Trump. You are just lucky this time that the cretin is on their side and not yours, but that may not always be the case.

[CarnalK]

Republicans dropping their pro-business stance and flip completely on their union busting just to gain the ever dwindling (thanks to them!) unionized voters seems like bad math and a difficult road. I guess if Trump wins they couod change their entire ethos but seems doubtful to me.

The 538 article I read a while back was quite skeptical on a coming party realignment arguing that the bulk of people drawn to Trump’s extreme ideas were Republican favoring demographics already.

But what does realignment really mean? Where does the idea come from? Is a realignment really all that likely? In fact, there are reasons to believe that the 2016 election won’t result in realignment. The issues that motivate voters may change — in particular, the Republican Party appears more driven by cultural conservatism and grievance than small government philosophy. But new issues could sort voters into the same parties as before

Trump May Bring A Republican Recalibration, Not A Realignment

[Balance]

@Morgenstern

…Trump at one if his rallies wearing long robes and holding a shepherd’s staff.

I’m just going to point out that this is commonly known as a “crook”.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@asahi

I’ve already issued my judgment: I will never - EVER - vote for a republican in any office, for any reason as long as I live.

EVER.

The first time I registered to vote, back in 197-mumble, I registered Republican so I could vote *against *Nixon in the primary. Then I re-registered as Democrat and never looked back.