US Politics: Reaching the Tipping Point

[Larry of the Lawn]

45 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I should have said that I'm speaking primarily from personal experience and discussion with other reasonable folks. I'm from Alabama but highly educated and the majority of my friends are "bright blue dots in a solid red state" folks. But I also have some old friends from childhood who are pretty damn conservative. It is my great joy to get to fight against both super conservatives and super liberals.

The issue is a lack of dialogue process. The amount of times I've had to explain how American free speech works is astounding. Assertions that X demographic shouldn't be entitled to have an opinion on Y issue because that is merely the province of Z is not conducive to discourse nor does it remotely resemble democracy. But the greater issue is that there isn't a dialogue process. Many far left folks I try to engage with don't want a dialogue. They want to post normative things and have it be objective truth and supported by righteous morality. That, by itself, doesn't lend itself well to discourse. That dovetails directly into what I was speaking to, that we don't get rid of Trump by saying "Hey, idiot, this is a true thing. How can you not believe this thing I posted when it is is so true and so moral?" We get folks to buy into the policy and see it as moral themselves. Even here, there is an exclusion to input from well-meaning people which is considered less important than a moral platform. Moral platforms don't succeed by repetition or fervor, but by engagement. This is the lack of process because it discourages engagement and instead draws a "with me or against me" line in the sand with all sorts of moral condemnation ready as rebuke.

More specifically. I was explaining why Georgia rape law is absolutely barbaric. The issue kept coming around to preferential white male treatment. I said, "Hey, we need to overhaul common law conceptions of rape that exist as criminal statutes in the U.S." and I was told that they'd rather "cut the head off of the giant." WTF does that even mean? I propose very specific legislative reform and I was responded to with abstractions about the woes of the criminal justice system. I grant those issues exist and need remedying. But the philosophical point of "Fuck this system, let's kill it ded" trumps practical considerations like "Hey, GA has a fucked up rape law, let's change it!" (Men can't be raped, legally, which seems to not be a source of worry... though it merely reflects how antiquated the law is and reflects its 18th century origins). The post above the article (discussing a family agreed upon plea agreement due to really crazy case facts and a really bad rape law) read "Are you 'afraid' men?" Do you really think that's winning political points? The poster had no idea that the same law that made consent sticky in that issue also says men cannot legally be the victims of rape. But that fact (and proposed reform) was a secondary concern. The identity politics issue came first. 

Another instance in when I discussed with someone how consent can be violated and Cardi B, specifically that force and violation of consent is inherent in drugging someone and the social harm (rape, robbery, to whatever degree) of such a forceful consent violation remains the same whether by physical exertion or by drugs. A far left friend of mine (friend of years, maybe 9 years) blocked me straight away. 

These weren't political points (I don't vote by party and lean left on social issues such as being a loud advocate of gay rights for around 15 years or since I had a cogent opinion. I wasn't saying anything inflammatory. But they didn't want to hear anything beyond what they thought they knew. Right wingers are just as bad, but try less to persuade. The far left forces a pseudo dialogue when what they really want is an echo chamber. It helped elect Trump, frankly. My personal experience is very much personal, but I believe in good faith discourse and try to engage in it. They, however, did not. And without engaging in discourse then we really don't have a discourse process. I could discuss other examples (being called a racist for absolutely no reason, being called a sexist when my then gf taught women's studies at a local college and told me not to take it so personally because it wasn't who I am) or being fearful in discussing my field of study because identity politics- or my demographic- seems to make my opinion null regardless of citations. 

These things aren't discourse. They are a failure of discourse. Let me state here that I hate Trump. I support gay marriage, I support abortion as legal as policy (but have given a son up for adoption as my girlfriend and myself were both 18 at the time), I support marijuana legalization. I support a higher federal minimum. And yet, somehow, the vocal far left folks paint me as a cancer. And that, in my experience, is entirely because of my unwillingness to swallow whole their terrible memes.

So... you're voting against racism and sexism despite having been called a racist and a sexist in the past?  Not really seeing how any of this far left moral lecturing you're discussing has made you stop voting against bigotry.  FB and memes aren't the best mediums for discourse, sure.  But I'm still not seeing how having to look at a meme you don't like is going to make you vote Trump.

[Demetri]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

So... you're voting against racism and sexism despite having been called a racist and a sexist in the past?  Not really seeing how any of this far left moral lecturing you're discussing has made you stop voting against bigotry.  FB and memes aren't the best mediums for discourse, sure.  But I'm still not seeing how having to look at a meme you don't like is going to make you vote Trump.

I'll never vote for Trump, full stop. I thought I made that super-clear. The issue is that these folks discourage me from buying into their preferred candidate because I don't think much of their logic/thought process. And I'm just the weird guy who tries to spark conversation, not the normal person who is content receiving information or reading but not replying. Lesser of two evils voting is a great summation of why Trump was elected in the first place and emblematic of problems within the present Democratic party. You're forcing me into a dichotomy where either Trump or the far left are the big baddie and I better pick. I reject that false dichotomy and think it hastens the dealignment of our present party system.

Think of it this way. If a bunch of bigoted people or people of questionable morality all said they were voting Trump would you not look at those folks and connect their behavior with the candidate/policy/general politics they're espousing? Would it not be a complete turnoff or at least affect your thinking? That's obviously extreme, but if folks systematically show a deficit in some logical capacity and support a certain point of view, why wouldn't at least some of that distaste by association rub off on you? It is a huge rallying cry for anti-Trump folks. But that further underscores the problem of such a directly adversarial system. I can think Trump and his followers are absolute garbage and also see the supporters of some hypothetical candidate  as similarly lacking. Thus, one might not vote (turn-out hurt too) or might vote beyond D and R (as I have recently.)

I also tend to think that the parties are effectively two branches of one establishment party with consolidating power being the biggest uniting force in politics. But that's a slight aside. I don't want to support a racist and I don't want to support an idiot. Racism is worse, sure, but the issue further becomes muddied by suggestions that moral outrage over one compels me to vote against those interests. A vote isn't meant to be cast for disaster avoidance and I refuse to vote accordingly. If we want sweeping and meaningful change then we have to stop thinking so dualistically.

[Mexal]

14 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Late in addressing this: no, I’ve seen Democrats get excited about these polls as evidence Trump’s defeat is assured.

Honestly, I think @Jace, Basilissa level of cynicism is probably the most safe way for Democrats to go about things.The odds of Trump getting re-elected are very good. That is scary. Actually use that fear to help mobilize the base. 

 

Where? Can you show me where Dems are believing that Trump can't win?

[Demetri]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Where? Can you show me where Dems are believing that Trump can't win?

It certainly doesn't exist in polls that pit Warren vs. generic candidate X. Those are really ugly and really scary. That's just based on what I've seen which I'll concede isn't up-to-the-minute data.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Demetri said:

I'll never vote for Trump, full stop. I thought I made that super-clear. The issue is that these folks discourage me from buying into their preferred candidate because I don't think much of their logic/thought process. And I'm just the weird guy who tries to spark conversation, not the normal person who is content receiving information or reading but not replying. Lesser of two evils voting is a great summation of why Trump was elected in the first place and emblematic of problems within the present Democratic party. You're forcing me into a dichotomy where either Trump or the far left are the big baddie and I better pick. I reject that false dichotomy and think it hastens the dealignment of our present party system.

Think of it this way. If a bunch of bigoted people or people of questionable morality all said they were voting Trump would you not look at those folks and connect their behavior with the candidate/policy/general politics they're espousing? Would it not be a complete turnoff or at least affect your thinking? That's obviously extreme, but if folks systematically show a deficit in some logical capacity and support a certain point of view, why wouldn't at least some of that distaste by association rub off on you? It is a huge rallying cry for anti-Trump folks. But that further underscores the problem of such a directly adversarial system. I can think Trump and his followers are absolute garbage and also see the supporters of some hypothetical candidate  as similarly lacking. Thus, one might not vote (turn-out hurt too) or might vote beyond D and R (as I have recently.)

I also tend to think that the parties are effectively two branches of one establishment party with consolidating power being the biggest uniting force in politics. But that's a slight aside. I don't want to support a racist and I don't want to support an idiot. Racism is worse, sure, but the issue further becomes muddied by suggestions that moral outrage over one compels me to vote against those interests. A vote isn't meant to be cast for disaster avoidance and I refuse to vote accordingly. If we want sweeping and meaningful change then we have to stop thinking so dualistically.

If you want to get rid of the lesser of two evils phenomenon you need to change the way we vote - a first past the post system gives you two big tent parties.  That's the reality of our system.  Yes, you can vote third party, and it will typically produce outcomes that you do not want.  This is well established.   If you want to stop thinking so dualistically then you need to change the system that produces it.  There aren't two big parties by accident, it's because that's the structure that our voting rules and laws create.

You did make it clear you'd never vote for Trump, which was my whole point.  It sounds like despite this leftist rhetoric that you can't stand you're still voting against him. 

On social media the most extreme and sensational content rises to the top.  I'm not saying it doesn't have any effect on people, but if my neighbor decides not to vote because someone on FB called Trump a Nazi, my neighbor was probably never going to fucking vote against Trump anyway.  

People are fucking stupid but they aren't THAT fucking stupid.  If 60 million people vote for someone there's going to be a few of them whose ideas you don't like.  Now, you can say, what about white supremacists?  They seem really keen on Trump.  Maybe I should think twice about voting for him.  And you'd be right!  

Thing is though, there's not really an equivalent on the left.  Who are you afraid of being lumped in with?  Other people who want everyone to have healthcare?  People who believe that people of color, women, and LGBTQ are people too?  ANTIFA?

The Dems have problems turning out their base when they run boring or uninspiring candidates.  Did people stay home in 2016 because they didn't like HRC?  Or did they consider voting for her, but then decided to stay home because a Clinton supporter posted a meme about how Trump sucks?  

This kind of person was never going to vote for the candidate anyway,and you're never going to be able to stop people from satire or making statements you don't like.  Or moralizing on social media.  If that's really what's keeping someone from the polls then it's not even worth going after their vote; politics is too 'dirty' for them.  

And they're probably someone who wishes Colin Kaepernick never took a knee, or wishes that #metoo would just go away.  Or would just rather not think about kids locked up in cages or the President riling up allies and cozying up to dictators and beating his chicken hawk chest.  

I'm not making an argument against having a dialogue, I'm saying that this mythical voter who is so turned off by incivility doesn't matter and doesn't really exist.  Not in any significant way 

[Zorral]

14 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Yeah, approval doesn't completely align with voting behavior. A lot of people hold their nose and vote the party line. I imagine a fair number of Hillary voters would have been in the "don't approve" camp for her too. My own US-based extended family in-law are all life long Republicans and they all sheepishly voted for Trump, because Supreme Court. Oddly I don;t think any of the younger members of said in-law family are pro-lifers, so I'm not certain what issue they are concerned about that makes the SC roster a major motivation for how they vote. Gun rights I guess? Uncle Ron was quite the fan of guns.

White supremacy.  Which is what Biden says he's got going for him when it comes to 'working with' these rethugs.  Of course, he says it in code, but that's what he's saying when he says that when *rump is gone, the rethugs will work with him, which is based, probably on his days with MM, as the white VP to black O's POTUS.

[Zorral]

5 hours ago, Demetri said:

But I also have some old friends from childhood who are pretty damn racist and sexist and mean conservative.

Fixed that for ya.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Demetri said:

I'll simplify this even further. The largest voting bloc in America (white women) absolutely failed to make the difference. The arrogance of assumed victory limited voting turnout to a degree, but white women simply didn't bend D as much as they were thought to. We can talk about new voters, or newly radicalized right wingers all we want and yet the fact remains that white women are the plurality of the American electorate. Hopefully they're a bit upset at the moment. I will also say that the dialogue process of the far left is not especially endearing. That's less a 2016 issue and more an issue to be remedied for 2020.

Hey you’re preaching to the choir here. I’ve been trashing 53% of white women for over two years now. Hopefully all these abortion bans will wake the sane ones up. But probably not….

[Demetri]

38 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Fixed that for ya.

Not unfair. I don't curate my FB. Nor do I really even use it regularly. But when I do scroll through.....it is a human trainwreck from almost all sides.

[DMC]

7 hours ago, Demetri said:

If we were to chart approval ratings historically they would not be great predictors of election outcome.

Well, actually it seems we're in disagreement here.  Job approval - at least once the election is close temporally - is actually one of (if not the) best indicators of an incumbent's reelection chances, including presidents.

7 hours ago, Demetri said:

People overwhelmingly don't favor congress and don't view their representatives fondly and yet it might well be outweighed by nothing more than familiarity.

Not quite.  People overwhelmingly don't favor congress, but they generally do favor their representatives fondly.  This is what's referred to as Fenno's paradox.  However, there does seem to be a correlation between the two - meaning as overall approval goes down, so does approval for one's own representative, generally.  And vice versa.

7 hours ago, Demetri said:

We don't vote for how much we like a candidate in a vacuum, it is inherently a process of competition. We just need to settle into imminent dealignment (or at least realignment) within the next 10-15 years. This has been a long time coming, frankly. The root cause is not one candidate, but the process itself and the incredible distrust towards establishment candidates. 

I agree there is increasing distrust towards the establishment, and our institutions in general.  Here's some good reading on that.  But otherwise I'm not sure what you're saying here.

35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’ve been trashing 53% of white women for over two years now.

I'm assuming "trashing" is a euphemism here.  You sick bastard.

[Demetri]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

If you want to get rid of the lesser of two evils phenomenon you need to change the way we vote - a first past the post system gives you two big tent parties.  That's the reality of our system.  Yes, you can vote third party, and it will typically produce outcomes that you do not want.  This is well established.   If you want to stop thinking so dualistically then you need to change the system that produces it.  There aren't two big parties by accident, it's because that's the structure that our voting rules and laws create.

You did make it clear you'd never vote for Trump, which was my whole point.  It sounds like despite this leftist rhetoric that you can't stand you're still voting against him. 

On social media the most extreme and sensational content rises to the top.  I'm not saying it doesn't have any effect on people, but if my neighbor decides not to vote because someone on FB called Trump a Nazi, my neighbor was probably never going to fucking vote against Trump anyway.  

People are fucking stupid but they aren't THAT fucking stupid.  If 60 million people vote for someone there's going to be a few of them whose ideas you don't like.  Now, you can say, what about white supremacists?  They seem really keen on Trump.  Maybe I should think twice about voting for him.  And you'd be right!  

Thing is though, there's not really an equivalent on the left.  Who are you afraid of being lumped in with?  Other people who want everyone to have healthcare?  People who believe that people of color, women, and LGBTQ are people too?  ANTIFA?

The Dems have problems turning out their base when they run boring or uninspiring candidates.  Did people stay home in 2016 because they didn't like HRC?  Or did they consider voting for her, but then decided to stay home because a Clinton supporter posted a meme about how Trump sucks?  

This kind of person was never going to vote for the candidate anyway,and you're never going to be able to stop people from satire or making statements you don't like.  Or moralizing on social media.  If that's really what's keeping someone from the polls then it's not even worth going after their vote; politics is too 'dirty' for them.  

And they're probably someone who wishes Colin Kaepernick never took a knee, or wishes that #metoo would just go away.  Or would just rather not think about kids locked up in cages or the President riling up allies and cozying up to dictators and beating his chicken hawk chest.  

I'm not making an argument against having a dialogue, I'm saying that this mythical voter who is so turned off by incivility doesn't matter and doesn't really exist.  Not in any significant way 

I'm totally with you on changing the system. I was staunchy against introducing a Parliamentary system, but the lack of nuanced policy and coalition building has led to an incredible degree of otherization in politics which is both counterproductive and dangerous on a political, societal and cultural level.

I'm just speaking from personal experience. My moderate voice is very rarely welcomed and often time mocked or misattributed (see how tetchy I was when I thought you thought I was a Trump supporter, that is conditioned. I've never supported anything beyond the idea that he might help us realize our system is broken).

I don't think we're disagreeing as much as it appears. We simply have different viewers on (and I hate this term) "Swing-voters". My vote is very much available but when someone is advocating a political platform and the comments devolve almost immediately into ad hominem nonsense then I'm out. Before Trump, fervent ideology wasn't sufficient for office/political platform. I want it to stay that way. Perhaps I should have elaborated that it truly is the manner, not the substance, that drives me away. 

I wouldn't say I'm "turned off by incivility" so much as surprised by the method of argumentation and issues of dispute chosen by the far left. It has, in the past, boggled my mind. But the real issue is a bit deeper: many of the folks I speak of are VERY vocal. Not unlike some Trump supporters, they have a palpable sense of moral superiority that gives them a terrifying confidence in their views. This is equally applicable to the far wings of each camp, but the difference is that I don't see Nazi posts on social media. I do see some pretty bad stuff from the other pole. I don't want to be anywhere near those kind of thinkers. I try to engage, but engagement isn't the goal. Sometimes (and again, this is a subsect, this isn't democrats at large or liberals in general) the goal is sheer propaganda and information dispersal. But eventually those far left folks have to find a non-Trump candidate. The selection mechanism and how discourse happens at that point will continue.

But here's the grand finale of things. So much of the far left involves setting social ground rules (PC is a good example but not unique) and they tend to drag that into the discussion. I think a great many people might be turned off by someone accepting discussion/discourse only on their terms, at their home field.

I won't vote Trump, but there is one friend in particular who, if he declares a favorite, will inherently make me doubt the viability of the person he sides with. That's based on nothing but the way he handles discussion and tries to exhibit moral superiority. I never meant to state that it would define the election, but I think it is something to watch. I, again, think the two party system we now have is crumbling before our eyes and that the preventative measures regarding discourse (For both far ends) is a huge symptom.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm assuming "trashing" is a euphemism here.  You sick bastard.

Nope. As Montag is wont to burn books, I am to pick up white women who voted for Trump and leave them in dumpsters.

[Demetri]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

(1)Well, actually it seems we're in disagreement here.  Job approval - at least once the election is close temporally - is actually one of (if not the) best indicators of an incumbent's reelection chances, including presidents.

(2)Not quite.  People overwhelmingly don't favor congress, but they generally do favor their representatives fondly.  This is what's referred to as Fenno's paradox.  However, there does seem to be a correlation between the two - meaning as overall approval goes down, so does approval for one's own representative, generally.  And vice versa.

(3)I agree there is increasing distrust towards the establishment, and our institutions in general.  Here's some good reading on that.  But otherwise I'm not sure what you're saying here.

1) That is fair as long as we properly operationalize it. It seems like we could simply be misunderstanding one another due to terminology (or more likely my hamfisted wording.) Job approval is certainly not MEANINGLESS but, once two candidates are identified and known, that job approval is perhaps a secondary consideration to opinions of Specific Person X v. Specific Person Y. 

2) That is precisely what I was referring to as it links to what I've made point 3. I did not at all mean to suggest that approval of Congress as a whole directly reflects approval of your representative. That goes against political theory on a very basic level. But there is a correlation. I'd say that "don't view their representatives fondly" is accurate. It might lack specificity, but I meant to highlight the correlation you helpfully mention. Congress is generally viewed negatively and there is a causal connection to individual representatives that means the former impacts the latter. "Not very fondly" is broad. But beyond the previous connection, approval rates for an individual can only ever get so high. No one is out their nominating their rep for "Best politican Eva" 2019. There is certainly a local feeling and a local impact, but there is also certainly an impact of being part of a governmental body that isn't very well thought of. 

Many (I won't argue most though I think it might be right, simply too broad) congressional candidates have differentiating themselves from Congress as an institution as objective #1. And wisely so. My pardons on the lack of precision, I can see how my appraisal of Congress and individual reps can be conflated as being one assessment but that was poor word wielding on my part.

3) It is a convoluted point, frankly. I have not read that particular piece (a bit after my PoliSci time) but I think the general distrust of Congress stems from a concept that something weird happens in D.C. and representatives immediately become primarily interested in entrenching and furthering their political power. A lot of people think there isn't a meaningful distinction between party platforms because the overwhelming interest of each individual is preservation of power. I think there is some legitimacy to it, but I wouldn't personally go that far. But I do think voter apathy and voter fatigue have at least a portion of their roots in this issue.

Despite an advanced degree in PoliSci, my love is really just in two areas: 1) political philosophy, 2) statistics. I think those things are fascinating in and of themselves and elections, for me, are just a joyous psychological/number game. And from a philosophical/historical perspective, surely you admit that we're overdue for realignment (dealignment eventually, IMHO). So I really do approach these things from those two areas and with that proposed hypothesis. I'd love any thoughts you have on it. I first felt it was inevitable in the 2nd Bush campaign and so far...well...America might as well have had a script for the part. Reasonable minds can and will differ, but I wouldn't cry over the loss of the Ds or Rs. The first one to effectively go "big tent" will probably be the basis for the template of the new parties. We'll see how it pans out. But I truly believe that Trump could be a great thing for American democracy either by forcing realization or inciting actual party reform.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Demetri said:

once two candidates are identified and known, that job approval is perhaps a secondary consideration to opinions of Specific Person X v. Specific Person Y. 

Sure.

2 minutes ago, Demetri said:

But beyond the previous connection, approval rates for an individual can only ever get so high. No one is out their nominating their rep for "Best politican Eva" 2019. There is certainly a local feeling and a local impact, but there is also certainly an impact of being part of a governmental body that isn't very well thought of. 

This is a good point - as overall congressional approval continues to be habitually low, that inherently decreases the ceiling for approval of individual representatives.  And this has led to insecure majorities.  Which is why I either laugh or roll my eyes (depending on mood) whenever I see some version of "the Republicans are definitely going to hold the Senate for the next 30 years" on these threads.

7 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I think the general distrust of Congress stems from a concept that something weird happens in D.C. and representatives immediately become primarily interested in entrenching and furthering their political power.

Well, yes.  But this is nothing new.

9 minutes ago, Demetri said:

And from a philosophical/historical perspective, surely you admit that we're overdue for realignment (dealignment eventually, IMHO).

Oh, I don't know.  I'm not even sure anyone's really hammered down a clear definition for what realignment really means.  We can all identify the big ones - and I'll teach the textbook and describe those moments (which are usually concurrent with shifts in "party systems" over the history of the US) when teaching - but was Obama a realignment?  I don't think so, but he did demonstrate and capture a coalition that if the Dems can turn out, they should be able to win - and the demos of that coalition only promise to increase that advantage.  I think it's natural for people to feel like "we're on the precipice" when it comes to politics.  I literally cannot remember a time in my adult life where there weren't many people saying that.  But I don't know of any research that convincingly, either statistically or logically, identifies indicators for realignments.

16 minutes ago, Demetri said:

The first one to effectively go "big tent" will probably be the basis for the template of the new parties. We'll see how it pans out. But I truly believe that Trump could be a great thing for American democracy either by forcing realization or inciting actual party reform.

I think the Dems already are the big tent party.  Or at least they should be, and are win they win.  The left does seem particularly intent on trying to push out anyone "moderate" these days, which is a concern.  I don't see the GOP expanding to a big tent anytime soon, in fact it's pretty apparent they are perfectly satisfied contracting.  As for Trump affecting a radical and positive change, I'm not in any way optimistic about that.

[Demetri]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is a good point - as overall congressional approval continues to be habitually low, that inherently decreases the ceiling for approval of individual representatives.  And this has led to insecure majorities.  Which is why I either laugh or roll my eyes (depending on mood) whenever I see some version of "the Republicans are definitely going to hold the Senate for the next 30 years" on these threads.

C'mon, what's politics without some chicken little fun?

 

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Oh, I don't know.  I'm not even sure anyone's really hammered down a clear definition for what realignment really means.  We can all identify the big ones - and I'll teach the textbook and describe those moments (which are usually concurrent with shifts in "party systems" over the history of the US) when teaching - but was Obama a realignment?  I don't think so, but he did demonstrate and capture a coalition that if the Dems can turn out, they should be able to win - and the demos of that coalition only promise to increase that advantage.  I think it's natural for people to feel like "we're on the precipice" when it comes to politics.  I literally cannot remember a time in my adult life where there weren't many people saying that.  But I don't know of any research that convincingly, either statistically or logically, identifies indicators for realignments.

I don't think Obama was realignment. I think the shift from neoconservatives to today's breed is notable. But one could fairly point to Reagan as being a minor realignment. 

It's entirely a pet theory of mine, beyond timeframe trends and somewhat circumstantial evidence (primarily involving voting trends but also as single issue voters become a bit more pronounced and even maybe a bit more varied in appearance) there isn't much evidence behind it. I will say that there seems to be a feeling that BOTH parties are backed into a corner, politically and neither feels comfortable. Dems have an ensemble cast doing their rendition of "Trump is the Devil" and Trump is doing lord knows what but probably also a Greek tragedy about himself. You spoke of insecure majorities and I think that speaks to larger issues of structural insecurity on behalf of the parties. There is a fundamental problem, on both sides of the aisle, in identifying, mobilizing and unifying their voting blocs. To me, this stands in stark contrast to the status quo about 20 years ago. Generally, we've seen the gray population grow and the extremes further separate and define themselves. Of notable interest is international political movements. For perhaps the 3rd time we're seeing political insecurity writ large on Western democracy not as a threat to a particular party, but as a threat to the establishment as a whole. 

You seem very knowledgeable on the PoliSci side so I thought I'd run it up the flagpole (Did I properly infer that you're a professor of the subject?) This might be an issue of desire vs. reading the political tea leaves, but we are certainly at an interesting crossroads in American political history. 

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think the Dems already are the big tent party.  Or at least they should be, and are win they win.  The left does seem particularly intent on trying to push out anyone "moderate" these days, which is a concern.  I don't see the GOP expanding to a big tent anytime soon, in fact it's pretty apparent they are perfectly satisfied contracting.  As for Trump affecting a radical and positive change, I'm not in any way optimistic about that.

I'm glad that you acknowledge what I expressed above with "the left does seem particularly intent on trying to push out anyone 'moderate' these days" which I got a bit of very polite and civil backlash for. For the GOP, if they could somehow court the hispanic vote (no need to raise objections, I get it) then they could become nearly monolithic. But they lack the foresight to sacrifice individual policy decisions for such a cause nor is it certain that such an effort could happen within 1 or even 2 generations. The Cuban population and their anomalous voting behavior obviously provides no meaningful parallel. But if such a coalition could form...

I think the Dems are failing as a big tent party. I'm not sure what central force is holding up said tent. I know they want it to be the case, I simply think they lack the cohesion and political will/unity required to drop issues in compromise. I think a sense of moral righteousness is a major cause of the problem and the relative unfriendliness you see among certain proponents. I mean, I'm a white male and, when trying to discuss an issue, was expressly told "they" (guy speaking generally) don't want "me." Well, that kind of sucks because I'm fairly knowledgeable, extremely loyal and, when stoked, extremely passionate. An ex of mine later told me "Oh, ignore him, he won't be happy until there is a race war" as if explaining that the person has tourettes or some irreversible condition that can only be managed, never stopped. Talk about deflating. 

I also lived with a couple of antifa guys and they are two of the worst human beings I've ever met. I understand that that means little and less, but these sort of experiences happen without any concept of politics as a larger institution. And that scattered, shotgun approach to coalition building is how we end up with Trump. If the Democrats could learn to pick their battles or, more precisely, learn how to reign in groups that want to fight every battle, then they're halfway there. Being fervently anti-Trump, IMO, is not a lasting enough stance to pitch a tent on. I see the desire and potential for a D big tent party, but I also see major failures in execution. If they find out I'm from Montgomery, Alabama then I might as well be wearing a swastika. Gotta get away from the "feels good morally" and into the "let's figure out how to accomplish morally good things." Just the opinion of a very tired Southerner.

[DMC]

32 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I think the shift from neoconservatives to today's breed is notable. But one could fairly point to Reagan as being a minor realignment. 

Certainly, Reagan is the last clear realignment in my book.

33 minutes ago, Demetri said:

You spoke of insecure majorities and I think that speaks to larger issues of structural insecurity on behalf of the parties. There is a fundamental problem, on both sides of the aisle, in identifying, mobilizing and unifying their voting blocs.

I'm not sure if this the fault of either party, in terms of party as organization or party in government.  I think it just reflects polarization and the fact that both parties as electorate are increasingly intense in preference and evenly matched against one another.

38 minutes ago, Demetri said:

For perhaps the 3rd time we're seeing political insecurity writ large on Western democracy not as a threat to a particular party, but as a threat to the establishment as a whole. 

That's true.  While I'm not sure why this is the third time, generally I totally agree the west is facing such a crisis right now.

39 minutes ago, Demetri said:

(Did I properly infer that you're a professor of the subject?)

Well, we'll see (and hope so!) - just about done with my diss and going on the market in the fall.  But yeah I've been an instructor throughout my graduate career and will be doing so the rest of my life, even if it has to be back at a community college.

44 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I think a sense of moral righteousness is a major cause of the problem and the relative unfriendliness you see among certain proponents. I mean, I'm a white male and, when trying to discuss an issue, was expressly told "they" (guy speaking generally) don't want "me." Well, that kind of sucks because I'm fairly knowledgeable, extremely loyal and, when stoked, extremely passionate. An ex of mine later told me "Oh, ignore him, he won't be happy until there is a race war" as if explaining that the person has tourettes or some irreversible condition that can only be managed, never stopped. Talk about deflating. 

Obviously I disagree with anyone telling you "they" don't want you, but I think this tends to get a little overblown and is often more a reflection of the resentment whites hold rather than the actions of pushy leftists.  I have been told similar things in these threads on occasion.  But that doesn't affect my political preferences.  And I don't see any reason it should for anybody, frankly.  White racial resentment is a powerful reason Trump won, and almost certainly represents most of the Obama-Trump voters, so I agree the left should calm down/knock it off a bit.  But you seem to be a high information voter.  That shouldn't impact high information voters.

51 minutes ago, Demetri said:

Being fervently anti-Trump, IMO, is not a lasting enough stance to pitch a tent on.

Meh, reelections are always about the incumbent when it comes to the presidency.  And considering his unpopularity, it's wise campaign strategy to keep the focus on hating Trump.  Is that a long term solution?  Of course not.  But there's plenty of policy out there being debated and proposed.  Hell, with all these candidates there's probably too much policy being bandied about.  So I agree it's quite disorganized right now, but that's pretty innate to the varied constituencies of the party.

[Kalbear]

I think ultimately if someone is yelled at for not being extreme enough, they'll naturally gravitate towards the people who aren't yelling at them. I don't understand why this would be controversial or odd. This is how extremist groups work - they find and prey on people who have been outcast or unwelcomed in other areas, show how they're actually special and great, and welcome them in. 

I think there's a place for rage and being unflinchingly moralistic - but I think it needs to not be the only option. In that, Biden is being pretty smart on electability (if stupid and naive in everything else), in that he's giving people at least a thought to joining him and coming back. 

But really, how weird is it that people would shy away from someone yelling at them? Even if what they're saying is true? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Demetri,

I also lived with a couple of antifa guys and they are two of the worst human beings I've ever met.

Is this a personal or a political observation?  I’m wondering where you are going with this?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But really, how weird is it that people would shy away from someone yelling at them? Even if what they're saying is true? 

I, for one, dislike confrontation intensely (despite enjoying discussion and debate (it is a fine line)).  Quite frankly, confrontation frightens me and brings up all sorts of fun childhood anxiety.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Quite frankly, confrontation frightens me and brings up all sorts of fun childhood anxiety.

I have similar feelings - in real life.  My dad was a very angry man growing up so I naturally avoid any type of confrontation these days, in some ways to my detriment.  But online?  Meh, it can be fun sometimes.  I view the two entirely differently.