The current Republican coalition is dominating almost every level of government. National media coverage's (and to some extent the major parties') monomaniacal focus on the presidency obscures this. All previous examples of a major political party imploding in the United States were preceded by that party losing most of its national power. Perhaps Trump or Cruz would have a nasty negative coattails effect, but the Republicans own such a massive advantage in geography and gerrymandering that it is hard to imagine them losing their deep advantages all over the place. An ordinary landslide for Democrats would probably just bring them to closer to parity.
I'd add here that if Democrats do win in 2016, and that's currently looking like a solid favorite, that sets them up for a backlash election in 2020. Traditionally, the longer one party controls the presidency the more tired the public gets of that party and more willing to blame any generic national ills on that incumbency. It doesn't mean they'll lose, but it is a headwind against him all other things being equal. If the Democrats don't have a strong win in 2020 at the state level, Republicans will maintain their considerable gerrymandering edge in perpetuity.
If Democrats have enough of a landslide in 2016 to take the house and solid Senate majority with the presidency, the very first thing they should be looking at is a Constitutional amendment to address gerrymandering. It would be a nice moment where their pragmatic interests align with the right thing to do and enough Republicans would be reeling from that election to potentially be willing to hedge and go along with it in numbers needed. You'd probably have to use the state convention method of passing at the state level. The public almost certainly would be strongly behind it.
ajax18 wrote:We've become so mired in petty disagreements over social issues that we've lost site of the importance of pushing back against the growing size of government and the constant tide of tax increases and debt increases.
Here's a bit of an article from Business Insider (not The Daily Worker):
Are taxes too high? Or are they too low?
Do high tax rates on "rich people" create a lazy population in which no one has an incentive to work hard?
And what about the Republican mantra that cutting taxes is always good for the economy, while raising taxes is always bad?
Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period.
This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:
Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.
Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).
Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.
So yes, we need to either increase revenues or decrease expenditures. But history tells us that now would be a good time to raise taxes on the rich, that it could indeed help restore balance and prosperity to our economy.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
EAllusion wrote:The current Republican coalition is dominating almost every level of government. National media coverage's (and to some extent the major parties') monomaniacal focus on the presidency obscures this. All previous examples of a major political party imploding in the United States were preceded by that party losing most of its national power. Perhaps Trump or Cruz would have a nasty negative coattails effect, but the Republicans own such a massive advantage in geography and gerrymandering that it is hard to imagine them losing their deep advantages all over the place. An ordinary landslide for Democrats would probably just bring them to closer to parity.
Excellent point. With many current district boundaries, it will take more than one bad Presidential election cycle to dislodge Republican power, especially on the state level. And I don't think that because many Republicans are dismayed at their choices on the national level that their thinking is no longer Republican. What the GOP might have to do this year is convince Republicans to vote, not for the President, but to keep the downstream candidates in power.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
For some reason the media overlooks what a mess the Democrats are.
The frontrunner is aging and unlikeable and reflects policies and events of 20 years ago. The second up is an even older man who thinks that the U.S. can somehow be transformed into a larger version of a small socialist Western European society.
There is also an article from salon.com about the rift that has been going among the Democrats recently. While Bernie did win in a lot of the States, Hillary has managed to win over Bernie in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio. All four of these States should be crucial battleground States during the 2016 Presidential election. If Hillary becomes the 2016 Democratic Nominee, I don't think she will have to worry that much about liberal voters staying home from those four battleground States. If Hillary wins two out of four of those battleground States during the 2016 Presidential election, she will very likely win the Presidency.
subgenius wrote:An implosion is most often not a precursor to solely a demise but also to an emergence.
So what do you think might be emerging?
Honestly I'm not sure, but it's naïve to think "something" will not be emerging. It may be the necessary growing pain within the "leadership" or it may simply be another manifestation of what it means to have a "representative" government. In many ways Hillary is an obvious representation of "old politics" and that is a bipartisan issue today - An issue the Republicans are exposing via the circus....the Democrats are taking a more timid approach to the future of politics...kinda ironic really...the Dems seem to be more nostalgic for "politics as usual". I beleive our inherently antagonistic system of government requires the sort of "revelation" the Republican primary is exhibitiing.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Kevin Graham wrote:Brackite, I've been noticing lately that you have been citing Left Wing sources and have been critical of the GOP. Is this a watershed moment for you?
Oh, it might be a watershed moment for me.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
When you have two choices and each one is bad, it would make sense for the Republican Party bosses to agree on a better candidate if the first ballot fails. Perhaps someone who is mavericky and volatile or perhaps someone who is Mormon and has contempt for half of the American citizenry.
Trump would appeal to more moderate voters (especially those fond of duck hunting hats) while Cruz would have a near unanimous appeal to voters wearing both a silver cross and aluminum foil headgear.
Sanders, on the other hand, strikes a very responsive chord with those who will be no-shows at the November election.