Yeah, elaborate on that! Suppose you were betting someone. How would you determine whether we've "entered the 7th party system"?
It's an entirely arbitrary historical distinction. There are five nearly universally-agreed-upon party systems that have existed in America to date.
Many, but not all, contend that there was a fundamental shift around when the south shifted from "Southern Democrat" to Republican, and that we have been in a 6th system since.
The 5th and 6th systems have a common core regarding the Republican Party: that it is a largely unbreakable coalition of religious voters, socially conservative voters (bigots, racists, etc...), and "fiscally conservative" small government voters. Three groups caucusing together, acting and voting mostly in lock-step.
If the Republican caucus breaks, it's real easy to make a strong argument that it's a new party system. If Trump gets the nomination and the entire caucus doesn't back him unilaterally, that's a strong signal that a break has occurred.
If I had to guess, the tea party has mostly been subsumed into the Trump party, putting social issues (racism) and economic issues (more "jobs") above strict ideological purity on fiscal issues. The GOP could easily leave the old standards of fiscal points behind, leaving one of the three pillars of the current party to rot.
Suppose your last paragraph comes to pass. The "fiscal conservatives" do... whatever, they're not hanging with the GOP any more. The Republican party can only manage (1/2 of the population) * (2/3 of their old constituency) of the vote. This is less than .5.
Under the current system, if you don't have half the vote (or close), you have nothing. Thus, you end up with two groups, whether the groups are parties, voting blocs within a party, coalitions, whatever.
Could we then see two "parties," which are in reality factions within what is currently known as the Democratic party? What might such a system look like?
The democrats aren't likely to split in the same fashion. They've always been a shifting coalition of compromise and generally centrist politics.
What I would expect is, over the longer term and assuming a 7th party system, that the Democrats have real control of government (as has happened in the past), the GOP is a permanent minority/opposition party, and policy fights happen in Democratic primaries.
The Sanders campaign was caught committing fraud (95 page pdf warning). Donations from unregistered PACs, foreign nationals, and one special lady who donated $35,000 to his campaign. I'm going to hazard a guess that someone in the campaign wasn't assigned to keep an eye on incoming money and make sure primary and general election funds were kept segregated.
I do find it amusing that Bernie, while yelling about a corrupt campaign finance system, was simultaneously breaking actual campaign finance laws.
His campaign has also been caught in a lie, to boot. In a recent statement after Hillary got called out regarding her speech about the 1994 crime prevention act, people noticed sanders voted for the same bill. He claimed that it was because of the assault weapons ban included in the bill, but the record shows he not only voted for but also gave a speech in support of(and also cautioning to not forget the root cause) the previous version of the bill, which included no such provisions.
This would have been far less serious of a lie to get caught on, if his supporters hadn't been bombing around half the internet calling Hillary a racist for supporting it, and demanding she apologize.
Sanders fanatics are pretty awful overall. I subbed to /r/SandersforPresident a while back, and it used to be full of good discussion. Now it's full of rabid nonsense.
Isn't this the definition of populist candidates? Trump and Sanders fanatics will both be full of rabid nonsense. Probably a lot of ignorance on both sides, though surely more blatant racism in Trump's camp.
Isn't this the definition of populist candidates? Trump and Sanders fanatics will both be full of rabid nonsense. Probably a lot of ignorance on both sides, though surely more blatant racism in Trump's camp.
"Populism is a doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new collective consciousness push against the prevailing status quo interests of any predominant political sector.
Political parties and politicians often use the terms populist and populism as pejoratives against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as merely empathising with the public, (usually through rhetoric or "unrealistic" proposals) in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum."
Rhetoric and unrealistic proposals are the literal playbooks of Trump on ones side and Sanders on the other. Just because I agree with most of Sanders positions doesn't make him any less populist.
Christie lost re-election after the George Washington Bridge scandal and he knows it. He's appealing to Trump because he knows nepotism and cronyism are the only ways he'll continue his career.
It depends on the state. Some have two term limits, some have no limits, and others have two consecutive term limits where they can run again after a four year absence from the office. I think there might be a couple exceptions to that but most states fall into one of those three.
Comments
Many, but not all, contend that there was a fundamental shift around when the south shifted from "Southern Democrat" to Republican, and that we have been in a 6th system since.
The 5th and 6th systems have a common core regarding the Republican Party: that it is a largely unbreakable coalition of religious voters, socially conservative voters (bigots, racists, etc...), and "fiscally conservative" small government voters. Three groups caucusing together, acting and voting mostly in lock-step.
If the Republican caucus breaks, it's real easy to make a strong argument that it's a new party system. If Trump gets the nomination and the entire caucus doesn't back him unilaterally, that's a strong signal that a break has occurred.
If I had to guess, the tea party has mostly been subsumed into the Trump party, putting social issues (racism) and economic issues (more "jobs") above strict ideological purity on fiscal issues. The GOP could easily leave the old standards of fiscal points behind, leaving one of the three pillars of the current party to rot.
Under the current system, if you don't have half the vote (or close), you have nothing. Thus, you end up with two groups, whether the groups are parties, voting blocs within a party, coalitions, whatever.
Could we then see two "parties," which are in reality factions within what is currently known as the Democratic party? What might such a system look like?
What I would expect is, over the longer term and assuming a 7th party system, that the Democrats have real control of government (as has happened in the past), the GOP is a permanent minority/opposition party, and policy fights happen in Democratic primaries.
The democratic internal differences are much less stark. The DNC still functions like a political party.
I do find it amusing that Bernie, while yelling about a corrupt campaign finance system, was simultaneously breaking actual campaign finance laws.
This would have been far less serious of a lie to get caught on, if his supporters hadn't been bombing around half the internet calling Hillary a racist for supporting it, and demanding she apologize.
1.a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
Yea, this is both Trump and Sanders,
"Populism is a doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new collective consciousness push against the prevailing status quo interests of any predominant political sector.
Political parties and politicians often use the terms populist and populism as pejoratives against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as merely empathising with the public, (usually through rhetoric or "unrealistic" proposals) in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum."
Rhetoric and unrealistic proposals are the literal playbooks of Trump on ones side and Sanders on the other. Just because I agree with most of Sanders positions doesn't make him any less populist.
If Trump loses, when is Christie up for re-election? Do you think it hurts him at all politically?
That brings up another question though... Who do you think Trump would pick as his VP?
By the same token, who do you think Hillary picks? Julian Castro?