u/Cybotnic-Rebooted

To be clear, I'm neither a DSAer or a Tea Partyer/MAGA, and I have a expressed belief that either being in control of the government will be not good for this country. With that being said, any idea that moving back to the old political norms would solve these issues is frankly ludicrous and anti-historical. The reason that these movements took form is that people felt left behind, on all political positions, from the system of government we had set up during the last few decades pre Great Financial Crash.

You saw it with insurgencies like Pat Buchanan in the 1992 and 1996, Ross Perot in the same years, Ralph Nader in 2000, etc. And that just kept growing and growing until we got people like Bernie Sanders, like Ron Paul, like Donald Trump, and now people like DAC. All throughout that time, the presidents basically coasted ideologically, not caring about the plight of those left behind. So they turned to people who did act like they cared. People who told them the things they wanted to hear. Crazy people, yes, but when you feel like all hope is lost, you don't get to be picky.

Yeah, of course I don't like DAC, just like I don't like Donald Trump. But who I hate just as much are the people who failed to meet the moment and caused the rise of these people in the first place, because it didn't have to be this way if we had just stopped acting like everything was normal.

If HW could have held on through 1992 (which he only lost the tipping point of by 4.65%), than 1996, 2000, and 2004 could have been layups depending on the candidates they chose.

1996: One of, if not the best economy in American history, with whoever the Republicans nominated being able to run on just continuing that prosperity.

2000: The economy continued to be good, and this time it would be a reelection for an incumbent rather than a new nominee.

2004: War on terror would mean that the party more known for being tough on foreign affairs would have the upper hand, which would be the Republicans.

I think there is a real possibility that if HW had won in 1992, the party could have held the white house for 28 consecutive years.

Spring boarding off the previous post on here, I was curious if you guys thought about how far "moderation" can get you electorally? Do you believe that, for both parties in general, it's always (or almost always) the better move to try to move towards the other party on most every issue? Do you think there's a certain point where the returns start to diminish, or even fall off entirely? It's a question I've always been curious about, as someone who likes studying Game Theory occasionally.

How this demographic has voted since 1992:

1992: D+28
1996: D+34
2000: D+22
2004: D+62
2008: D+9
2012: R+4
2016: D+10
2020: R+66
2024: R+63