Thread by @Nitza_the_witch, Inspired by this analysis from @GabeGuidarini I decided to map each of [...]

Inspired by this analysis from @GabeGuidarini I decided to map each of these parties, with some tweaks as I will explain later, into an ideological axis plot with an economic and social axis https://twitter.com/gabeguidarini/status/1317596900753899522

https://twitter.com/gabeguidarini/status/1317596900753899522

First, let me explain my method. I borrowed heavily from this methodology from the voter study group. In fact, I just mapped my analysis directly into their chart.

I looked at seven hypothetical parties as if the US were to have a multiparty system. As it stands now, the US has only two parties, but in fact the parties function basically like pre made coalitions and what we call “wings” of the party could plausibly be called parties.

Of the changes I made to @GabeGuidarini ‘s taxonomy, I added a libertarian party and combined the liberal and social democracy party into one, just called the Democratic Party. I also changed the color scheme as I will explain below. But first, the map

This is what I came up with. Note that the size of each circle does not indicate how large the party is in terms of votes, but rather the breadth of its ideology. For instance the libertarian party is quite wide ideologically, but relatively small in term as of votes.

Here’s a list of the parties and the color associated with each:

The Justice Party

The Democratic Party
light blue = The Blue Dog Party

The Libertarian Party

The Republican Party
dark red = The Conservative Party

The America First Party

The Justice Party:
- economically left to far left
- socially left to far left
- named after Justice Democrats wing
- key issues: climate, wealth redistribution, single payer healthcare, social justice
- key figures: AOC, Bernie, squad

The Democratic Party
- economically left to center left
- socially left to center left
- establishment Democratic Party
- key issues: gun control, more HC subsidies and regulation, promote liberal social values abroad, increase welfare state
- key figure: Obama, Clinton

(Light blue) The Blue Dog Party
- economically center to center left
- socially center right to center left
- named after Blue Dog wing of Democratic Party
- key issues: pro tariffs, increase consumer and worker protections, immigration skeptics
- key figures: Manchin, Sinema

The Libertarian Party
- economically moderate to far right
- socially moderate to far left
- smallest party
- key issues: marijuana legalization, criminal justice reform, tax reform, gun control, free speech
- key figures: Gary Johnson, Rand Paul

Republican Party
- economically center right to right
- socially center right to right
- establishment and moderate Republicans
- key issues: free trade, status quo immigration, pro business, corporate tax cuts, interventionist
- key figures: Romney, Bush, Cheney

(dark red) The Conservative Party
- economically right to far right
- socially right to far right
- key issues: pro life, small government, tax cuts for families and business, pro police
- key figures: Cruz, McConnell, Mcarthy

The America First Party (not married to the name)
- economically moderate left to right
- socially center right to right
- Unorthodox views
- key issues: immigration restriction, trade and foreign policy skeptical, fiscal responsibility,
- key figures: Trump, Hawley, Carlson

With that brief description of each, let’s return to the map. You can see that the Trump voters in 16’ fall largely within the America first party and republican/conservative coalition. The democrats have the most representation of any single party followed by the AF party.

The danger here for the right is that without Trump or some other sufficiently charismatic populist/ nationalist figurehead, you lose a lot of these voters and the Republican coalition is doomed to crushing defeats

advisor to McConnell @HolmesJosh said what a powerhouse this right populist coalition can be. But imo the “insanity” of a Trump will inevitably come with any populist leader to a degree. Let me explain https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1348086523141496835

https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1348086523141496835

A charismatic right wing nationalist populist will inevitably get labeled by the media and the left as a demagogue. History of the 20th century has made many in America skeptical of charismatic politicians. Boring politicians are a feature, not a bug for the establishment.

But American populist voters are tired of the DC country club. They want a wrecking ball. So it’s a bit of a catch-22 for the right. The answer is just to find a good enough populist now and don’t get gun shy when the media inevitably accuses them of being Hitler. It will happen

Democrats hold strong no matter what. Republicans must do the same. Quit waiting on a polite populist, it ain’t gonna happen. It’s an oxymoron. The voters want an Al Czervik to stick it to Bushwood Country Club

Here’s a good case in point of how Dems hold together https://twitter.com/nitza_the_witch/status/1360740560990990341

https://twitter.com/nitza_the_witch/status/1360740560990990341

Lastly, a note about style versus substance. Some of you will recognize that will Trump may have campaigned as a populist, he largely governed as a conservative Republican. It makes sense, he was one man fighting his own party and democrats alike. Having his style was a victory..

... but the need for an actual populist/nationalist policy agenda is apparent. Populist rhetoric with establishment Republican governance don’t cut it. Hopefully people like @russvought and @amrestorecenter can bridge this gap.

For my part I’ll say this: a good policy agenda should continue the focus on trade/immigration nationalism and smart foreign policy. Additionally the need to address healthcare, wages, and corporate influence should come next.

If this thread seems to garner some interest maybe I’ll do another going into more detail on these policies, but for now I’ll call it a night.

And here’s what a multi party system might look like. It has 220 in the left coalition and 210 in the right. With 5 libertarians doing god knows what. This type of arrangement would give the Blue Dogs quite a bit of power.

Here’s senate, based on this map

Of course a flaw in this analysis is expecting the establishment Republican party to have such a small footprint, when they are by definition the ones with all of the institutional power.

For example, they have the ear of the powerful donors, but who would donate to a party than could only get 5-10% of the vote? The establishment right is disconnected from its voter base, which isn’t isn’t a problem for the left.

In reality, the Republican Party would likely have more seats despite so little voter appetite for their policies, using institutional power to sway voters. In some cases they would adopt populist policies i.e. Romney’s child allowance bill

Latest Threads Unrolled: