It seems to be the prevailing thought that the Dems and Reps

To add on to this, I always hear people say "the reps were against slavery but also against the civil rights act so they changed."

>>2171126
Democrats used to the "state's rights party" then it became the "federal government party".

The other Roosevelt was also pretty handsy on the economy and he was a Republican, Carter was pretty hands-offy and he was a Democrat - sometimes it's more about the guy than the party, but if the guy is popular you can expect party doctrine to follow after him thereafter.

>>2171126
>The Reps have always been about smaller government since Jefferson

The Republican Party as an institution traces its roots to Lincoln, trying to connect it all the way back to Jefferson is disingenuous. Basically a form of WEWUZism.

You're also cherrypicking like mad considering how many "big government" Republicans and "small government" Democrats there have been (if such labels are actually worth anything).

>>2171188

Yeah I guess I'm cherry picking a bit but then why do people say Republicans changed?

>>2171222
Jefferson founded the democratic republcans, that party essentially morphed into the democrats.

The modern republican party came from a coalition of northern groups that formed after the collapse of the old Whig party

>>2171709
>that party essentially morphed into the democrats

you mean schismed among four lines in 1828 after the era of good feelings collapsed in on itself and Jackson bludgeoned his way through to refound a party excluding his political enemies

Nice misdirection though, Shillary. Any little edge for 2020 counts, right?

>neolibs are THIIISSSSSSS pathetic

>>2171730
Jackson democrats held onto most of the essentials of the democratic republicans, and a connection to Jefferson in no way validates the corporatism with a side of social democracy advocated by modern democrats