Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[The_Doctor]

I'd like to ask, apologies if it has been posted already, but what were the results of the 2018 IL Governor's race in this timeline?

Yup

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*sigh*
Should have expected this

The names are eh, I picked out of past Democratic candidates. It's more that Democrats picked up the governorship. (Although now, I think it will be Pritzkher or something).

Here's the article. The Senate GOP gained 4 seats actually. Illinois's budget deficits and ongoing fiscal crisis actually plays a big role in this timeline.

[The_Doctor]

I'd like to ask, apologies if it has been posted already, but what were the results of the 2018 IL Governor's race in this timeline?

Yup

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*sigh*
Should have expected this

The names are eh, I picked out of past Democratic candidates. It's more that Democrats picked up the governorship. (Although now, I think it will be Pritzkher or something).

Here's the article. The Senate GOP gained 4 seats actually. Illinois's budget deficits and ongoing fiscal crisis actually plays a big role in this timeline.

1.  Can you please post the margin?  There doesn't seem to be one
2.  I do not see Pritzker making it any better then Tilt D in otl if he's the nominee.

1. I didn't make one but I can make one for you after I do a bit of research. I've made results for people on here for demand so I'll post it here.

2. That's probably accurate. I honestly went with the view that local races were less polarized and might break against the party occupying the White House in deep blue states. That's why I had a number of states like New Mexico, Illinois, and Maine going Democratic.

Side bar on Illinois: I've often wondered why it didn't trend more Republican in 2016 given that it matched Michigan's profile of major urban state with a strong downtown rural base. I'd think with the budget crisises, that Democrats might have lost ground in 2016. I suspect offhand race is a reason but I suspect MI and IL's demographics might be similar. I know that MI's whites were 75% and IL's whites were 68%. So it confuses me slightly why IL remained a very strong Clinton state - her best in the Midwest - while other states with similar profiles went Republican.

[The_Doctor]

Illinois was probably the only Midwestern state that didn't trend Republican because Trump kept demonizing Chicago.

This along with his failure in the suburbs and something of a Hometown Girl effect for Hillary (despite that she moved to NY).  

Also to TD's second point on Local Races, they can tend to break FOR the white house party because they are somewhat more detached from national politics, which is one of the many reasons Rauner has a great chance of winning if Pritzker is the nominee, which seems likely.

I’ll hold off on questioning Illinois for now because the second part of the statement interests me more. (For the record, I think a strong Republican can carry Illinois on the argument that the state government is deeply dysfunctional because of past Democratic spending. In the Walker timeline, I originally planned to have Illinois turn Republican, on this very basis. Given its strong 2016 Clinton lean in reality, I dispensed with this idea. But I’ll come back to this in a later post).

So, this is a very good argument. I know this because this is my second rewrite of my answer. I want to explain my 2018 thinking since I wrote the 2018 midterms in one post and really haven’t referenced it. You can judge if I make sense or not.

(I’ll talk about Illinois very specifically at the end).

Believe it or not, the midterms of 2018 are highly Republican friendly in my timeline. I’ll explain why. And this is because I agree with your argument in a sense.

First, midterms are a referendum on the Presidential party at the gubernatorial level. I looked up the midterm elections of the 21st century and late 20th century (I didn’t look at before Eisenhower because data on Wikipedia is sparse). Roughly correlated: when the Presidential approval rating is high, his party tends to be successful in the gubernatorial mansions at either holding or gaining. See: Kennedy 1962, Reagan 1986, Bush 1990, Clinton 1998, Bush 2002. Conversely, in Clinton 1994, Reagan 1982, Bush 2006, Obama 2010 and 2014, and I think Johnson 1966 (Wikipedia was lazy; I’ll probably try to edit it later), the out of the White House party gained. Even middling ratings didn’t really protect the incumbent party. Nixon 1970 is a good example.

So, since I have realignment in 2024, there’s another reason I picked the states to go Democratic, but not the federal level. Historically, the realigning President brings a large number of Senators into the Senate and upends that chamber’s narrow majority. Jefferson (you have to remember; states elected the Senators, so it was a lagging indicator, so look at 1802-1804 Senate elections), F. Roosevelt, and Reagan all accomplished this. Lincoln did not because of the South’s opposition to the GOP (the Civil War was actually the realignment in fact; not the election of 1860).

This is a kind of a meta note: since 2018 is such a heavily GOP year and I have 2024 as the realigning year, the Democrats need to lose seats in 2018. That’s why I picked the deepest GOP states to send GOP senators (WV, ND, IN, MO). But since Donald Trump’s approval rating is 48% in this timeline on Election Day (or Mike Pence?), his party loses seats everywhere else. Now, this is a bit of “meta,” and honestly, if the Democrats break even on election day 2018, in the Senate, that’s a huge tell about the realignment being in 2020 or 2024. (In my thinking anyway; you may disagree).

The in timeline explanation is that I also have polarization affecting the federal races much more than the state races. This is where I break with history. I believe that congressional and Senate Republicans will see their voters choosing to support them because of intense partisanship and polarization. It will be, on the federal level, “Do you support Donald Trump against the SJW Democrats?” We’ve seen an increasing polarization where states break heavily for their presidential vote and expect their senators and House delegation to follow suit.  

On the state level, I think it’s different. We have a number of deep blue states that elected GOP governors in 2010 and 2014 - IL, ME (at the time), VT, MA, NJ, MD. On the red state side, WV and MT are prominent examples. I think they diverge significantly from their federal cousins.

Additionally, with 33 governorships, the GOP is the clear majority. A lot of these governors are term limited or are seeing two term governors or the same party holding the gubernatorial mansion for a minimum of two terms. For the sake of simplicity I’ll note the GOP defenders in the states that I think are relevant. MI, WI, OH, IA, OK, KS, NM, NV, AZ, FL, GA, ME. In addition, IL, ME, and MD are first term GOP governors.

In a sense, I agree with you - it’s downballot where voters are more free wheeling. But in this sense, I think the reverse of you (I think) and think that the downballot votes will go to the Democrats.  


Now, to MD and MA, you are probably right that I probably have gone too far and they should, honestly, be Republican leaning because as you said, down ballot voters tend to be more free wheeling and open. Charlie Baker and Larry Hogan are excellent governors who have well understood they’re there to check the state Democrats and to provide effective governance. So in response to you, I’ll most likely change the MD and MA ratings. This is also lining up with my theory of the Northeastern - Midwestern Republican Party becoming dominant in the 2030s in the GOP.

On Illinois, however, I don’t think Rauner is a Hogan or Baker type. He is very much opposed to the status quo and has low ratings. In a deep blue state, he’s also fought with the Democratic legislature and set himself very much as against what he views as an unsustainable status quo (he’s not wrong; but the way he’s gone about it … well, he’s at a 36-58% disapproval rating, according to the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. Even if we assume this is a Democratic poll, I don’t see adjusted that Rauner is popular? (I did a cursory Google). It suggests that as Governor, he’s failed to fight the status quo adequately. So, he might win ... but in the current climate, I think a Democrat is favored, even if he's a horrible billionaire like Pritzker.

I don't want to gainsay you since you're clearly a native, and I could be wrong. But that's my take.

I hope that answers your question. Feel free to answer and challenge it; I'll do the IL write up today or tomorrow on the results. I'll stick with Chris Kennedy for it, since he features prominently in the timeline in 2021.

[The_Doctor]

7. RyanCare: A Huge Fight on the Floor
27. Schumer, McConnell negotiate ObamaCare Deal


So, this looks pretty good. RyanCare it wasn't exactly but it was Medicaid cuts and many of the same variables played out. And woo, I even got the exact sequence and month right, although left out some details.

Next up on this arc: Chuckie Schumer gets all the cards.

[The_Doctor]

Southern Democrats would've blocked major entitlement reforms in the 1980s and 1990s. Reagan almost tried, but there wasn't support (and his own White House said no to touching the issue). There was one about limiting Medicare growth that might've won bipartisan support but Reagan passed up the opportunity.

One stumbling block is that a lot of Democratic senators were loyal to FDR's New Deal by the 1990s, just not welfare (TANF) and the concept of universal health care. They were fairly liberal on Social Security and Medicare which makes sense since the south is the poorest region in the United States.

The only way the GOP can get buy in is if a Democrat with cachet among liberals (Bill Clinton at the time in the 1990s) has the power to leverage his party into cutting a deal. The Republican Party simply isn't trusted to steward the nation's safety net, which is a major failing of their days as a minority coalition. They never became true Tories and stayed reactionary, which has limited their capability in challenging the safety net.

[The_Doctor]

http://politi.co/2uK5zKF

Dear god

We have a long way to go before #47. But so far things seem to be unfolding as this timeline guessed. I'm very interested to see what events exactly pan out to make him President, if he does become president.

I, uh, if everything happens in this timeline as I guessed it I will be kind of scared, to be honest, because well sh*t we have two recessions ahead of us and two failed presidencies and a ton of crap.

[The_Doctor]

Not_Madigan, do you want me to respond to that or should I post the write up of the '18 race first? I have it saved in Google Documents. I just forgot to post it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well. He might not be Governor. It wasn't Alex G. or Chris Kennedy specific though. The article is here.  It's just basically an Illinois Democratic governor needing federal help.

Not sure how you feel about it. Illinois and a number of other states implode fiscally leading to the crisis.

Sidebar: Your arguments were persuasive, I moved MD and ME to the Republican retained seats in this timeline in the gubernatorial races. I disagree on Illinois but I'll let you respond first before saying more on that.

[The_Doctor]

I, uh, if everything happens in this timeline as I guessed it I will be kind of scared, to be honest, because well sh*t we have two recessions ahead of us and two failed presidencies and a ton of crap.

Scared for the country or the state of the GOP post 2024?

First, no idea on Peggy Cordray and Karen Pence.

second, Both.

[The_Doctor]

OK here you go. Note: I kind of winged it on the Democratic campaign. Feel free to critique it as you see fit. I changed it from Alex G to Kennedy but eh. the name doesn't matter.

==========
IL 2018 Election

Alexi Giannoulias (Democratic):  2,033,693 - 53.22% - WINNER
Bruce Rauner (Republican):  1,710,793 - 44.77%
Others: 76,808 - 2.01%  

Totals: 3,821,294 | Margin: 322,899 votes - 8.45%

Illinois continued its’ streak of unpopular governors in 2018. At least, Bruce Rauner did not leave in disgrace, about to be convicted. He was merely unpopular for trying to overthrow the Democratic establishment and status quo - and having failed. Like the President he was a businessman turned politician who ran against the status quo and won an upset victory in Illinois in 2014, winning by 5 points over highly unpopular Gov. Pat Quinn.

Donald Trump’s 2016 victory (and 23 point loss in Illinois) proved a heavy headwind against his re-election bid. So were the multiple fights with the legislature. Unlike Gov. Larry Hogan (R-Md.) and Charlie Baker (R-Mass.), Rauner had never cultivated himself as a moderate blue state Republican. Nominally pro-choice, Gov. Rauner vetoed a 2017 bill to protect abortion rights and his fights with the legislature on the budget made him highly unpopular. These were the kinds of fights that Baker and Hogan sidestepped.

In 2014, he had carried every county in Illinois except Cook County. He had won the liberal ring counties around Chicago decisively and won downstate Illinois by a wide margin. His margin overall was 140,000 votes (and that was with 33% of Chicago). He campaigned against Quinn's handling of Illinois’ finances. Republicans had come within a whisker of winning the governor’s mansion in 2010 but fell to the Democrats by a bare 15,000 votes. Compared to the 2002 win (the last time the Democrats flipped the governorship), downstate Illinois was more Republican but the collar counties less so.

In 2018, Rauner took 27% of Chicago, lost a couple of counties downstate and saw his 140,000 victory evaporate into a 8% win for Democrat Chris Kennedy. He lost Lake County, which he had carried in 2014 and saw his margins among the other collar counties reduced. He lost Will County and downstate, he lost St. Claire, Jackson, and Alexander Counties. Among the other smattering of counties to the west and central Illinois, he either saw his margins reduced or lost a few.  Apropos of nothing, he became the first Illinois governor to lose re-election since 2002 (George Ryan, also, was an unpopular Republican).

The Democrats had campaigned against Rauner’s budget cuts, arguing they were prohibitive. They also argued against Rauner’s abortion position and for things like universal college tuition and helping working class Illinoisans. More people voted against Rauner than for Kennedy, to be honest. To motivate the sizable minority population out of Chicago, Kennedy pledged to create an opt out voter registration process and to fight any restrictions on voting in Illinois.

Left unsaid in Illinois was that the Democrats were not exactly the prized party. Illinoisans were disgusted with both parties and increasingly despairing of their state. Illinois Democrats were not exactly popular - but the Illinois Republican Party was hobbled by the national GOP’s toxic attitude. Put another way, the swing voters who would go GOP were routinely voting Democratic for President and were not ready to be comfortable with a strong Illinois Republican Party downballot as long as the national Southern evangelical dominated GOP ruled the nation. They were quite aware of the failures of the Chicago ruled Democratic Party on multiple issues but were not ready to trust the Illinois GOP. Had Rauner marketed himself as a do-it leader who would challenge the worst excesses of Chicago’s Democratic Party while avoiding the divisive fights over social issues and right to work - all these things that Illinoisans liked, he might have made headway. (For instance, nobody liked their taxes going up under the 2017 budget).

Gov.-elect Alexi Giannoulias would inherit a state budget in shambles, a pension system in need of constant shoring up, and state credit near historic lows. The fiscal crisis that would start in Illinois three years later had been decades in the making.

[The_Doctor]

1. Not_Madigan - that could be very well true. I just did buckets of states that were most likely to go Democratic based on partisan voting history or GOP incumbent issues (Kansas, for example, had Brownback) and then went down the list of states most likely to flip based on that. Rauner's precarious position is what had me having Illinois flipping. I won't disagree with your analysis in that regard then and you are right, it's dependent on the Democratic nominee.

I fixed it to Alexi Giannoulias to keep consistent with the results.  And yes, Rauner signed a budget.

2. Technocratic Timmy, BLM issues are interesting. Reparations never happen, for very obvious reasons (white + Asia America doesn't ever agree) but with greater voting power in the 2020s and 2030s, with their Latino allies, the black community finally achieves the second half of integration - economic integration. They achieved political integration in the 1960s and in the new realignment, economic integration will follow. This, by the way, is probably why by 2030-2050, they start voting more Republican.

So, for instance, with greater voting power, more police departments are aware that their communities can vote them out. This is a big problem in Ferguson, Mo. A framework of community policing and the like is worked out. It's not perfect but after the 28th amendment to the Constitution, which protects voting rights from voter ID laws and the like, passed in 2029-2034, this presages the general agreement that BLM issues are economic in nature and should be addressed.

A lot of the AA and Latino community's issues would disappear if they had the economic wealth on a parity with Asians and whites.

[The_Doctor]

and in the month of July, so it came to pass, that the United States Senate, as prophesied, failed the vote 51-49 ....

[The_Doctor]

I missed this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a line straight out of the 2024 Democratic Convention, most likely, yes. "Rich Cordray" even rolls off the tongue nicely.

[The_Doctor]

I hate to be picky but I think the traditional Senate gains that come with a realignment is the biggest hint of the timing. If the Senate Democrats gain seats in 2018, I would imagine the realignment is in 2020. If the senate GOP gains in 2018, 2024 is the realignment.

The Democrats gained 8 seats in 2008, and 30 House seats. Foreshadowing elections tend to be similar to the realigning elections in terms of seats gained.

[The_Doctor]

TD, I have to ask, why would you write a timeline that's so pessimistic for conservatism?

I think I wrote the timeline because I'm long an advocate of knowing the truth as it may be rather than pretending something may not happen. And from what I know, conservatism is not hitting a high - it's hitting a low.

For instance, the ObamaCare repeal / Medicaid fight is more or less what happened and predicted six months ago based on what I knew of trends, entitlements, etc. I wasn't surprised because I had forecast the outcome based on trends, populations, and history.

EDIT: I don't want to be one of these Carter voters shocked by Reagan's victory type people.

[The_Doctor]

If people want to write sub-plots, just PM me and give me a gist and you can post it yourself. Or PM Ted Bessell if he's covering things that relate to what you want.

[The_Doctor]

Sorry, I've been busy.

1. Sanchez, not necessarily. If Democrats make gains after 2018, I may do a 2020 realignment timeline. That's about the only other timeline I'd think of at this point.

2. Jalawest2, not necessarily. Montana is not a long term Democratic state.

I don't see Massachusetts (with Boston) being an easily Republican state but Maine, Vermont not being so. It's more likely the inverse: Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut go Republican while Massachusetts remains lean Democratic with Rhode Island. Open question on Vermont because it's got a long history of gun rights, is pretty white, and rural. (By all measures, it should be a Republican state. But it's not). New England will trend Republican, post-realignment, if this realignment happens. But not like that.

New York is going to also trend Republican, but I suspect it will be lean Democratic, at worst (for the Democratic Party). At best, for the GOP, NY will be a battleground state. New York City just has too many votes. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, I can see. Maryland, no. Too many votes in the urban strongholds and minorities.

The Midwest trending Republican like that is viable. Illinois is the kind of state that might benefit from 2030s GOP governance - economic and fiscal technocratic GOP politics to restore the state's standing and to unravel all the mess. They're also whiter than the national average.

The South, no. Virginia might go back to being a swing state (?), could stay Democratic. North Carolina probably will lean Democratic. I doubt the Solid South is coming back (so, AL, TN, AR, SC could lean GOP in this scenario, GA, NC, VA, FL lean Democratic, MS, LA a battleground).

Oklahoma, no. The Rockies and Great Plains otherwise make sense. Texas and Colorado will not be GOP leaning post-realignment. In fact, they may join California as the base of the Democratic majority, stretching from Texas to California.

Pacific Northwest, yes.

3. the Walrus, I'd have to think about it. I think that some states are going to see working class voters become more Democratic in the 2020s, but it will take a while to see how they shake out in the end, especially as Republicans become northern and technocratic.

[The_Doctor]

Oh, and the North Korea arc seems to be intensifying right on schedule ... let's hope that it goes as it did in the timeline. Note the date: October 12, 2017.

That's interesting.

[The_Doctor]

Are there any weird signals in the generic ballot polls right now? I remember reading a thing that said that in order of most republican to most democratic trend, nonwhites(~2 point shift D), white college educated men(~10 point shift D), white non college men(~15 point shift D), white college educated women(~25 point shift D), and white non college women(~30 point shift D) are all swinging democratic compared to the exit poll in November . Would seem to both narrow the education and race gaps while widening the gender gap.

I haven't really seen anything weird yet. That's a good idea, tbh, if there are breakdowns of the generic ballot that would tell us what the Democratic majority looks like. (in the future).

I remember seeing a recent poll showing that WWC had roughly the same opinion of the GOP & DNC (-30, -31) but don't quote me. I could be wrong (most likely am). 

[The_Doctor]

Even as America's 47th President begins his ascent to the Oval Office, we still live in 2017. So, there will be a few end of the year articles about how well BTM has held up and the underlying fundamentals. It's a "Christmas" special work, holidays, and other things time permitting but I'll give you 2-3 articles I've been wanting to flesh out BTM thoughts. Not a return, just a few articles. I'll try to make time around Christmas week.

Especially with North Korea and Cordray in the news.

Spoiler: BTM has held up pretty well.

[The_Doctor]

Notes: We’ll cover what BtM got right this year in another article (spoiler: BtM got almost everything right, just wrong sequence and timing, except Trump’s approval rating, some international stuff, and infrastructure with North Korea remaining a question mark. We also famously called Richard Adams Cordray’s entry into the Ohio gubernatorial race). We’re also moving up the Pence Presidency to 2018, which I need to formalize and discuss. But not what I want to cover tonight.  

Part II and III of our Christmas special will probably be either how the GOP collapses specifically in warring factions and how BTM got a lot of things right. But the economics is important to get. The looming crisis is very much in motion right now.

The Great Crisis of 2021

(December 16, 2099) - Manhattan, New York, United States, United Earth Federation. Economists and historians gathered on the symposium that discussed the crisis that jump started the economy of the 21st century. Much as the Great Depression kicked off the 20th with the end of laissez faire economics and welfare economics dominated the era from 1930 to 1980, the 21st century crisis in 2021 ended neoliberal economics and ushered in the “space age unified economy.”

The story, for many, began in 1945. The formation of the United Nations, World Bank, GATT, and the first organized economic order marked the managed welfare state era.  President Roosevelt and liberal European leaders ended formally the 19th century model of extremely limited government and corporate-dominated states after the Great Depression that struck worldwide. Think the New Deal in the United States, Clement Atlee’s NHS in 1947, and so on. The debt situation that engulfed Europe after World War I and led to World War II (not to mention the tinder keg that was Britain’s and Germany’s rivalry) had been mediated by the institutions set up in 1945 to 1948. Managed capitalism took off in an arms race against socialism and won the war in 1991.  

In the late 1970s to early 1980s, the laissez faire neoliberal order replaced the managed welfare state advocates. The welfare state advocates pushed full employment, high wages, strong unions, and in Europe, socialized industries in the name of creating an equitable economy. Laissez faire economics made a return under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and intensified after the Cold War ended in 1991. Conservatives groused in the 1950s that the emphasis on unions, full employment economics, and high wages cut into business profits, stifled innovation, and were inefficient. By the 1970s, they looked increasingly right under stagflation as the Left looked out of touch. China’s market opening up in 1978, the elections of 1979 in Britain and 1980 in the United States and subsequent Cold War victory of the capitalist side in 1991 sparked an intense neoliberal push to deregulate and open up markets, roll back safety nets, and to push for the free market’s hand to guide economies. The internet boom of the late 1990s (“dot com bubble”) cemented the laissez faire economy that ruled straight from 1980 to 2021.

The election of 2000 in the United States marked the height of neoliberal economics. Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush were two staunch neoliberal advocates that pushed open markets and accepted a greater deal of inequality than their predecessors. In Europe and Asia, the flourishing “Asian Tigers” testified to the fact that neoliberal markets were the best way to organize the economy.  From 1990 to 2018, extreme poverty fell dramatically from 60% to below 10% and market economics were credited for this.

However, it was not all rosy. The middle class shrunk or stagnated in many European nations (79% to 72% in Germany,  barely rose from 72% to 74% in France, etc).  As Pew noted, “The most substantial decrease in the share of aggregate household income held by the middle class occurred in Finland, where the share fell from 85% in 1991 to 74% in 2010. Other notable decreases in the share held by the middle class included Germany, where it fell from 77% to 70%, and the U.S., where the share slipped from 62% to 56%. Ireland.” (Ireland and the United Kingdom saw increases). In India, the richest 1% owned 36.8% and now went up to 50% in 2010. The Financial Times noted that China the richest 1% owned a third of the nation’s wealth and the Gini coefficient was .49. (Anything above .40 is severe inequality, for the World Bank). Still, Europe was far better off than anywhere else in the world.

These facts explain why the European Union was the least scathed by the crisis of 2021 (famously, like Britain’s economic slowdown after the Great Depression being something like a haircut of 5% of GDP which might explain why the Tory government remained in power from 1924 to 1945 with a two year break in 1929 to 1931), After 1981, while Europe had neoliberalized to an extent, they had not adopted the extreme measures of the United States or seen the inequality expand so much. But they were still badly hit by the global collapse.

The 2008 crisis had kicked off the events (much as 1908 would indirectly lead to 1929) that led to the realignment of 2024. The stock market wipeout erased considerable middle class wealth and the slow economic recovery pointed to the weakness of the middle class, which had seen flat wage growth since 2000. Globally, central banks poured money into the economy but most of it was sopped up by the rich and corporations thus preventing a real economic recovery.  Trillions in balance sheets disappeared and corporations and the rich, spooked by the crisis, hung onto their assets (thus paving the way for the next crisis).  Central banks around the world used traditional measures that had gone to targeting inflation (setting interest rates) and retained their traditional focus on inflation rather than shifting to putting more money into people’s pockets (which is not something they could legally do; that was more the province of legislatures and political institutions). The Federal Reserve misguidedly raised interest rates because they feared an overheating economy in 2017 and 2018; which actually accelerated the crash.  

After the GOP passed their tax cut in 2017 (author’s note: GOP, thanks for at least making it so I don’t have to change the dates from the BTM timeline), the mild recession of 2018-2019 masked the widening inequality gulf that the tax bill encouraged. Considering that the middle class could no longer sustain the growth because they were receiving not enough dollars to sustain the economy, and that their debts and needs were getting much larger, it was unsurprising that the crisis wiped out the middle class in 2021-2022 when the crisis hit.

China launched the crisis of 2020 but it could have easily been Europe’s PIGS situation that did it. The collapse of the housing market (the earliest signs were the bitcoin investing frenzy that China’s middle class engaged in in 2017-2018) presaged the crash of 2021. The Chinese middle class were too strapped and could not sustain the aging regime when all hell broke loose. Some said that the corruption crackdown had actually made the situation worse because it had made it harder to access capital (the Chinese middle class relied on informal access a lot more than most people thought). Meanwhile, the European Union’s PIGS crew threatened revolt. Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy all had economic issues on the fundamental level and the Chinese conflagration knocked the European Union domino next before spreading to American shores in 2021. Where the American economy was unable to withstand the hit because of the weak assets of the American middle class.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had propounded a basic theme that if you kept more of your own money, you could ably create wealth and become better off. That was true as long as existential drivers of costs like healthcare, property, and education remained affordable. However, as they spiraled out of control, the dogma became untenable. This of course was the subtext to elections around the globe in the 2020s.

Conservatives in the United States, split between Bannonite populists and establishment neoliberals were caught flatfooted by the crisis and the U.S. Congress descended into all out internal fractious warfare with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) unable to marshal a majority in the House to pass initiatives to stop the bleeding. The Republican Party spiraled out of control with President Pence losing his grip on the Republican Party - the second Republican President in a row to look leaderless in a party that was increasingly unable to even govern. The GOP would not recover for a generation with populist and establishment warfare raging until the election of 2036. The 2022 tax cut was the only thing Republicans could agree to pass and that was it.

[The_Doctor]

The Republican Party’s inability to govern after 2006 spoke to the economic fundamentals. What bound the great Republican coalitions together was the unspoken belief that neoliberal economics helped all within it. As long as the good times rolled on, the GOP could build majorities. But propelled by weak economic times, Appalachia and poor whites took the Bannonite camp’s side in the internal warfare that roiled Republican politics from 2011 to 2037. But the fact no crisis had happened kept the establishment strong enough to not cede power to the Bannon wing. Two failed Presidencies in a row (Trump’s and Pence’s) spoke to this fundamental weakness.

The election of 2024, with Ohio Gov. Richard Adams Cordray (who squeaked to a 51-48% victory over Republican DeWine and stomped to a re-election 61-36% victory in 2022) prevailing, spoke to how devastated the middle class was (wide swaths of Appalachia and the poorest Southern regions swung heavily Democratic) spoke to this.

The crisis of 2021 was the first real non-US/European crisis that was global in nature and long lasting. China’s massive panic and the spreading conflagration engulfed the world  

When President Richard Adams “Rich” Cordray took power in 2025, he unveiled a number of unusual initiatives that spoke to the crisis. Instead of a traditional bailout package, President Cordray pushed single payer and universal college initiatives, as well as a radical student debt loan restructuring package. The President understood that relieving these economic pressures on the American middle class would allow them to rebound much faster than a traditional tax cut. Republicans lambasted the moves, arguing Cordray was enacting his agenda at the expense of economic recovery, missing the point that relieving the pressures on the middle and working class would power economic growth. Cordray had been educated and guided by his time at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 2011 to 2017, and as Ohio Governor.

In Europe and Asia, world leaders followed Cordray’s lead and restructured their economies to give additional purchasing power to the middle and working class, understanding that economic growth was impossible otherwise. It was a sea change from neoliberal economics but not a return to welfare state economics. Indeed, this new economics focused on delivering essential services to the middle and working class to boost economic growth. With automation becoming a huge issue in the 2030s and 2040s, it was essential for many governments to create a sustainable economic base that was able to create value and build wealth assets. Those nations that were left behind (the most autocratic nations, in other words) suffered and stagnated mightily.

President Cordray also controversially adopted the policy of “helicopter money,” popularized by Ben Bernanke and adopted by President George W. Bush in 2008. He sent out a $1,000 rebate to everyone making income of below $50,000 in an attempt to clean out the balance of the weak middle class - and would do it for four years in a row (Cordray carefully structured the program to exclude those who were obviously rich and would manipulate their income and the program mostly worked). Republicans howled that it would lead to inflation (in line with their inability to shift to the new economic paradigm) and complain the program was being abused. But the President knew that he was infusing the middle and working class with enough income to rebound from the economic crisis. Because the middle and lower classes were so weak, inflation rates never rose significantly enough to be a threat because spending was limited to these people and they propelled the economy with their spending. It was the dry run for an UBI in fact - an issue revisited under the confirming Democratic Presidency headed by a fellow Midwesterner a generation later.

The world - as it had done in 1945 and 1981 - shifted again and the populist revolts quieted down as governments began to focus on delivering economic growth to the broad electorate.

Written with thanks to TT’s work on helicopter money

[The_Doctor]

To handle the various comments

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A global government is honestly inevitable or at least a federation of countries operating on a global level with a highly decentralized body. Whether we get there by 2099 or by 2199 is an open question. Global warming, trade, advances in communications and traveling technologies will create the need for us to become a planetary civilization, as well as the need to secure a nuclear and biological weapon arsenal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes I did. That said, I feel that the 2018 midterms will tell us if we're headed towards a 2020 realignment or 2024.

At this juncture, Trump's failures is so epic that I expect President Pence to take power in 2018 somewhere by March to July. The 2019 Trump resignation may well play out in 2018. As said, the business scandals bring down Trump, not the Russian affair.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A live possibility but I don't think Trump will finish his term. It's at this point a gut feeling but also the popular vote loser, elected under a cloud of suspicion and with little support from his party. I get the feeling that the Republican leadership would throw Trump overboard if they could, safely.

[The_Doctor]

Populist versus Business coalitions: An American History

In Roman times, the Republic was based on two coalitions. The Optimates and the Populares fought for control over the Republic. The patriciate was the Senators and the knights; while the plebians constituted the lower class. The two sides waged an unending battle for control though the plebeians slowly gained power. The American Republic, as we’ll see, followed much the same fault lines. The American Republic has been largely two warring coalitions; one of the populists and the business interests. Democrats Jefferson and Roosevelt belonged to the populists while Republicans Lincoln and Reagan were aligned with the business interests. Occasionally the lines blurred (notably under successful minority coalition White Houses) but in general, the fault lines since 1800 has been between the ruling elites and the populist working classes. Understanding the demarcation is better than seeing the traditional left and right; while connecting Thomas Jefferson (D-Virginia) to Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and Abraham Lincoln (R-Illinois) to George W. Bush (R-Texas).

When President Thomas Jefferson’s populist agrarian coalition defeated John Adams’ mercantilist manufacturing Federalists, it was the first populist victory. An odd way for us to think of Jefferson, who is viewed as a right wing libertarian two hundred years later who hated government. But, Jefferson carried 115 counties and independent cities to John Adams’ 40 - of the 155 making independent results. He also carried the then-frontiers states of Kentucky and Tennessee. Even though Jefferson won New York City (and the state, thanks to Burr), there’s little indication that Jefferson was in favor of the manufacturing interests that Alexander Hamilton so favored (and would reemerge in Lincoln’s Republican Party 60 years later). Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic - Republican coalition was based on frontiersmen, the South, and farmers - which favored expansion and slavery (though not all of them). Preserving slavery, Manifest Destiny and farming interests was the purpose of this coalition from 1800 to 1860. These people did not want the heavy hand of government and they wanted the removal of Indians - plus an expansionary policy westward. They wanted to maintain the agrarian society that served them so well, despite the protests of New York’s financial class. They got their way until 1860.  A generation after Jefferson, Andrew Jackson killed the national bank of the United States and stood by the slavery interests while opposing tariffs. Both the realigning and confirmation presidencies were squarely in favor of populist agrarian Southern interests.

Sixty years later, Abraham Lincoln (R-Illinois) cemented Alexander Hamilton’s vision of a United States dedicated to manufacturing.  Lincoln dispatched the agrarian populist Democrats and marginalized the Democratic Party for 72 years. Lincoln swept New England, the Midwest, and the Pacific Coast. The North and Midwest backed the emerging Industrial Revolution while the South did not. As a result, Republican Lincoln signed tariffs, and as Wikipedia noted, “the Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864 granted federal support for the construction of the United States' First Transcontinental Railroad, which was completed in 1869.” They were enacted with Republican support. He also signed the National Banking Act which created the US Banking System and pushed a national currency (Lincoln sits on the $5 and the penny).  Remember, President Andrew Jackson waged a fight to kill the Second Bank of the United States because of his political base. Lincoln also sold off a ton of land in the West to farmers, possibly a Republican strategy to pick up the votes of the frontiersmen who had backed Jefferson and Jackson. And yes, slavery. Slavery undercut northern manufacturing by providing cheap Southern labor. Take Lincoln’s economic policies together and they were of major benefit to industrial interests in the North. Far from being a populist darling, Lincoln was squarely in favor of the business interests that ruled the Republican Party.

In 1896 the populist William Jennings Bryan and mercantilist William McKinley squared off for the White House. The gold standard issue stood as the dividing line; and Republican McKinley stabilized the Lincoln coalition after years of close elections. The pro-business GOP majority soared to heights not seen before or since during the turn of the 20th century and enacted tax cuts, tariffs, and all kinds of pro-business legislation. The only hiccup was the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911.  Otherwise, Republican presidents busted unions, cut taxes, and raised tariffs to protect the Industrial Revolution.

The election of 1932 reversed the polarity again. The Roaring 1920s and the generation of GOP policies had led to the Great Depression, thus upending the system and putting the populists in the driver's’ seat.  Enter the New Deal and the Great Society (originally envisioned by John F. “Jack” Kennedy).  Roosevelt instituted Social Security, regulatory protections, and child labor laws, among other things. The overhaul lasted all the way to 1980.

In 1960, moderate Republican Richard Nixon and liberal Democrat John F. Kennedy squared off for the Presidency. Jack Kennedy’s victory - and later, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, paved the way for the second half of the great Democratic era, centered on civil rights and social issues like poverty.  These issues were at the heart of the working class (at least, a lot of them) rather than the moneyed elites.

Ronald Reagan’s Republican victory in 1980 led to the supply siders and the return of the nation’s economic elite at the political primacy.  Reagan cut taxes, slashed regulations, and opened up industries to competition as well as signed every free trade deal possible (NAFTA was a Reagan brainchild). George W. Bush was this on steroids, with the 2000 election being a confirmation election. The populists were dispatched again as the 1980s saw corporate consolidation and the majority coalition serving business interests.

Now, as Rich Cordray (possibly) becomes the populist Democratic standard bearer of 2024, the pendulum is swinging back to the Democratic Party.  More importantly, with the Sanders wing of the Party gaining power over the neoliberals who were holding the reins with Bill Clinton and somewhat, with Barack Obama, the populists are gaining power again in the emerging Democratic majority. As seen by the populist revolts in both parties, the establishment business interests are losing power and favor with the electorate. Unlike 1932, this may not be a sudden shift but a gradual shift (at least, up to the crisis).  

The coalitions seemed rooted in popularity based on how essential the reforms were. Republican Lincoln pushed the Union into an industrial revolution which engendered huge prosperity and technological advancement. Democrat F. Roosevelt’s New Deal redistributed the advances of the Industrial Revolution to the working class and created even more economic prosperity that way. Nobody remembers Lincoln as a pro-business GOP President but he was that; nobody remembers Jefferson as a populist Democratic White House but he operated as such.

Ultimately, more than race, more than social issues, or anything else, the two coalitions can be defined as the populists versus the business class, and their struggle is as old as the Republic itself.

[The_Doctor]

Two more articles: [1] BTM: 2017 Recap and [2] A Populist Minority Republican Coalition and that should be it. That's really all I have to say for 2017 and 2018 except Pence becoming President (which is covered in the BTM 2017 recap).

Also, Sanchez, your input in helping writing about the populist GOP of 2036 would be helpful as I conclude Bannon's war on the establishment will now be somewhat successful in fashioning a GOP coalition that is more populist in nature.

Also I'm updating the table of contents.

[The_Doctor]

Let me tackle a few things on my phone.

First I want to disagree here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First I think that we underestimate the strength of the economic crisis here. The crisis will fall on those who are in debt the most and are weakest in the economy not the best off. Who was the angriest in 2008 and 2016? Working class minorities (who rebelled against Hillary) and working class whites (who revolted against the Republican establishment). The Sanders left is full of people who are angry about the economic ideology that rules the United States.

Why would Fairfax voters be moved towards the Democratic Party in the long run? What's their economic motivation? (Ignore that Fairfax is close to federal jobs for a second and focus on the income side; I'm using them as a representation). When Bob McDonnell ran in 2009 he almost won North Virginia. These people are making $200,000+ and are professionals who are comfortably off. They aren't outraged on economic grounds but social grounds. If the Republican Party was socially liberal a lot of these voters would be voting Republican.  

The Democratic Party kind of threatens their long term well being because the Sanders wing wants to raise their taxes, target their stock trades via taxation, and even universal college can pose a threat by adding to the workforce skilled workers who might bring down their wages. I just don't get why these voters would align with the Democratic Party over the long run.

Working class voters however have a ton to like in the Cordray - Sanders Democratic Party ranging from universal health care and college education to higher taxes to deal with income inequality. Bernie’s platform is geared towards these people not the Fairfax set.

Also upscale Asians (like my family) are far more economically conservative but socially liberal. Their biggest complaint is the Republican Party’s evangelical influences rather than the tax side. The Republican tax bill probably helps my family. But they won't vote Republican for social reasons. So if the party moderates on these issues they could vote Republican.  Also there are very few upscale Latinos who have very weak household assets.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually look a bit closer. Slavery was a threat to the North in terms of cheap labor versus paid factory labor. But more broadly the political class from 1800 to 1860 were geared towards the agrarian pro-slavery free trade Southern philosophy rather than the Midwestern and Northern political leaders. Look at the Republican Speakers after 1860 and where they're from compared to Democratic Speakers 1800-1860.

The Civil War didn't merely wipe out slavery. It also replaced a Southern friendly political majority with a Northern - Midwestern political majority that embraced the Industrial Revolution. This is why the Republican Party became so anti-union and explains the party's shift in the 1870s to 1890s.

All crises tend to be rooted in economics and replacing inefficient majorities that no longer speak to the national economic focus. In this case the pro-free trade low tax Southern and Midwestern political class shut out the coastal areas with carry and support from Appalachian areas.  Now we're moving to a whole new economy where this political class no longer really makes sense. That's the whole point of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They're honestly usually the icing on an already baked cake. Jimmy Carter was already going down for stagflation while World War II cemented the Democratic majority. In the Civil War they didn't really figure prominently. There probably may be a crisis that cripples President Pence but it won't be center stage I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That's completely asinine. Presidents McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover all were squarely on the side of business interests. Even the Republican President Roosevelt took tons of corporate donations. All of these Presidents with the possible exception of Roosevelt backed tariffs, the gold standard, and union busting. 1896 to 1932 is generally considered the most pro-business era in United States history.

The Republican Congresses were completely on the side of business interests basically. Lochner was handed down by a conservative Supreme Court in 1905. About the only liberal stuff happened was probably a bunch of stuff in Teddy’s time (and he was actually far more pro business than his rhetoric) and Taft's breakup of Standard Oil. And of course the foreshadowing Democratic presidency of Woodrow Wilson.