Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is these people don't form a majority bigger than the Republican one. In fact because they're so clustered in the cities and coastal areas they don't add up to a significant enough bloc to destroy the old majority. This is exactly why Hillary lost. She ran up the score with this bloc and so did the Democrats. The problem was Trump and the Republicans dominated the wide swath of states and rural areas from central Pennsylvania to Phoenix.

You need significant buy in from the white working class folks who voted Democratic in 2006 and 2008. It's not an accident they ended up rejecting Obama's 2009 agenda and voted Trump. They're inherently Republican and need to join the Democratic Party in 2024 for the Democrats to achieve their economic agenda.

Finally polarization has been a major force since around 1996. It has to be broken ergo the election of 2020 or 2024.

[The_Doctor]

Regarding Trump serving a full two term history tells us a few things.

1. Popular vote losers tend to not go on to win a second term. The exception - George W. Bush - led in polling against Al Gore during the campaign. In fact his team was preparing for a popular vote win and to be behind in Florida, not the inverse.  In comparison Trump never once had a serious shot at leading Hillary Clinton in the polling averages. Also W. lost by half a point not 2% and 3 million votes.

2. Trump actually underperforms the fundamentals of where a generic Republican would be comparatively. Fundamentals favored the out party with a weak (income wise) recovery. Trump lost the popular vote where a more disciplined and seasoned Republican candidate would've won. Just look at Trump's approval ratings. (And as a funny note, as an anecdote, Pence is above water in Iowa but Trump is below water).

3. Since no crisis looms on the horizon I feel that 2020 leans to the incumbent majoritarian Republican Party. But Trump in the White House hobbles the party. That's why I think machinations will be made to install Pence. Not really remembered is that 1924 was salvaged by Coolidge replacing Harding. Note that Republican leaders have a couple of tools at their disposal, most notably the Mueller probe.

Pence is probably the best Republican to unite the warring factions under a culturally evangelical President (winning Trumpians) who is also heavily conservative on the economic side (winning rich Romney voters) and is a hawk on Russia etc (winning #nevertrumpers)
        
I can see a 2020 realigning election if Trump is the President. But given how successful the foreshadowing Obama White House was on creating a stable economy I don't see it until 2024.

Also, strangely enough the second, third, and fourth realigning elections all saw a string of one term presidencies before the realigning White House. (So, that's Ford and Carter; Harding, Coolidge and Hoover; Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan). Note that Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama were all two term presidents suggesting strong stability.

Instability in the political arena probably is a strong sign of a collapse of an old order. Funnily enough McKinley's 1896 51-46 win and strengthened Republican Congresses replenished the weakened Lincoln coalition after the White Houses of Hayes, Garfield-Arthur, Cleveland, and Harrison.

[The_Doctor]

I'm skeptical of a wave in 2018 without a realigning election in 2020 because the foreshadowing and realigning down-ballot gains are usually similar. E.g., I don't expect a Democratic wave in 2018 with a Republican victory in 2020 because it's impossible for the Democratic Party to gain 6-8 seats in 2024 in the Senate to mirror past realignments.

[The_Doctor]

This should cover everyone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, Merry Christmas and you need to PM me more.

To your point, I think you are saying, what if the Democrats win 2018 resoundingly, the GOP wins 2020, and then the 2024 elections happen. That would be a weird situation where Cordray wins by 15 points but the Democrats win, something like 2 seats in the Senate. It could conceivably happen but it would be yet another oddity. As you know, the foreshadowing and realigning downballot elections tend to mirror each other and I don’t know of a historical pattern where the White House changes parties by a large margin without major gains in the Senate. 

So, I err - unless otherwise advised - that the Senate Democrats pick up 6-8 seats in 2024. But for that to be plausible under today’s map, if they hold everything they would really just pick up 4. (Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee). So in my thinking, the Senate GOP under Pence picks up a handful of seats.

We’ll see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fundamentally I see it this way. I think the Democratic Party reaches 53% of the electorate by 2028, maybe 55% by themselves. But geographic realities narrows that majority without the white working class shift political allegiance. Per our discussion this summer (I think it was us), we saw that young whites in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan all voted for Trump better than the national average did. I  can’t cite exact data but Trump won whites in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by overwhelming margins. Given whites making up 86% of Wisconsin voters, Trump almost certainly won the 18-29 white  vote in all three states. Ergo, you need a bloc of whites to splinter off and join the Democratic Party. In Iowa, where whites made up 90% of the vote, Trump won the white 18-29 by 48-42%.

One thing to realize is that President Cordray cannot capably govern without a sizable portion of whites behind him in the Democratic Party. The 33-35% of whites today in the Party guarantee that the Democrats will always be 48-49% of the two party vote but he needs 40-45% of the white vote to secure comfortable enough majorities to govern.

This is why the bloc splintering off from the GOP is so essential.

[The_Doctor]

Please remove King Lear's posts. A number of regulars here in the BTM crowd have concerns with him. Everyone else seems okay for now. Thank you.

[The_Doctor]

“I, Michael Richard Pence …”

BTM is formally updating the timeline to recommend to readers that the Pence Presidency - contrary to the current timeline - will take place in 2018, not 2019 (unless we go to a 2020 realignment). Most likely, it will be spring 2018.

The Trump Administration is actually far more crippled and in serious shape than imagined. Three major situations have led to Trump’s precarious position. One is the Mueller probe. The other is his very weak political standing. Three, his weak relationship on Capitol Hill. When they intersect, they spell the potential end of the Trump Administration.

First, the Mueller probe. Contrary to the timeline, Trump’s position is more precarious. General Flynn was fired. George Papadopoulos has entered a plea bargain (and wasn’t a coffee boy but the one who launched the entire FBI investigation by leaking to the Australian government drunkenly).  Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple counts. Rick Gates, same situation. Revelations have come out that the Trump campaign has had contact with the Russian government. So, given all these loose strands, and given how precarious the President is, we can expect Pence to be in prime position for 2018.  Let’s just say, the Mueller probe is not wrapping up anytime soon. Our timeline had Trump embroiled in this scandal type as 2018 closed. Yet, he’s speeded up the drama by firing James Comey in 2017. 2018 will almost certainly see far more information shaken out.

Second, the President’s popularity portends both houses of Congress going Democratic in 2018.  The 37% rating he’s sporting in 538 is highly dangerous to Congressional Republicans and they know it. In Alabama the President was at 48-48% in exit polls that allowed Senator G. Doug Jones to prevail (not for nothing did Moore match the President’s approval rating in final results). Assuming that on balance the President sits at 37% rating, which is comparable to the Iraq War rating of President George W. Bush in 2006, that would translate into a roughly 10-15% lead for House Democrats. And with the Senate now in play, Senate Republicans are now extraordinarily vulnerable with a just 51-49 Senate.  And Trump’s approval rating will not improve (especially with the first signs of economic slowdown). If the President is at 32% on election day, it could be the single greatest wipeout of the Congressional GOP since 1974.

Now, pause for a second. Were you Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, you would be extremely wary of putting your majorities at the risk of a President who has little to no connection to the Congressional Republicans or the Republican Party as a whole. For 2017, Ryan and McConnell have telegraphed support for the President but also a willingness to criticize him and implicitly seem to protect the Mueller probe as legitimate. The political rationale is pretty clear. If you wanted a way to oust Trump and install a more conventional and calm President (Pence or Ryan), protecting that probe is one way to do it.  Trump needed to demonstrate he could act as a conventional Republican President in 2017 and protect these GOP majorities in order for these majorities to protect him. This was probably his biggest misstep. These majorities now know that with Alabama’s Senate election special, that nobody really wins in protecting Donald Trump.

This is so important we’ll repeat it. Congressional Republicans are the firewall against impeachment or removal from office for the President. The President has feuded constantly with congressional leaders and Republicans like Jeff Flake, John McCain, and others. By doing so, he’s signaled that there’s no payoff in loyalty to the President if your electoral prospects are in danger. Recall the President won 46% and lost the popular vote by 2% to his Democratic challenger, meaning that he’s even less politically able to help protect vulnerable majorities. It means if Congressional Republicans begin to abandon the President, or at least appear divided (just 40% of the Congressional GOP could abandon Trump and it would be enough combined with united Democratic support), the President’s political position would begin to crumble.

The President would overnight be a politically illegitimate figure.  Assume Mueller handed down indictments and Trump looks like he’s not only guilty of unscrupulous business dealings or unethical conduct with a foreign nation, the Congressional GOP splitting would put Trump in an extremely perilous position politically. At this juncture, with how much information we know about the Trump campaign and the Russian contacts, it may be almost impossible to merely remove Trump for shady business dealings, given what exists in the public domain (which could precipitate a true realignment or constitutional crisis, which would be ironic for a GOP formed in the war against slavery and Southern secession).

Combine these three, and you get three strikes and Trump’s out.

But I hear you saying “TD, what about the Trump base? The fanaticism? We saw it in Charlottesville, Virginia. These guys are hell bent on staying with Trump and punishing any Republican who strays?” Let me answer. The simplest answer is that the Republican coalition - like all human beings - want to win. They do identify with the President on a visceral level but as 538 has noted, his “strong approval” has dropped dramatically, meaning there are far more people who are willing to trade a bombastic and controversial GOP Presidency for a more conventional GOP presidency. It comes down to this: the amount of face saving needed. If you’re one of the strong GOP partisans who was never hot on Trump but wanted him to win, you bolt the ship when a major scandal that implicates the President comes up. That’s probably half of the remaining Trump support. Major scandals that wear away the remaining support do so because it becomes highly politically unpalatable to sustain the damage. (See: Moore, Roy, who probably was on course to a 6-8 point win but was so badly damaged he lost Alabama).  Read the scenario for how this works out.

Now, why Pence or Ryan? (Or whoever emerges unscathed). Probably, the chief reason is that the crisis is not yet inbound (but beginning to seem clear). Congressional Republicans do have a way to achieving a majority in November 2018 under a President who would be able to stabilize the political damage. The Republican coalition is probably capable of eking out a majority with a stable GOP President. Unfortunately, that president is no longer Donald Trump, given he blew his year. Pence or Ryan would be the most logical figures to present to the Republican coalition a “new page.”  

A scenario could unfold like this. Say, something revelatory like a smoking gun comes out about Trump and Russia or something extremely shady. It’s eight months out to the election. Or Mueller announces sweeping findings that implicate Trump in something really bad. At that point, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell would need to spend months defending the President - a President who would be increasingly out of control. Instead, they do what Republican leaders in 1974 did. The backbenchers are allowed to launch broadsides against the Trump administration (especially from liberal states). A mounting outcry in Congress begins. Then they go to him and tell him the votes aren’t there to sustain impeachment in 2019. McConnell and Ryan have very little real loyalty to the President. This crisis would be enough for Ryan (who has never had any personal love for Trump) and McConnell (who cares about preserving his caucus) to let the dogs loose and to get Pence or Ryan in to stabilize the crisis. Ryan and McConnell could strike a deal with Trump, who would feel legally jeopardized.

Trump’s age (71) and his contempt for the job could propel him to cut a deal to get out (which is exactly what BTM says).

The greatest mistake BTM has made is assuming Trump was on the order of bad presidents like Warren G. Harding or Jimmy Carter - that he had a slow enough fuse to stay sane throughout 2018. This was clearly a mistake. President Trump has actually sown the seeds of his own political destruction and they are likely to bloom in 2018.

Enter the title of this story: “I, Michael Richard Pence…”

[The_Doctor]

Considering the deterioration of US-Russo relations (both due to Trump's ties with Russia and Russia's geopolitical moves), do we see a Second Cold War under the Cordray Administration?

Not sure. I'll defer to NJ_is_better_than_ME there. My initial feeling is that the Cordray Administration is as hawkish on Russia as Reagan and Pence are. The Democrats have especial reason to be vengeful towards Russia given 2016.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

10-15% unemployment and -3% GDP to -5% GDP per year. Between the Great Depression and the 2008 crisis, really. However, Cordray should lead an economic boom and the recovery should be faster because of the effective federal response compared to 2009 and 2021.

But to give you an idea, so you can make your own informed arguments ...  

The crisis, in my mind, is bad purely because of several factors. People have no income to pay off debts that mount but corporations and the rich hang onto their money, which is sorely needed to stimulate the economy. When the crisis hits, people are hit even harder and revolt. Pence is caught in the crossfire and the rich and corporations try to repeat 2009 with promises of bailouts and crap.

If I have $100, and I'm a billionaire, and you have $5 and we need $50 to get the economy to maintain it's growth, and I hold onto $95 of my money, the economy isn't going to go anywhere. This is the crux of our problem right now. Corporations are so scared of the 2008 crash and the damage it did to balance sheets and the rich are deeply anxious about a repeat of 2008 that they are inadvertently pushing the next crisis on steroids. Neoliberal arguments that worked in the 1980s no longer work because the wealth has been steered so heavily towards the upper echelons and corporations, leading to very little for the vast majority of Americans and people around the world to push the economy with.

Remember all the quantitative easing that disappeared into "black holes" of corporate and upper class pockets and the very sluggish recovery as a result? Yeah.

So, with that backdrop, the crisis could be very well an ordinary one that mushrooms into an extraordinary one. In a time where everyone has money, a banking run in China might not affect everyone else. But when everyone else  has very little money and is hit with a recession or mini-crisis, then their own personal situation - multiplied by say, 100-200 million - creates a true national crisis. International, even. Conservative leaders across the globe will be caught in the crossfire because every conservative ideology globally subscribes to some form of neoliberal thought.

There's a reason I have Corbyn becoming Premier, ousting May (well, in the timeline it was Cameron, but whatever) in 2022. Prime Minister Corbyn is a harbinger of President Cordray and between Western Europe and the United States dramatically shifting, the rest of the world will spend the 2020s restructuring neoliberalism.

(President Cordray will understand that the best way to re-stimulate the economy is a dramatic restructuring of shifting profits to the electorate at large and this is borrowed from Clintonian arguments in the 1990s that if you help the vast majority of people, they propel the economy).

I anticipate a quicker recovery because of the national debt. Democrats will want to stimulate an economic boom to be able to start having an economy that can sustain a $20 trillion national debt (that's the only real solution at this point). They will want to speed up the economic boom so that we can sustain $300-400 billion interest payments (thus this means expanding the federal revenues to something like $5-6 trillion). 

Hope that helps. (ALSO WHY ISN'T CORDRAY THE REALIGNER IN YOUR TIMELINE?)

[The_Doctor]

Another factor to consider, guilty or not guilty, is the fact that Trump does not leave a paper trail. He is computer illiterate. He even dictates his tweets. Whatever investigators may find in the Trump campaign's electronic communications, it is likely that there will be little to work with in regards of tying Trump to the matter.

Did Trump dictate the "covfefe" tweet?

He's not wrong. Trump does dictate tweets to aides and advisors.

I'll respond to him later, when I've done a little more reading and research but he does lay out an interesting case about Trump's trajectory (I disagree but it's something I want to respond to to debate about where Trump goes).

[The_Doctor]

Sanchez, my reply: First, thank you for the kind words. I sent you a PM about an unrelated matter which I might turn into an article here.

I think as far as the Laws of Powers we are on the same side. I said a year or so ago on November 30, 2016 in an article about Trump and the media:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we agree on Trump utilizing the Laws of Powers to manipulate and to control the direction of news, which is an important and essential power he’s used well. The only criticism I can levy here is that Trump has often used this power in a fashion that reflects more instinct than organized planning.  I agree distraction is his modus operandi, but I contend his distraction has been far less successful than you believe.

This part of the Trump Presidency has been largely borne out, I believe. I’m not sure he has done a good job of distracting from bad stories but his 37% is more that he’s failed to present a narrative that most Americans can get behind. I think his media mastery only goes so far (and this is important to say why he doesn’t remain in office).

As far as the scandal itself goes, I think we disagree on the veracity of what’s come out. I respectfully say that what’s come out seems damaging, more than I anticipated. For example George Papadawhatever was claimed by the NYT to have met with an Australian embassy figure and disclosed the Russian hacking of Hillary’s emails just recently. That seems to be confirmed by the consternation of the Australian government in the Hill this morning.  The amount of information about meetings with the Russian government is considerable; you and I are on the same page on the information that's come out even if we disagree on the relevance and importance. Now, I grant it’s hard to prove directly Trump’s involvement (Kushner’s involvement, as you theorized, could be a possible reason).

I don’t want to debate too much about the details and derail the thread into an average Atlas general chat thread. I disagree with a number of things you’ve said and if you’d like I can detail them, if you think that would be useful in our debate to resolve Trump’s leaving.  

This is how I see the scandal however.

I think the scandal should be viewed in the eyes of the GOP majority. Traditionally, the GOP (or Southern Democratic - GOP) majority has been pretty solid throughout this era. It’s taken unusual events to put the Democrats in power since they lost it in 1994 (2006 is the only time in 24 years to date and honestly the grand conservative alliance has been more or less in power since the 1980s except maybe 1986 to 1994).

A normal Republican President would be leading a Republican Congress to reduced but still viable majorities in the House and probably an expanded GOP Senate majority. The House is filled with safe seats (just realize that Clinton won 24 seats that are held by Republicans and that’s the exact number to win a majority of 1 seat). The Senate map is heavily favorable to the GOP. The economy is going well and most Americans are doing well. 2018 should be an incumbent protection scheme, not with 40 GOP retirements.

Therefore, I think we should view the scandal that emerges through McConnell’s and Ryan’s eyes. Will they keep Trump on board if damaging information comes out or will they pitch him for Pence? I think that’s the real question.  And in my eyes, as the article said, Trump’s scandals provide an outlet for these “disloyal” leaders to oust him for a more stable President. I however believe if Trump can stabilize his ratings and demonstrate his viability in preserving the GOP majorities, he can absolutely survive 2018. I think that is the real question of 2018, not if Trump’s guilty or innocent. It will be an inherently political question judged by the GOP majority.

Here’s a couple of historical bipartisan examples that validate me, I think. Take Nixon’s 1974 impeachment. Congressional Democrats were probably motivated by their party’s increasingly anti-war liberal base who despised Nixon. Taking him out was probably vastly easier than say, challenging Lyndon Johnson’s electoral conduct in 1948 or 1960 (where objective proof later emerged of him rigging the elections in Texas). In 1987, the Democratic Congress decided not to challenge Ronald Reagan because of how popular he was, over Iran-contra. In 1998, the entire Democratic Caucus stood by a sexual predator because of his 66% approval rating. My point is that Congress often acts on impeachment and removal as a political question rather than a constitutional one. (1868’s firebrand GOP impeachment of Andrew Johnson is one good example, too). I feel that the 115th Congress will act similarly on Trump. That’s why I referenced the 37% approval rating and how vulnerable Congressional Republicans were.

[The_Doctor]

Boss_Rahm (I'm surprised you aren't from Chicago...)

The greatest problem with a 2028 realignment in my view is a couple of things. One, the foreshadowing Presidency has already passed (Obama's). Usually, when we are between the foreshadowing and realigning White Houses, we tend to not have a minority party president. The majority coalition in waiting is already fully formed and fleshed out, just needs an addition.

For example between 1848 and 1860, the Whig-Republican coalition was already largely set. The downballot numbers proved it. By 1924, the LaFollette - Democratic bloc was adding up to 46% of the vote. The Obama coalition has proved to win over 50% of the vote twice. The Democrats downballot have demonstrated the ability to be a majoritarian coalition.

So, Booker's win and the crisis hitting - or a second stunted foreshadowing - feels weird to me. Like, his coalition is clearly there but the second foreshadowing Presidency fails? Historically, at the very end, there's a burst of support for the majority as they die out. (1852-1860, 1976-1980, 1920-1932).

The crisis always hits the majority coalition, never the minority coalition. In fact majorities change because of the majority coalition's screwing up the crisis. They often start out ordinary but mushroom into extraodinary crises.

Originally this was set to be a Walker-Portman timeline that ended in 2028. But Trump's popular vote loss ended that.

What I'm puzzled about at this point is given the weakness of the GOP majority, is  whether we're headed to a 2020 or 2024 realignment. Or a staggered Lincoln-esq realignment where Cordray realigns winning 45% of the vote and minimal Congressional gains but needs a second term to cement power.

[The_Doctor]

The problem with a Lincoln realignment is that the Democrats will need a ton of strength to muscle through a radical agenda to jumpstart the tech boom and post-neoliberal economic alignment. So I don't know.

[The_Doctor]

So it appears the January 2018 shutdown eerily foreshadows the shutdown of 2021. The Republicans are a lot more united this time around but the main differential is that we're fighting a shutdown in a good time not a crisis.

Lots of weird parallels. Feels a lot like a foreshadowing. The HFC bargaining with Ryan and the Senate GOP defections allude to a split Republican Party stitched together by a good economy. The 2018 shutdown seems to confirm my thinking that the economic recession of 2021 will become a crisis through the shutdown vehicle.

What's eerie is that there are now two shutdowns in the same decade, 5 years apart. There was 1y year between the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns but then 17 years between. I don't think the shutdowns of the 1980s were this partisan but I wasn't really alive then. And this is the first one party shutdown since the Carter Administration (a time of one party rule).

Government funding is the one surefire way to turn a recession into a full blown realigning crisis. Realignments tend to happen because the ruling party fails to govern the country and a manageable situation spirals out of control. Ergo, why I chose a government funding fight. Under GOP rule.

[The_Doctor]

Do you see Roe v Wade being overturned in this timeline sometime during either Trump or Pence's administrations? 

No. White women vote GOP and the deal was, if Roe is tossed, they go Democratic.  Abortion is pretty much a sham. Everyone knows that the GOP uses abortion as a cultural codeword, not actually tossing Roe. They'll limit abortions some but a gutting of Roe would kung fu the RNC.

[The_Doctor]

Well it's possible that the end of the era could feature radicals who ignore the prevailing consensus. Prohibition was the extreme example. But I feel abortion is a way to prematurely end rhe Republican majority. I think even dating to the 1980s Republicans mouthed anti abortion platitudes but didn't launch an missile at Roe after 1992.

Pence might but after RFR in Indiana he might settle for a twenty week ban. I don't think as of now that the Republicans want to overturn Roe as an aggregate outside the most fervent. That said I do think I should've written more about the Pence White House's evangelical nature and social conservatism at some length.

[The_Doctor]

Republican shutdowns are a result of the fact the party is no longer able to unite between warring factions and that's regardless of the President. In other words this isn't just a matter of the candidates. The HFC is a thorn in Paul Ryan's side and was so in John Boehner as well.

The next articles will probably be about 1.) #metoo and the emerging Democratic majority and 2.) the imperial presidencies and expanded executive overreach of Presidents Cordray and Castro.

[The_Doctor]

I'll post a write up if Arizona's McSally wins (which will keep BTM on track). Cordray's loss is a big problem but I suspect the realigner will still come from the Midwest, as Obama (the foreshadowing President) came from Illinois).

But let me wait to see what happens in Arizona first. The Senate GOP gaining a net 3 seats means the 2024 Senate blowout would be comparable to 2008. I didn't imagine a scenario possible where the GOP would gain 3 but lose the House because it hadn't happened before (most comparable, ironically, was the first midterm of the current alignment in 1982).

[The_Doctor]

I'm still here. I tend to be on Discord a lot more than here. Apparently, instead of Azerbaijain, we're getting Ukraine.

I will say the GOP is not knocked out but Trump might be hitting the end of his rope.

Feel free to leave questions or topics you want me to address, if anything. 

[The_Doctor]

At this juncture the Trump scandal in this timeline looks eerily similar to what went down. Except, for business interests, it was investigating Joe Biden's family. He apparently has asked Australia, China, Britain, and Ukraine to investigate the Biden family and used his office as a quid pro quo.

Okay then.

[The_Doctor]

I'm still here. I tend to be on Discord a lot more than here. Apparently, instead of Azerbaijain, we're getting Ukraine.

I will say the GOP is not knocked out but Trump might be hitting the end of his rope.

Feel free to leave questions or topics you want me to address, if anything. 

Your timeline has Trump resigning and leaving the political stage quietly. Do you think that's how the Ukraine scandal will unfold?

So, I wanted to use this question as a springboard to answer things about Trump.

Part I

First, I think the impeachment & removal percentage is important. If it approaches or breaches 51% (and has already done so in Fox's poll that dropped last night but I would need to see corroboration - 538% has 49%), I think that represents a percent Trump cannot necessarily come back from. I think if half of the population seeks his active removal from office, his Presidency is essentially done.

An "impeachment and removal" voter bloc is a mortal danger to any President because a large one means that they believe you and those who enable you should be stopped, at all costs. That's what an impeachment question means.

This isn't a voter preference poll. It's a step above that; it's an active removal while in power poll. I think most voters tend to place a higher standard (and until Ukraine broke, most voters opposed his removal).

So, if that number is 51%+, that makes it very, very difficult for the GOP to sustain Trump in power over the next year as this scandal unfolds.

My guess, Trump will be forced to resign over the next few months. At a minimum, he will not be the GOP nominee. The scandal that hangs over him does not seem unsubstantiated. He does not seem capable of (maybe he is?) of pulling the rabbit out of the hat.

I think what will happen, the pressure will build for impeachment. The House will vote on articles of impeachment and Trump will resign as pressure builds in the Senate. McConnell will hold for Trump until the dam completely breaks and then he'll look to try to install Pence to hold the base in Kentucky.

The key determinant is what McConnell thinks is politically viable. He'll stick with Trump right now because breaking is not yet considered viable but if this ruptures the Republican Party, McConnell will choose to put the GOP ahead of Trump. (It's important to note Romney is already whipping votes in the Senate).

How much political pressure can the GOP take, basically, before it breaks?

And that brings us to II.

[The_Doctor]

Part II

So, this is the crucial element. The economy is slowing down (it was supposed to in late '18, it's turning out to be a year off and this is going into late '19).

This raises questions about a 2020 realignment, of course. And I'll say that I'm not convinced the economic slowdown will be that significant enough to derail a Republican victory.

In my thinking, voters may dislike Trump - but do they dislike the entire Republican brand to oust Pence, if he became President and mitigated much of what Trump did with the trade wars?

I'm skeptical. For one, the GOP's geographic coalition does not seem to have significantly broken. To date, the 538 House tracker shows the GOP trailing by 6%, Trump's approval rating is at 43%. In BTM, Pence won 49%. Basically, if you subscribe to the theory Trump runs behind a normal GOP President, you could get a number close to Pence's 49%.

Is it possible everything breaks in 2020 and Pence loses in a blowout to President x? Possible.

But I don't think any Democrat has the werewithal (Biden or otherwise) to beat a stable incumbent Republican President. The GOP geographic coalition, the internal Democratic battle for the direction of the Party, and the strength of the Reagan coalition (the donors, the think tanks, the party brass, etc) and the economy not collapsing completely probably adds to one last gasp for the Reagan coalition.

Quick note on the Democratic battle - Warren takes the place of Sherrod Brown and Biden takes the place of Cuomo. If you'll notice, Warren is the firebrand who is incapable of forming a General election coalition and has the foresight to see the future Democratic majority but not the Rooseveltian-Reagan chops to take it there (much like Sherrod Brown, I guess) and Biden is the aging establishment choice. I think Buttigieg would be a possible realignment choice but at this point, he's too young and inexperienced in forming a major coalition. (Roosevelt and Reagan were former Governors; Lincoln had significant experience in the Illinois state House and the Whig & GOP by the time he was President, Jefferson was part of the Founding Fathers).  

We are absolutely seeing the slow death of the Reagan coalition in Trump's failed White House, though, with the Reagan coalition being significantly underpowered compared to 1981, 1994, 2000, and 2004. It's hard to assess Trump as anything but the Reagan coalition losing its respectable institutions and becoming the conspiracy minded erratic fringe that dominates center stage.

But I still think the institutional strength of the coalition Reagan and Nixon built is strong enough to overcome the conspiracy lunacy, the insanity, and the rising left wing strength to beat out them one last time. And I think Mike Pence is going to be the incarnation of that last stand in 2020 and 2024.

[The_Doctor]

(Significant reworking to the 2022 debt crisis, though. I think the Democratic House stands firm and Pence flounders, with the GOP Senate and the collapse from there follows to resolve the standoff).

[The_Doctor]

No. The Republican era of 1980 to 2020/4 is two distinct eras. (Reagan 1980 to Bush 2000) (Bush 2000 to Trump/Pence TBD).

The Lincoln coalition was also ascendant with important business elements and northern voters coming into their own in 1896. Conversely the Democratic technology sector and the emerging Obama coalition is coming into its own as we clearly saw in 2018.
 
The clear fact that Millennials were the key to the Democratic House dispels your theory alone, a fact not present in the Civil War generations and their heirs who propelled the Republicans.

Generation Z is also on track to imitate Millennials and likely at this juncture would provide the confirmation Presidency the votes for election.

[The_Doctor]

Trump resigns ITTL and replaced by Pence. Why did Pence win comfortably in 2020 after pardoning former President Trump but lost in a blowout in 2024.

The table of contents on the first page would be helpful to answer your question here.

[The_Doctor]

If the Democrats win the Presidency they're winning the Senate. The recession would be the catalyst along with Trump's impeachment. 

[The_Doctor]

Anyway if half of the country favors Trump's removal I want it on record to say he will not be the GOP nominee. There's a certain threshold to be electable as a party's incumbent nominee and having half of the country believe you should be removed from office fails that kind of threshold.