Could Democrats achieve 4 back to back wins?

[Mister Mets]

I think we're entering an era of Democratic advantage at the presidential level, not unlike the previous cycles of partisan advantage...

Democratic Advantage (2008-present)
Republican Advantage (1968-2004) - Democrats only win with split GOP vote (1992) or relatively conservative Democrat (Carter, Clinton)
Democratic Advantage (1932-1964) - Republicans only win with relatively liberal Republican (Eisenhower)
Republican Advantage (1872-1928) - Democrats only win with split GOP vote (1912) or relatively conservative Democrat (Cleveland)

I agree with this, I really think we've entered an era of Democratic dominance. That doesn't mean the GOP can't or won't win, but in order to win they'll need a candidate who can gain support in states where they're currently dead. I think the next GOP president will be a Republican version of Bill Clinton (centrist/third way).

I think signs point to that. My question is, was 2008 the real realignment, or was it earlier? Reason is, Democrats often cite the fact that they've won the popular vote five times in the past six elections, so would that mean the 'era of Democrat dominance of Presidential elections' started in say 1992? Would that also mean 2008 was the peak of this era?

Part of the problem is that we don't know what type of political era we're in right now.

Copying and pasting from elsewhere.

The 2012 Presidential election can fit three historic narratives. We won’t know for some time which summary is the most accurate.

I tend to agree with the middle of the road narrative. The United States has a two party system in which there’s currently a level of parity between Democrats and Republicans. Since Dwight Eisenhower, the following tendency has predicted 14 out of 16 presidential elections: Voters select a party for two terms in the White House, and then go and pick the other guys. Obama’s victory, while Republicans kept the House and expanded their number of Governors from 29 to 30, fits this version. It’s possible that at some point we’ll have a realigning election giving one party dominance like the Republicans had after the Civil War, and Democrats had after the Great Depression, but it hasn’t happened yet.

Then there’s the argument that favors Democrats. Bill Clinton seized the center in 1992, and we’re already in an era of Democratic dominance. Since then, Democrats won three landslide elections and one close election (and the electoral vote wasn’t all that close), while Republicans won one close election and one possibly fraudulent election. Meanwhile, the changing demographics of the country, as 50,000 Hispanic-Americans become eligible to vote every day, as well as changing views on social issues, are just making the electorate more and more liberal. Republicans will win a few presidential elections, as Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson did in the otherwise Republican era from 1860-1928, and Eisenhower did in the Democratic era from 1932-1964. They may even keep the House, thanks to gerrymandering, the financial advantages of incumbents and a tendency of Democrats to live close to like-minded people. But the next Presidents are more likely than not to be Democrats.

A conservative version of this narrative is that the nation is becoming more redistributionist, and that is why Democrats now have the edge.

There is also the argument that Barack Obama’s race cost him several points in the popular vote in 2008 and 2012. If this were true, it masks the strength of Democratic candidates for office.

Time Magazine's cover for the 1980 presidential election between Reagan and Carter.The least convincing claim is that this is still an era of Republican dominance. By this argument, after liberalism died with LBJ, Republicans have won 7 of the last 12 presidential elections, and the party is favored to win the next two, as it has been three generations since Democrats held the White House for more than two terms. Democrats only get the White House under the right set of circumstances. Their only successful nominees since Nixon have been Southern Governors, or a rare candidate who fit a very specific demographic sweet spot: a Midwestern African-American elected to statewide office. And the only Republicans who lose are moderates who weren’t able to excite the base/ silent majority the way Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush did.

If this were true, you would expect Mitt Romney to underperform relative to conservative candidates like Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, Indiana Non-Senator Richard Mourdock and Missouri Not-Senator Todd Akin. That wasn’t the case.

The three scenarios have implications for the 2016 presidential election, as well as the strategies of the major political parties. If we’re in an age of parity, the Republicans are more likely to win, but Democrats have a shot at keeping the White House in the event of a catastrophically bad Republican nominee or fantastic approval ratings for the outgoing President. If this is an era of Democratic dominance, the reverse is true. My concern is that too many Republicans will be comforted by the final argument, and decide to nominate the most conservative candidate the next time around, regardless of the individual’s political gifts, or lack thereof.

[Beezer]

It is quite possible, due mainly to the ineptitude of the current GOP to function as a serious political party.  This is more than just the party becoming too conservative (that's not the GOP's problem, truly), nor is it the problem of a split party (as the Democrats were seemingly forever).  It is the problem of a party that now has the image of a crew perfectly willing to throw out the baby with the bath water to win brownie points with their nutty base, which wields a ridiculous amount of power.  The McGovernite left NEVER held sway over national Democrats as the Tea Party does today.  

If today's GOP were the Democrats, it would be as if the caucus were held hostage by Maxine Waters and Alan Grayson.  We would be shutting down the government in the name of single payor health insurance, or government funding of abortion, or some cause important to the fringe.  Pelosi may be a left wing liberal, but she has been able to keep the fringe members in line, and their numbers within the Democratic caucus in check.  No Democrat I can think of lives in fear of being primaried for not appearing liberal enough or settling for 3/4 of a loaf.

The right wing has maximized their electoral advantage in the House, but what has happened in the Senate is telling.  The red Romney states that elected Democrats to the Senate in 2012 (IN, MO, MT, ND) and the purple states that were locally Republican that elected Democrats to the Senate in 2012 (VA, FL, WV) still have a core of GOP voters that have become independent, at least at some levels, because the nut jobs scare them.  It's in the states where everybody is "out there" (UT, WY, ID, OK, MS, AL) where there is no check within the GOP to its crazier fringe.  Even TX is going the total loony way, and the emerging GOP states (KY, AR) are already there.

The Democratic Party has always been able to govern its nutballs.  The GOP was once believed to be the more responsible party, able to produce conformity, but that's out the window now.  Indeed, it's the lost asset that has cost the GOP their Presidential majority.  I suspect that in the minds of many key voters in the middle of the political spectrum was the belief that Mitt Romney may have been the better man, but he would not have been able to master the art of bringing the Tea Party to heel.

Good analysis, but I somewhat disagree on a core point. At least in my view, the TP does not represent the lunatic fringe or "nutballs" of the GOP; it represents its - admittedly extremist - core. Grayson and his ilk can be disregarded by most Democrats because they know that there are no Graysonite extremists back in their home district. Virtually every Republican knows though that moving to the center could be a costly suicide mission which is why the movement can't be governed. If the TP represented the GOP's fringe, many moderates would have told Mark Meadows and his friends to go take a hike when they suggested using the CR debate to defund Obamacare. Plus, when it comes to the basic stance on most issues, say size of government, taxes, gov. expenditure, 2nd amendment rights, abortion, SSM etc. there isn't much of a difference between TP Reps and "mainstream" Reps. Yes, TP Republicans are more to the right but ultimately even mainstream Republicans hate Obamacare with a passion. What sets TPers apart is that they consider Obamacare to be the end of America as we know it while some more centrist Republicans may just disagree with it on the grounds of costs.

It's not like you can extract the TP from today's Republican Party and all moderate Republicans will subsequently live happily ever after, working together with Democrats on a variety of issues, which David Frum sort of suggested a couple of days ago. The GOP can't be liberated from the Tea Party because the Tea Party is the GOP...on steroids. Goldwater, Reagan and others made sure that the TP brand of anti-statist populist (and slightly racist) conservatism found a home in today's GOP and it'll take just as long to rebrand the party.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Basically, it is possible: long winning streaks were common historically but have been rare in more recent times. However, there have only been 56 presidential elections, which presents us with a very small number of test cases, and many of those occurred before the modern party system came into being.

[Mister Mets]

I think we're entering an era of Democratic advantage at the presidential level, not unlike the previous cycles of partisan advantage...

Democratic Advantage (2008-present)
Republican Advantage (1968-2004) - Democrats only win with split GOP vote (1992) or relatively conservative Democrat (Carter, Clinton)
Democratic Advantage (1932-1964) - Republicans only win with relatively liberal Republican (Eisenhower)
Republican Advantage (1872-1928) - Democrats only win with split GOP vote (1912) or relatively conservative Democrat (Cleveland)

I could see Hillary retiring after one term or losing reelection in 2020 to a very moderate Republican who basically governed as a RINO by current GOP standards (basically the inverse of Bill Clinton). Ex. Susana Martinez serves two terms as Governor of New Mexico (2011-2019), then runs as a pro-immigration Republican who is relatively moderate/populist on economic issues (i.e. embracing some of the anti-poverty measures the GOP championed in the '90s and early '00s before adopting their current "@#$% everyone who isn't already rich" stance).

There is some disagreement regarding how the eras should be sorted.

Did the 1940 and 1944 elections show Democratic advantage or the advantages of being an incumbent President during wartime?

Was 1960 really a Democratic advantage year if Nixon arguably won the popular vote (and if he didn't it was still pretty close)?

Was 2000 really a Republican advantage election if Gore won the popular vote?

Was 2004 really a Republican advantage year if the party wins by a single state in their best showing in four cycles?

[barfbag]

When was the last time this happened for one party other than the depression and the reconstruction era? Please explain to me in full detail how times such now. What exactly makes it likely that Democrats can have 4 consecutive terms? This should be interesting.

1896-1908:  Republicans win four consecutive elections.

1800-1820:  Jeffersonians win six consecutive elections; some would count 1824, making it seven.  By 1824, the Jeffersonians (or Democratic-Republicans) were practically the sole party.  In 1820, James Monroe ran unopposed.

A party winning four or more consecutive times happens, and it is very possible now if Obama's popularity improves and Hillary runs an effective campaign in 2016, and maintains enough of her popularity during her first term to win a second.  

All you've done is made my point. See how rare it is. Hillary Clinton is going to win when she's 73 after 12 years of one party? This is nothing more than wishful Democrat thinking. Statistics show this is slim to none. What I do think is that you want this to happen.

[The Mikado]

Could we focus on 3 back to back wins before worrying about a 4th?  Got to walk before we can run and all.

[TDAS04]

When was the last time this happened for one party other than the depression and the reconstruction era? Please explain to me in full detail how times such now. What exactly makes it likely that Democrats can have 4 consecutive terms? This should be interesting.

1896-1908:  Republicans win four consecutive elections.

1800-1820:  Jeffersonians win six consecutive elections; some would count 1824, making it seven.  By 1824, the Jeffersonians (or Democratic-Republicans) were practically the sole party.  In 1820, James Monroe ran unopposed.

A party winning four or more consecutive times happens, and it is very possible now if Obama's popularity improves and Hillary runs an effective campaign in 2016, and maintains enough of her popularity during her first term to win a second.  

All you've done is made my point. See how rare it is. Hillary Clinton is going to win when she's 73 after 12 years of one party? This is nothing more than wishful Democrat thinking. Statistics show this is slim to none. What I do think is that you want this to happen.

Sure I want it to happen.  Anything wrong with that?

What do you mean by "slim to none"?  If you mean less than 10%, I definitely do not understand your reasoning that Democrats don't have a greater chance than that at holding the White House until 2025.  I have never claimed that the Republicans are forever dead, but assuming that four consecutive wins by Democrats during these times is ridiculous.

We can go back only to elections since 1856, with our modern parties.  It may not have happened for a while, but take another look at past elections.  From 1896 to 1928, Republicans won seven out of nine times; even though Democrat Wilson won the other two, he did not obtain a majority of the popular vote, as 1916 was very close, and 1912 saw a split GOP.  The Republicans easily obtained a majority of the vote in each or their seven wins, and those majorities were often very large.  It was not as if the Democrats were always too dysfunctional to be viable, but the country leaned in a Republican mood during that era, and other circumstances kept Democrats out of the White House.

With Republicans facing their difficulties today, it is more than just a tiny bit possible that the Democrat will win in both 2016 and 2020.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The GOP have a lock on House and Dems have lock on Senate and prez, if current trends continue it will be like this for the rest of decade. Beyond that is speculative. But the country is looking like NM and Calif.

[barfbag]

The GOP have a lock on House and Dems have lock on Senate and prez, if current trends continue it will be like this for the rest of decade. Beyond that is speculative. But the country is looking like NM and Calif.

America is looking like California? I hope we don't end up looking anything like them.

[Flake]

The GOP have a lock on House and Dems have lock on Senate and prez, if current trends continue it will be like this for the rest of decade. Beyond that is speculative. But the country is looking like NM and Calif.

America is looking like California? I hope we don't end up looking anything like them.

Because of the politics or the ethnicities?

[H. Ross Peron]

Quite possibly providing Hillary Clinton is the nominee and no major disasters or economic downturns occur on her watch.

[barfbag]

The GOP have a lock on House and Dems have lock on Senate and prez, if current trends continue it will be like this for the rest of decade. Beyond that is speculative. But the country is looking like NM and Calif.

America is looking like California? I hope we don't end up looking anything like them.

Because of the politics or the ethnicities?

Politics just look at how they've been doing the last 25 years compared to Texas. Texas picked up 4 EV while California picked up 0. Even when you ignore politics, this shows people are moving to Texas for reasons and not moving to California for reasons.

[Mister Mets]

The GOP have a lock on House and Dems have lock on Senate and prez, if current trends continue it will be like this for the rest of decade. Beyond that is speculative. But the country is looking like NM and Calif.

New Mexico has a popular Republican Governor.

California's going to have to wait a while before Democrats achieve four back to back wins.

[illegaloperation]

The GOP have a lock on House and Dems have lock on Senate and prez, if current trends continue it will be like this for the rest of decade. Beyond that is speculative. But the country is looking like NM and Calif.

New Mexico has a popular Republican Governor.

California's going to have to wait a while before Democrats achieve four back to back wins.

Kentucky has a Democratic governor.  Are Democrats about to win back the South any time soon?

[barfbag]

The GOP have a lock on House and Dems have lock on Senate and prez, if current trends continue it will be like this for the rest of decade. Beyond that is speculative. But the country is looking like NM and Calif.

New Mexico has a popular Republican Governor.

California's going to have to wait a while before Democrats achieve four back to back wins.

Kentucky has a Democratic governor.  Are Democrats about to win back the South any time soon?

No but there's two small details about this. New Mexico is in play to a degree in presidential elections while Kentucky isn't. Susan Martinez has a chance at being the running mate too which would put it in the toss up column if things are equal. State politics are different from federal politics, but when a popular governor gets involved in a race or is on the ticket, things could change.

[Flake]

The GOP have a lock on House and Dems have lock on Senate and prez, if current trends continue it will be like this for the rest of decade. Beyond that is speculative. But the country is looking like NM and Calif.

America is looking like California? I hope we don't end up looking anything like them.

Because of the politics or the ethnicities?

Politics just look at how they've been doing the last 25 years compared to Texas. Texas picked up 4 EV while California picked up 0. Even when you ignore politics, this shows people are moving to Texas for reasons and not moving to California for reasons.

Well what are those reasons?

[barfbag]

The GOP have a lock on House and Dems have lock on Senate and prez, if current trends continue it will be like this for the rest of decade. Beyond that is speculative. But the country is looking like NM and Calif.

America is looking like California? I hope we don't end up looking anything like them.

Because of the politics or the ethnicities?

Politics just look at how they've been doing the last 25 years compared to Texas. Texas picked up 4 EV while California picked up 0. Even when you ignore politics, this shows people are moving to Texas for reasons and not moving to California for reasons.

Well what are those reasons?

Texas has a better economy and very low unemployment due to their business friendly environment of low taxes and regulation. They're also tough on crime which allows new residents to feel safe.

[roadkill]

I think there's a good shot of Democrats winning in 2016 and then again in 2020, if and only if it's Hillary.  It's not that hard to get three in a row.  Another Democratic candidate could probably pick up 2016 outside of Hillary (50/50 chance).  It's the 4th one that's hard to pick up.  There usually has to be some "other" factor for that to happen.  After 12 years the public is unusually eager to turn on the party in power.  Something has to override that.  I think that "something" could be a psychological need for Hillary supporters to not let the first female President be a one term President.  I think her base will be much more supportive than normal because of this.  

[ElectionsGuy]

Very unlikely, but could happen, we are in a democrat-dominant phase, but I don't know if we still will be by 2020.

[DS0816]

Good analysis, but I somewhat disagree on a core point. At least in my view, the TP does not represent the lunatic fringe or "nutballs" of the GOP; it represents its - admittedly extremist - core. Grayson and his ilk can be disregarded by most Democrats because they know that there are no Graysonite extremists back in their home district.

What has you thinking Alan Grayson is extreme?

[Flake]

I worked with a guy who was Graysons campaign manager and then went to the Val Demings campaign (In Florida-10), he told me Grayson was hard to work with, had unreasonable expectations, etc. I've never really liked Grayson since I found out he's just a big fart.

[Asian Nazi]

Absolutely.  There is exactly zero empirical evidence that party fatigue is actually a thing at the Presidential level. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We saw the samething in England where Labour Party won 3 straight elections with Tony Blair. The conservatives were in same boat as the GOP party here.

[roadkill]

Absolutely.  There is exactly zero empirical evidence that party fatigue is actually a thing at the Presidential level. 

Have you ever heard of the Time for Change election forecasting model?  It's a statistical model that shows the incumbent party usually has an advantage after holding the Presidency for one term, is neutral after two terms, and then starts having an increasing disadvantage after three consecutive terms.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

If one were equate 2008 to 1968, then I do believe we have entered something of an era of Democratic dominance. It's possible we could see Democratic strength grow through the mid-2020's and wane until a Republican victory comes. If one were to believe this cyclical theory, a moderate Republican should win in 2016, 2020 or 2024, being succeeded by a liberal Democrat, winning in a Reaganesque wave. After this the massive Obama coalition would eventually start to crack and eventually the GOP would take over as the dominant party once again.
I doubt that Democrats will win 4 elections in a row but with Hillary it is certainly a possibility. Bear in mind that Gore still did win the popular vote in 2000, and so if one were to count that as a win, with a moderately popular president an open seat race will still usually be around 50/50. Even with Bush, 2008 was fairly close until the financial crash.
I do not believe Democrats will win both 2016 and 2020, but the chances of that happening are certainly greater than they have been since the 1980's.