If Republicans win in 2016 but get shellacked in 2020...

[Meursault]

Do they then find themselves exactly where the Democrats were after Carter?

[Person Man]

Like what all political scientists say:

It depends. However, I would say at this point, probably not. They will probably nominate a Teabagger or, more likely, a boring white guy that has  jumped on the TEA party express after defeating his TEA party primary challenger. That being said, this won't be a Carter-like presidency of the president putting behind partisanship to rebuild trust with the American people. Another reason why it wouldn't be like 1976, 1980 is that the President's congress will probably be more unified behind him than Carter's was behind him (even though it was Carter's and not the Republican opposition's Congress). Then again, by 2018 that could likely change and we might have a D congress though if that happens, voters will generally be happy with 6 years of a lame duck than 2. That hasn't happened since Truman, if not Hoover.

If anything, it will be more like something between  1928 and 1932 or even more likely, something we haven't really seen yet. i.e. A popular party becomes unpopular over the course of 2 or 3 years, their popularity then steadily rebounds, over the course of 8 years, and then they become unpopular again almost as soon as they become the establishment again.

[Mister Mets]

Democrats didn't exactly learn the right lesson after 1980.

"Hey, remember that guy who did worse than any Democrat running for reelection ever? Let's nominate his Veep."

For Republicans, it would depend heavily on why their guy got shellacked.

Rand Paul would be in a position to argue that new policies are needed. Unless he was the immensely unpopular President, in which case other Republicans will argue for a more conventional approach.

If a fiscal conservative loses, there may be an opening for a Huckabee type fiscal moderate.

[pbrower2a]

Carter 297, Ford 240, and a missing EV.

We need to contemplate the scenario in which that is possible. I don't see that with Hillary Clinton as the nominee.

Conditions of 1976 were that the President elected to the prior term had scandals involving abuse of power and that the economy was reeling from  economic shocks. The VP who became President after the resignation of Richard Nixon wasn't really electable under any but the most favorable circumstances, and Joe Biden takes that role.

Scott Walker is elected President on promises to bring back prosperity with some "secret plan" that is secret for very good reason -- it is nothing but special-interest legislation. He and his Republican Congress enact a national sales tax while abolishing the federal income tax, rescinding Obamacare, and a "Labor Freedom Act" which includes

1. A national Right-to-Work policy
2. Abolition of the minimum wage'
3. Abolition of unemployment insurance
4. Removing the minimum age for industrial work
5. Abolition of welfare payments

"4" is worst because it allows employers to call for "voluntary" unpaid overtime that one can refuse only if one risks being fired.

His effort to privatize the Interstate Highway System to monopolistic profiteers fails due to massive resistance. His opponent, Amy Klobuchar, wins in a landslide against an incumbent analogous to 1932 for FDR or 1980 for Reagan.  

Maps forthcoming.  



      

[pbrower2a]

Here's the Walker win:

 

Scott Walker (R, WI) 297
Joseph Biden (D-DE) 241

52-47 split of the popular vote

...and his gargantuan loss

Scott Walker, (R-WI) 47
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) 491

The government no longer keeps unemployment statistics, but the Dow Jones is around 6000. The popular vote splits 62-38.

[RR1997]

There's actually an interesting political cycle theory related to this.

This is how it goes:

Hoover-Carter: Both of these politically moderate presidents are considered failures, and because of them ushers an era of liberalism/conservatism.

FDR-Reagan: Both presidents considered heroes of the left/right, both ushered an era of liberalism/conservatism, and also "defeated" foreign enemies of the far-right (Nazi Germany), and the far-left (Soviet Union.)

Truman-Bush 41: Both vice-presidents of the previous administration, and are one-termers who had really bad approval ratings by the time reelection came along, and failed to live up to the previous president. Both presidents also ended tensions with past enemies (Truman: Nazi Germany/ Bush 41: Soviet Union), and created new tensions (Truman: the beginning of the Cold War, Bush 41: beginning of tensions with the Middle-East with the Gulf War.)

Eisenhower-Clinton: Both were moderate heroes, who ushered a decade of peace and prosperity.

JFK/LBJ-Bush/Cheney: Both Bush and JFK were members of a political dynasty, whose election to the presidency was against the vice-president of the former administration. The two vice-presidents were extremely uncharismatic, and lost the election by a razor-thin margin, despite the last president being very popular. Both JFK/LBJ and Bush/Cheney increased tensions severely with foreign enemies (Soviet Union/Middle-East), and ushers a decade of war (Vietnam/Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Nixon-Obama: See this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168317.0

So following this cyclical theory, a moderate Republican should win narrowly in 2016, and lose in 2020 to a far-left Democrat who ushers an era of liberal dominance.

[Never]

There's actually an interesting political cycle theory related to this.

This is how it goes:

Hoover-Carter: Both of these politically moderate presidents are considered failures, and because of them ushers an era of liberalism/conservatism.

FDR-Reagan: Both presidents considered heroes of the left/right, both ushered an era of liberalism/conservatism, and also "defeated" foreign enemies of the far-right (Nazi Germany), and the far-left (Soviet Union.)

Truman-Bush 41: Both vice-presidents of the previous administration, and are one-termers who had really bad approval ratings by the time reelection came along, and failed to live up to the previous president. Both presidents also ended tensions with past enemies (Truman: Nazi Germany/ Bush 41: Soviet Union), and created new tensions (Truman: the beginning of the Cold War, Bush 41: beginning of tensions with the Middle-East with the Gulf War.)

Eisenhower-Clinton: Both were moderate heroes, who ushered a decade of peace and prosperity.

JFK/LBJ-Bush/Cheney: Both Bush and JFK were members of a political dynasty, whose election to the presidency was against the vice-president of the former administration. The two vice-presidents were extremely uncharismatic, and lost the election by a razor-thin margin, despite the last president being very popular. Both JFK/LBJ and Bush/Cheney increased tensions severely with foreign enemies (Soviet Union/Middle-East), and ushers a decade of war (Vietnam/Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Nixon-Obama: See this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168317.0

So following this cyclical theory, a moderate Republican should win narrowly in 2016, and lose in 2020 to a far-left Democrat who ushers an era of liberal dominance.

Very interesting.. so, does that mean Republicans should hope for a Democrat to win in 2016?

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

There's actually an interesting political cycle theory related to this.

This is how it goes:

Hoover-Carter: Both of these politically moderate presidents are considered failures, and because of them ushers an era of liberalism/conservatism.

FDR-Reagan: Both presidents considered heroes of the left/right, both ushered an era of liberalism/conservatism, and also "defeated" foreign enemies of the far-right (Nazi Germany), and the far-left (Soviet Union.)

Truman-Bush 41: Both vice-presidents of the previous administration, and are one-termers who had really bad approval ratings by the time reelection came along, and failed to live up to the previous president. Both presidents also ended tensions with past enemies (Truman: Nazi Germany/ Bush 41: Soviet Union), and created new tensions (Truman: the beginning of the Cold War, Bush 41: beginning of tensions with the Middle-East with the Gulf War.)

Eisenhower-Clinton: Both were moderate heroes, who ushered a decade of peace and prosperity.

JFK/LBJ-Bush/Cheney: Both Bush and JFK were members of a political dynasty, whose election to the presidency was against the vice-president of the former administration. The two vice-presidents were extremely uncharismatic, and lost the election by a razor-thin margin, despite the last president being very popular. Both JFK/LBJ and Bush/Cheney increased tensions severely with foreign enemies (Soviet Union/Middle-East), and ushers a decade of war (Vietnam/Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Nixon-Obama: See this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168317.0

So following this cyclical theory, a moderate Republican should win narrowly in 2016, and lose in 2020 to a far-left Democrat who ushers an era of liberal dominance.

Very interesting.. so, does that mean Republicans should hope for a Democrat to win in 2016?

I don't think it's wise to throw away four years only to bank on a future election where the outcome is far from certain. It's entirely possible that the cyclical theory will collapse or materialize at a later point (maybe 2028-2032) or perhaps it even materialized already with Obama, as some posters have theorized. In retrospect, maybe Bush should have lost to Kerry so that he would be taken out in 2008. Four years in office is still four years, and I don't think it's safe to say anything about what the country will be like by the time 2020 rolls around.

[IceSpear]

There's actually an interesting political cycle theory related to this.

This is how it goes:

Hoover-Carter: Both of these politically moderate presidents are considered failures, and because of them ushers an era of liberalism/conservatism.

FDR-Reagan: Both presidents considered heroes of the left/right, both ushered an era of liberalism/conservatism, and also "defeated" foreign enemies of the far-right (Nazi Germany), and the far-left (Soviet Union.)

Truman-Bush 41: Both vice-presidents of the previous administration, and are one-termers who had really bad approval ratings by the time reelection came along, and failed to live up to the previous president. Both presidents also ended tensions with past enemies (Truman: Nazi Germany/ Bush 41: Soviet Union), and created new tensions (Truman: the beginning of the Cold War, Bush 41: beginning of tensions with the Middle-East with the Gulf War.)

Eisenhower-Clinton: Both were moderate heroes, who ushered a decade of peace and prosperity.

JFK/LBJ-Bush/Cheney: Both Bush and JFK were members of a political dynasty, whose election to the presidency was against the vice-president of the former administration. The two vice-presidents were extremely uncharismatic, and lost the election by a razor-thin margin, despite the last president being very popular. Both JFK/LBJ and Bush/Cheney increased tensions severely with foreign enemies (Soviet Union/Middle-East), and ushers a decade of war (Vietnam/Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Nixon-Obama: See this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168317.0

So following this cyclical theory, a moderate Republican should win narrowly in 2016, and lose in 2020 to a far-left Democrat who ushers an era of liberal dominance.

Very interesting.. so, does that mean Republicans should hope for a Democrat to win in 2016?

I don't think it's wise to throw away four years only to bank on a future election where the outcome is far from certain. It's entirely possible that the cyclical theory will collapse or materialize at a later point (maybe 2028-2032) or perhaps it even materialized already with Obama, as some posters have theorized. In retrospect, maybe Bush should have lost to Kerry so that he would be taken out in 2008. Four years in office is still four years, and I don't think it's safe to say anything about what the country will be like by the time 2020 rolls around.

Yeah, in retrospect, Bush narrowly losing to Kerry while the GOP kept the House/Senate probably would've been one of the best things that could've happened to the Republicans. But if you said that back in 2004, you'd have been laughed out of the room.

[henster]

If Republicans have a trifecta and are able to enact the Ryan budget and cuts to SS/Medicare it would harm them the most the scenario seems pretty likely.

[Frodo]

I could see that happening -here's a possible scenario:

Assuming Republicans win a majority in the Senate big enough this year to survive the 2016 election, whichever Republican who wins the White House that year will have a GOP trifecta to work with.  

Which would also mean that two or three conservative justices on the Supreme Court will deem it the most opportune time to step down (I'm thinking Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and possibly Anthony Kennedy), allowing three younger and even more conservative judges to take their places on the court.  And that in turn would mean the death knell of Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (and possibly Griswold vs. Connecticut).  Leading to a backlash and the rebirth of feminism as a mass political movement (as opposed to just another interest group) and a Democratic landslide in the 2020 elections.  

[Mechaman]

Here's a concept fellas:

Politics doesn't go in "cycles".

[Never]

There's actually an interesting political cycle theory related to this.

This is how it goes:

Hoover-Carter: Both of these politically moderate presidents are considered failures, and because of them ushers an era of liberalism/conservatism.

FDR-Reagan: Both presidents considered heroes of the left/right, both ushered an era of liberalism/conservatism, and also "defeated" foreign enemies of the far-right (Nazi Germany), and the far-left (Soviet Union.)

Truman-Bush 41: Both vice-presidents of the previous administration, and are one-termers who had really bad approval ratings by the time reelection came along, and failed to live up to the previous president. Both presidents also ended tensions with past enemies (Truman: Nazi Germany/ Bush 41: Soviet Union), and created new tensions (Truman: the beginning of the Cold War, Bush 41: beginning of tensions with the Middle-East with the Gulf War.)

Eisenhower-Clinton: Both were moderate heroes, who ushered a decade of peace and prosperity.

JFK/LBJ-Bush/Cheney: Both Bush and JFK were members of a political dynasty, whose election to the presidency was against the vice-president of the former administration. The two vice-presidents were extremely uncharismatic, and lost the election by a razor-thin margin, despite the last president being very popular. Both JFK/LBJ and Bush/Cheney increased tensions severely with foreign enemies (Soviet Union/Middle-East), and ushers a decade of war (Vietnam/Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Nixon-Obama: See this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168317.0

So following this cyclical theory, a moderate Republican should win narrowly in 2016, and lose in 2020 to a far-left Democrat who ushers an era of liberal dominance.

Very interesting.. so, does that mean Republicans should hope for a Democrat to win in 2016?

Yes, genius!  The GOP is clearly in good hands.

Non Swing Voter, why do you have such sarcasm? It doesn't seem necessary to any degree.