Next six presidents

[m4567]

Predictions?

Hillary Clinton (2017-2025)
Marco Rubio (2025-2029)
Democrat (2029-2037)
Republican (2037-2041)
Democrat (2041-2049)
Republican (2049-2057)

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

There is literally no way to predict this (normal)

[m4567]

I'm largely going by the 36-40 year cycle domination theory.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'm largely going by the 36-40 year cycle domination theory.

Which is bullshit.

[buritobr]

Isn't Hillary Clinton too old to run for president?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm largely going by the 36-40 year cycle domination theory.

Which is bullshit.

1789: First President elected.
1824: End of Democratic-Republican unity rule. First election that most states had a popular vote.
1860: First Republican party win. End of Whig party.
1896: End of close elections, Republican dominance.
1932: Democratic dominance
1968: Republican dominance
2004: America made a huge mistake. Not a watershed election like the previous ones.

[Bigby]

Isn't Hillary Clinton too old to run for president?

As much as I don't like Hillary (I don't like her at all.), she'd be about as old as Reagan when he won the election in 1980. It'd largely depend how well she ages in the next two years.

[Mister Mets]

Interesting. Main factors are whether Democrats win the next cycle, and what kind of political era are we in (Democratic Dominance, Republican dominance, Throw the bums out every two cycles.)

So if we're in an era of Democratic dominance, this set up is possible.

2017-2025) Hillary Clinton
2025-2033) Republican
2033-2041) Democrat
2041-2045) Democrat
2045-2049) Republican
2049-2057) Democrat

The next election won't determine if this is an era of Democratic dominance. It could be a bad cycle for the party, even if 1993-2053 goes down in history as a 60 year stretch where the party held the White House for 2/3 of the time.

2017-2021) Paul Ryan
2021-2029) Julian Castro
2029-2033) Kirsten Gillibrand
2033-2041) Republican
2041-2049) Democrat
2049-2053) Democrat

We may also be in a period where Republicans do well.
2017-2025) Chris Christie
2025-2033) Condoleeza Rice
2033-2041) Democrat
2041-2049) Republican
2049-2053) Democrat
2053-2061) Republican

Even if it's a period where Republicans do well, Clinton can win the next election if the fundamentals are on her side.
2017-2021) Hillary Clinton
2021-2029) Rand Paul
2029-2033) Republican
2033-2037) Democrat
2037-2045) Republican
2045-2053) Democrat

This could be an era of relative parity, with Clinton winning a third term for Democrats.
2017-2021) Hillary Clinton
2021-2029) Marco Rubio
2029-2037) Democrat
2037-2045) Republican
2045-2049) Republican
2049-2057) Democrat

And it could be an era of relative parity with Democrats booted out after two terms.
2017-2025) Mitt Romney
2025-2033) Democrat
2033-2041) Republican
2041-2049) Democrat
2049-2057) Republican
2057-2065) Democrat

It's a weird exercise, and obviously impossible to predict, especially considering how many Presidents are unable to finish their elected term (FDR died of natural causes, JFK was assassinated, Nixon resigned in disgrace.)

The mental calculations are fun. In some cases, it's tough to make a prediction ten years in advance, since a challenger who wins an election in 2024 might easily be elected to statewide office in 2016 or 2018. Some elections, it's a little different, so then it's a matter of considering who Julian Castro might select as his running mate in 2020 since that person might very well be the party's nominee in 2028.

[Skill and Chance]

If you believe in realignments, then the major question is whether you place the most recent realignment in 2008 or in 1992.

If 2008 was the realignment:

1. Hillary Clinton (2017-21)
2. Republican (2021-25)
3. Democrat (2025-33)
4. Republican (2033-37)
5. Democrat (2037-45)
*Realigning Election in 2044*
6. Republican (2045-53)

If 1992 was the realignment:

1. Hillary Clinton (2017-25)
*Realigning election in 2024*
2. Republican (2025-33)
3. Republican VP of #2 (2033-37)
4. Democrat (2037-45)
5. Republican (2045-53)
6. Republican (2053-57)
*Realigning election in 2056*

If 2008 was the realignment, but the fundamentals are just too bad for Dems to win 2016:

1. Republican (2017-21)
2. Democrat (2021-29)
3. Democrat (2029-33)
4. Republican (2033-41)
5. Democrat (2041-49)
*Realigning Election in 2048*
6. Republican (2049-57)

[Skill and Chance]

I'm largely going by the 36-40 year cycle domination theory.

Which is bullshit.

1789: First President elected.
1824: End of Democratic-Republican unity rule. First election that most states had a popular vote.
1860: First Republican party win. End of Whig party.
1896: End of close elections, Republican dominance.
1932: Democratic dominance
1968: Republican dominance
2004: America made a huge mistake. Not a watershed election like the previous ones.

If you think the result of 2004 was a huge mistake, you should be glad that it happened that way!  (Unless you believe that John Kerry could have singlehandedly averted the mortgage crisis)

[Mr. Morden]

The final 12 presidents of the United States of America:

Hillary Clinton 2017-2021
Chris Christie 2021-2022 (dies of a heart attack while cleaning up the meat)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers 2022-2025
Oprah Winfrey 2025-2029
Mike Naso 2029-2032 (resigns due to sex scandal, and his wife divorces him, takes his place on the GOP ticket)
Adam Putnam 2032-2033
Jessica Walterstein 2033-2041
Chelsea Clinton 2041-2045
Bridget McCain 2045-2053
Willow Palin 2053-2057
Suri Cruise 2057-2065
Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky 2065-2070 (relinquishes office and surrenders to uprising of hyper-intelligent dogs in 2070)

The Naso sex scandal puts voters off of electing men to the presidency for decades.  But the country eventually goes to the dogs.

[Mr. Morden]

In quasi-seriousness, if you were to do this in 1974, when Gerald Ford was president, the next three presidents from that point were Carter, Reagan, and Bush.  Carter would have been considered a longshot possibility to be the next prez, as he was a longshot to win the nomination.  Reagan would not have been a crazy option to be a future president at some point though.  And honestly neither would Bush.  He was young (relatively speaking….OK, he was 50), and had already served as UN ambassador and RNC chair.  If you want to guess 2 or 3 presidents down the line, you probably won't be able to, but if you have to guess, pick someone young who already has some experience.

So if I'm doing the same thing today, then I'll predict the next three as…..

Hillary Clinton
Chris Christie
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (one of a number of women who Christie could pick as his running mate….might want to pick a woman when running against an incumbent female president)

After that, if you were doing this in 1974, the next three presidents after GHW Bush were Clinton (unsuccessful House candidate in 1974, elected AR attorney general in 1976), GW Bush (son of someone who you're predicting to be president), and Obama (just a kid who no one's ever heard of in 1974).

OK, predicting that is impossible, but if we're going to do the closest equivalent in 2014, let's pick Dustin McDaniel (current Arkansas attorney general, who I think is the youngest Democratic AG at the moment), Chelsea Clinton, and, uh….Nate Levine.  Yeah, just thinking about people today who might plausibly be elected president in 35 years, how about one of the younger people listed in Forbes's "30 under 30", among those in the political realm.  Nate Levine, currently 22 years old:

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/fdld45hkh/nate-levine-22/

So, complete list for the next 6 presidents:

Hillary Clinton
Chris Christie
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Dustin McDaniel
Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky
Nate Levine

[RR1997]

I know I posted this yesterday on this thread, but I accidentally deleted it, so I'm going to repost it.

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  an era of liberalism/conservatism begins.

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 (Nixon/Gore) 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.

[Skill and Chance]

I know I posted this yesterday on this thread, but I accidentally deleted it, so I'm going to repost it.

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  an era of liberalism/conservatism begins.

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 (Nixon/Gore) 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.

Well if we are thinking along those lines:

1. Chris Christie (2017-21)
2. Tammy Baldwin (2021-29)
3. Chris Murphy (2029-37)
4. Unknown Republican (2037-45)
5. Unknown Democrat (2045-53)
6. Unknown Democrat (2053-57)

[RR1997]

Why does Chris Murphy get two terms?

[Skill and Chance]

Why does Chris Murphy get two terms?

I figured I would split the difference between FDR/Truman and Reagan/Bush.

[Princess Nyan Cat]

The theory of (approx.) 50-year cycles, as described by author George Freidman in the book "The Next Hundred Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century."

1789-1829: Washington to J. Q. Adams was an era generally dominated by the elites and increasing centralization of power.

1829-1877: Jackson to Grant was the era of Jacksonian democracy when centralization was upended and "the common man" assumed greater power.

1877-1933: Hayes to Hoover was the era of big business and corporations assuming greater power.

1933-1981: F. D. Roosevelt to Carter was the era of big government and establishment of the welfare state.

1981-2028 or 2032: Reagan through the present day is the era of deregulation and attempts to reign in the growth of big government.

By this theory, you all have a while to wait for the next big phase of political change.

[Del Tachi]

44) Barack Obama; 2009 - 2017

45) Republican; 2017 - 2021
46) Democrat; 2021 - 2029
47) Republican; 2029 - 2033
48) Democrat; 2033 - 2041
49) Republican; 2041 - 2049
50) Republican; 2049 - 2053
51) Democrat; 2053 - 2061
52) Republican; 2061 - 2069

That's all I've got for now. 

[IceSpear]

There is literally no way to predict this (normal)

[Skill and Chance]

Or what if we are returning to the pre-WWII norm of 16-24 year streaks for each party?

e.g.

1. Hillary Clinton 2017-21 (retires in 2020)
2. Mark Warner 2021-29
3. Republican (2029-37)
4. Republican (2037-45)
5. Republican (2045-53)
6. Democrat (2053-61)
7. Democrat (2061-69)
8. Republican (2069-77)
9. Republican (2077-85)
10. Republican (2085-89)
...

[New_Conservative]

There is literally no way to predict this (normal)

[5280]

Hillary Clinton (2017-2021)
Rand Paul (2021-2029)
Bobby Jindal (2029-2033)
Democrat (2033-2041)
Republican (2041-2049)
Democrat (2049-2057)

Realignment: country gets tired of 2 party elections

Independent (2057-2065)
Independent (2065-2069)
Libertarian (2069-2077)
Authoritarian (2077-2081)
Democrat (2081-2085)
Independent (2085-2093)
Republican (2093-2097)
Libertarian (2097-2105)

[Mr. Smith]

The perfect Hoover-Carter would be either Chris Christie or Rand Paul, Christie has the "against type-moderate" complex thing,but Paul has the non hawkish and ergo only sane foreign policy offered, as of 1898,every president not known as Hoover or Carter backed up a rising dictatorship or overthrew a popular guy somewhere and generally was horrible to Latin America.

[Skill and Chance]

The perfect Hoover-Carter would be either Chris Christie or Rand Paul, Christie has the "against type-moderate" complex thing,but Paul has the non hawkish and ergo only sane foreign policy offered, as of 1898,every president not known as Hoover or Carter backed up a rising dictatorship or overthrew a popular guy somewhere and generally was horrible to Latin America.

The thing is, Carter/Hoover actually represented what it meant to be a Democrat/Republican back at the very beginning of the current alignment- a populist moderate Southerner for Carter and a modestly progressive corporatist for Hoover.  So I would actually look for someone who resembles the GOP of 1980 if we are going by this theory.  Probably a loudly socially conservative Southerner who comes off as very sincere but incompetent- maybe Perry or Huckabee?  Then they lose 55/45 to someone like Warren or Baldwin in 2020 when the white middle class vote abandons the GOP.  Warren/Baldwin does something very progressive in 2021-22 and wins 60/40 in 2024.  Then the progressive Dem VP wins about 55/45 in 2028 and either a. they have a major foreign policy victory and lose reelection on the economy or b. an apocalyptic war starts in 2029.  2032 is a 55/45 reelection.  By 2034, the US narrowly wins the war but virtually every other democratic government in the world was destroyed in the process.  There is a huge economic boom in the late 2030's.   

[Skill and Chance]

I know I posted this yesterday on this thread, but I accidentally deleted it, so I'm going to repost it.

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  an era of liberalism/conservatism begins.

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 (Nixon/Gore) 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.

It's all so neat; if only it went backwards. But I don't see the parallel between Coolidge and Nixon (or Obama for that matter). I think the better way to think about the parallelism in those two epochs is to study the events which shaped them, rather than the outcomes. From the way you've set the "cycles" up, they have a common origin in a financial crisis of catastrophic proportions which combined the incumbent presidents to 1 term and naturally led to the election of candidates who offered big shiny new solutions which became the defining dogma of their respective factions for the next several decades.

We experienced a comparable recession in 2008-09 (the effects of which continued to be felt for years after). What is different about this recession is the political response. There is no New Big Idea comparable to Keynesianism or Reaganomics seized upon by any segment of the political class  as a panacea to the recession. Of course, the big 70s recession happened under Nixon, so it's possible we'll another big recession in a few years which engenders a genuinely new response, thus establishing the political supremacy of a new party. Below is one attempt it that.

2016: President Obama's popularity hits new lows before the election. The reengagement in Iraq has become less popular and a number of factors (QE, ebola in West Africa, etc) have caused market instability which threatens (though has not yet caused) a recession. Bernie Sanders gives Hillary Clinton a run for her money, in what will prove to be a prescient election. Rand Paul narrowly defeats Clinton on a platform of (tempered) isolationism and an economic platform reminiscent of ye old Voodoo economics.

2020: During President Paul's administration, the economy bottoms out as a number of structural weaknesses (high debt burdens on several European and Latin countries, China finally experiences its hard landing) coincide with the "bursting" as it were of the student debt bubble. The middle class/political class/rich white people are radicalized to such an extent that a one-term openly socialist senator/governor wins the Democratic presidential nomination and defeats the beleaguered Paul in a landslide.

2024: President Socialism introduces a New Big Idea (something moderate as far as "socialism" goes, I'm sure) which becomes the defining ethos of the newly transformed Democratic party. The Republican party is really in the wilderness at this point; the big Democratic surge happened in a census year, so a number of states are gerrymandered to favor Democrats for the next decade (karma). The party of Angry White Men nominate some wingnut who gets absolutely slaughtered.

2028: President Socialism is term limited but still very popular. His Vice President Semisocialism wins the Democratic nomination in his stead and beats the Republican nominee (who is better that 2024, but the GOP is still unable to put together a demographically viable coalition). However, the seeds for Semisocialism's demise have been laid. The arctic has its first ice-free summer during President Socialism's tenure, which in the following years will directly cause unseasonably heavy rains during the growing months in North America. Climate Change is reality, a position the Republicans have by now accepted (though they maintain it's too late to do anything about it, so we might as well continue burning carbon, don't want to hurt the economy dontcha'know?).

2032: The unseasonable rains previously mentioned severely impact American and Canadian crop yields for several years in a row, driving up food prices globally. High food prices, as always, cause serious instability in the third world (and in the markets!), which ultimately costs President Semisocialism his job. At this point it is important to note that the international political scene has completed a realignment. Russia and the Middle East have lost their relevance as their energy reserves are exhausted. Europe continues to be closely aligned with the US, despite motions to autonomy, while Russia is a junior partner of China's. China spent the much of the 2020s building various structures (international rail systems linking Eurasia and Africa with China in the center, currency pacts which lower the importance of the dollar, etc) intended to usurp the supremacy of the US. Cognizant of our decline, the American public gravitate towards a party willing to play to their nationalism and xenophobia. The Republicans are perfectly positioned, and their candidate, Ms. Coldwar, defeats President Semisocialism in a close election.

2036: President. Coldwar wins reelection relatively easy, however her coalition is shifting. The Republican party by this point has fully accepted the brand of socialism which became the big idea back in 2020. One of the main components of that ideology is support for a Guaranteed Minimum Income, colloquially referred to as The Dole. At this point nearly half the population is on the dole, however they do not make up half the voting population. A part of being in the dole "class" is a disconnect from the political system a broader society, a natural effect of living on the fringes of the cities (gentrification is complete by this point, the poor live in the suburbs "out of sight" of the political class). Traditionally the dole have supported the Democratic Party, but the dole class is beginning to gravitate towards a current within the GOP which favors individual autonomy (and thus empowerment) imagining a (implicitly socialist) society without a massive government to redistribute wealth (an essentially anarchist vision of society, though packaged in a different fashion). So the electoral map in 2036 isn't particularly interesting, but the crosstabs foreshadow quite a lot.

2040: A Democrat wins in a super narrow election. This is one of those where it's hard to tell the difference between the two candidates. Let's call this guy Mr. Establishment. Mr. Establishment continues for the most part the policies of Ms. Coldwar, with one notable difference being the Democrats willingness to experiment with geo-engineering to reverse climate change (which at this point is really ing sh*t up). It's an unstable world and the Cold War redux is still ongoing. Eventually Mr. Establishment gets himself involved in some disastrous foreign entanglement, let's stick it somewhere in Latin America (to symbolize the geopolitical reversal). That'll  with his favorables, but...

2044: Mr. Establishment pulls reelection out of the bag. And no, he wasn't aided by the singularity. The nerds are still waiting to be raptured. In the meantime millions die in...where...Argentina perhaps? Sure, let's  over Argentina. Meanwhile, the number of people on the dole continues to increase, and they're not at all interested in this imperial adventure. Nor in the massively powerful institution the government has evolved to be. What does the future hold?

2048: This is where the Nixon analogue goes. The general idea is that the other party affirms the status quo maintained by the previous party, while creating the conditions for a massive crisis, and the introduction of a Big New Idea which causes a realignment. By this point I'm getting tired of this scenario, so I won't try to flesh it out. You get the picture.

2052: Four more years. Where's the rapture?

2056: The last four years were pretty bad, so a Democrat got elected. But it only gets worse. By this time some sort of anarcho-socialist vision is the next Big Idea, which will be propelled to the fore by a now politicized "dole" class.

2060: A Republican president is elected on the aforementioned anarcho-socialist platform in a landslide. The elected representatives proceed to dismantle the state and thus capitalism, instituting a transition to a social system built around autonomy and solidarity. It's the end of history!

My basic point here is there's no reason to make an RDDRDR/whatever list without also offering a scenario. Hope you enjoyed this one!

It wouldn't be Coolidge-Nixon-Obama.  It would be Wilson-Nixon-Obama.  In retrospect, the timing of the crash was very fortuitous for Hoover, giving the GOP an "extra" term before FDR.