Is Donald Trump the next Jimmy Carter?

[RR1997]

READ OP BEFORE RESPONDING PLEASE

Here's an interesting cyclical theory:

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

FDR-Reagan: Both of these presidents considered heroes of the left/right. They 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 were 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: These two politically moderate presidents presided over huge economic prosperity and peace. This comparison works the best IMO. The 50's and the 90's are both very similar decades.

JFK/LBJ-Bush/Cheney: Both Bush and JFK were members of a political dynasty.  Both JFK/LBJ and Bush/Cheney increased tensions severely with foreign enemies (Soviet Union/Middle-East), and ushered a decade of war (Vietnam/Iraq and Afghanistan). The 60's and 2000's were both plagued by unpopular war(s). The Cheney-LBJ comparison works very well.

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.

I see a lot of similarities between the 1976 and 2016 elections.

Bernie Sanders is the Ronald Reagan in this hypothetical scenario. Reagan started a conservative revolution. Reagan narrowly lost the 1976 primaries to Ford. Bernie has started a liberal revolution. He is about to narrowly lose to Hillary in the 2016 primaries. If this cycle stays consistent, then Bernie should run in 2020 defeating President Donald Trump and ushering an era of liberalism.

Both Donald Trump and Jimmy Carter ran as Washington outsiders. Both were absolutely hated by the establishment. The Democrats even implemented a superdelegate system after Carter won the nomination just to make sure a candidate like him would never win the Democratic nomination ever again (just to give you an idea of much the Democratic establishment hated Carter). They're both running as anti-establishment outsiders. Both Trump and Carter vigorously attacked their opponents for being corrupt.

 I also see similarities between the #NeverTrump and ABC (Anybody But Carter) movements. Many Democratic Party politicians (like Ted Kennedy) hated Carter because they thought that he wasn't truly a liberal. Many GOP politicians hate Trump because they see him as someone who isn't truly conservative.

If this cycle stays consistent, then Donald Trump should narrowly defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016 and lose to Bernie Sanders in 2020.

What do you think of he Donald Trump-Jimmy Carter comparison?

Before anyone starts complaining about this thread, I know that cyclical theories are pseudoscientific garbage. Cyclical theories are interesting to discuss, but shouldn't be taken seriously.

[SATW]

They are both scum, so the comparison fits well in that sense too.

[Ebsy]

There is nothing comparable between the two situations.

[RFayette]

Trump is unlikely to win the general, so the analogy falls flat right off the bat.

[LLR]

Let's dispel with this fiction that Sanders will run in 2020 if Clinton loses. He'll be 78!

If you mean someone from his movement, that's slightly more likely.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Let's dispel with this fiction that Sanders will run in 2020 if Clinton loses. He'll be 78!

If you mean someone from his movement, that's slightly more likely.

[RR1997]

There is nothing comparable between the two situations.

I see a lot of similarities between the 1976 and 2016 elections.

Bernie Sanders is the Ronald Reagan in this hypothetical scenario. Reagan started a conservative revolution. Reagan narrowly lost the 1976 primaries to Ford. Bernie has started a liberal revolution. He is about to narrowly lose to Hillary in the 2016 primaries. If this cycle stays consistent, then Bernie should run in 2020 defeating President Donald Trump and ushering an era of liberalism.

Both Donald Trump and Jimmy Carter ran as Washington outsiders. Both were absolutely hated by the establishment. The Democrats even implemented a superdelegate system after Carter won the nomination just to make sure a candidate like him would never win the Democratic nomination ever again (just to give you an idea of much the Democratic establishment hated Carter). They're both running as anti-establishment outsiders. Both Trump and Carter vigorously attacked their opponents (Ford and Hillary) for being corrupt and Washington-insiders.

 I also see similarities between the #NeverTrump and ABC (Anybody But Carter) movements. Many Democratic Party politicians (like Ted Kennedy) hated Carter because they thought that he wasn't truly a liberal. Many GOP politicians hate Trump because they see him as someone who isn't truly conservative.

If this cycle stays consistent, then Donald Trump should narrowly defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016 and lose to Bernie Sanders in 2020.

[Maxwell]

I've never seen Donald Trump and Jimmy Carter in the same room.


*gasp*

[SWE]

I've never seen Donald Trump and Jimmy Carter in the same room.


*gasp*

[EliteLX]

They are both scum, so the comparison fits well in that sense too.

Jimmy Carter as a person was a wonderful man, he was just an extremely poor commander in chief. Most certainly not scum.

[mencken]

Donald Trump / Marco Rubio 2017-2021
Bernie Sanders / Terry McAuliffe 2021-2029
Terry McAuliffe / Julian Castro 2029-2033
Justin Amash / Thomas Massie 2033-2041

Losing tickets:
2016: Hillary Clinton / Tim Kaine
2020: Donald Trump / Marco Rubio
2024: Marco Rubio / Mia Love
2028: George P. Bush / Liz Cheney
2032: Terry McAuliffe / Julian Castro
2036: Tim Kaine / Patrick Murphy

[The Mikado]

I'm not sure Bernie Sanders would be capable of walking for president four years from now, much less running.

[Virginiá]

I'm a fan of cyclical theories, but in a different way (I don't see it as constant direct parallels but more rather much more complex). I think you may be looking for parallels and patterns in the wrong places. Because of our two party system and human nature, American politics tends to swing back and forth between the parties over generations. During rise and fall from dominance, the steps taken to get there are not always the same. For instance, you could say Bill Clinton and Eisenhower are parallels - They both came after troubled presidencies and won in landslides, were both moderate and both "reinforced" the dominant political view (Eisenhower => New Deal, Clinton => Conservatism).. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean every cycle has the same parallel. It just happened to work out that way. Each party and their ideology go through cycles, which means a rise and a fall, and inevitably you will see similar events taking place in both the rise and fall.

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

Hoover / Republicans really lucked out with the Great Depression which immediately ended an long era of Republican dominance, whereas Carter simply presided over an electorate who had already begun shifting towards Republicans many years prior. So you could say Hoover ushered in the New Deal era, but only by virtue of him being the guy in charge when all hell broke loose.

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

This is a fair comparison, but I would argue that had Reagan not come along, it probably would have been someone else (albeit with varying levels of success and lasting strength, obviously)

Eisenhower-Clinton: These two politically moderate presidents presided over huge economic prosperity and peace. This comparison works the best IMO. The 50's and the 90's are both very similar decades.

If you ask me, both these presidents jumpstarted each of their respective party's after years of stinging losses at the presidential level (and downballot for Rs in FDR era). Studies have shown for some time now that people who grew up (18 - 25/27-ish) under well-liked and influential presidents leaned towards that president's party for most, if not all of their lives, and people who grew up under extremely disliked presidents leaned towards the opposition party most of their lives. People who grew under FDR leaned Democratic their entire lives, quite a lot of people who grew up under Nixon continue to lean Democratic to this day, and Reaganites lean Republican and their aging (and thus voting more in midterms) is what is powering the Republican dominance in midterm elections right now.

People can hate on Bill all they want, but his success and overall luck at being the one to preside over that great economy gave Democrats a lifeline. Young adults who grew up under Bill have leaned strongly Democratic also to this day (mostly 13 - 19 points more Democratic than the national average, whose numbers surpass Reagan's generation pretty strongly and in combination with the heavily Democratic effect from Bush/Obama's presidency has serious implications for Republicans in the near future)

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

I do like this one.

Bernie Sanders is the Ronald Reagan in this hypothetical scenario. Reagan started a conservative revolution. Reagan narrowly lost the 1976 primaries to Ford. Bernie has started a liberal revolution. He is about to narrowly lose to Hillary in the 2016 primaries. If this cycle stays consistent, then Bernie should run in 2020 defeating President Donald Trump and ushering an era of liberalism.

I just don't see how Bernie would run again in 2020. He would be, what, 78 years old? I just don't see that happening. He may not even be able to physically and/or mentally by that time.

Before anyone starts complaining about this thread, I know that cyclical theories are pseudoscientific garbage. Cyclical theories are interesting to discuss, but shouldn't be taken seriously.

I think it really depends what you are discussing. Scenarios and parallels between different generations is kind of inaccurate/pointless, but there are underlying trends and reasons for those trends that show rising and falling party dominance, and they do tend to run in sometimes-lopsided cycles, but really only because of the 2 party system.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Except Sanders will be to old to run in 2020, if Reagan was 74 in 1976 when he lost we would have had Bush as president and no conservative era

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't really see it.  Carter was the last hurrah of the old New Deal workers' rights alignment.  Trump is an attempt at something very new and different.  The analogy would work a lot better were Jeb Bush the R nominee.

My working theory right now is that Trump = Bryan 1896/1900 and Clinton beats him by 2.5 with the EC looking particularly lopsided.  Then Cruz = Parker 1904 and Clinton beats him by 12 in 2020, after which the Trumpists take full control of the party and start purging neocons and movement conservatives.  One more National Review type sneaks through a primary circa 2028-36, but he gets crushed in the general and then the realignment is complete.

Dems wont be in power that long

My prediction is this is how the election is like

Clinton = Nixon
Bush = Carter
Obama = Ronald Reagan
Clinton= HW Bush

[Maxwell]

I've never seen Donald Trump and Jimmy Carter in the same room.


*gasp*

Nonsense, that's one of Donald's sons. I think.

[Intell]

They are both scum, so the comparison fits well in that sense too.

Because he dares to speak out against Isreal.

[Mr. Smith]

@RR1997: I've been arguing this for a while. (Even if their personalities are utterly opposed)

Especially considering how JFK and Dubya both defeated Veeps of popular presidents, and both faced a huge looming terror. And as for Dubya and LBJ, both started wars that became unpopular quickly, hailed from Texas, AND otherwise attempted to harken back to a "Golden Age" (FDR/Reagan).

There's even the outdated governor barely remembered in the name of Terry Sanford to match Gilmore (or Pataki)

And Hillary's just as sticky and likely to goof up as Gerry when it comes to bad statements. Really, you could roll Obama/Hillary into Nixon/Ford hybrids since both accompany similar traits (Obama has the duplicitousness of Nixon, but the likability of Ford, Hillary has the long-standing experience of Ford, but the likability of Nixon)

Trump is unlikely to win the general, so the analogy falls flat right off the bat.

He was unlikely to win the primary last year, and unlikely to be so close to the nomination when he started primary winning...he's not out yet.

But seriously, anyone else find it suspicious that both did the worst in primaries/caucuses in the West and did ridiculously good in the Northeast and South...two "polar opposites"?

[RR1997]

To those saying that Bernie is too old to run in 2020: The Democratic Reagan doesn't have to be Bernie. It could be someone from his movement (like Al Franken or Elizabeth Warren).

Here's another interesting cyclical theory:

JFK-Reagan-Obama: All three are considered heroes of their respective parties. The three are inspiring leaders who push the country to the left/right.

LBJ-Bush Sr-Hillary(?): Uninspiring/uncharismatic one-term presidents who are wildly unpopular and fail to live up to their predecessors.

Nixon-Clinton: Both are presidents whose reputations were/are plagued by big scandals. They're both political moderates who are responsible for passing legislation that would be considered to be conservative (Clinton) and liberal (Nixon).

Carter-Bush Jr: Both of these presidents are considered failures. Huge economics downturns and foreign policy blunders. occur during their presidencies. The two of them are considered to be good-hearted and well-intentioned. They both share a folksy campaign style. This comparison works very well.

If this cycle stays consistent, then Hillary should defeat Trump in 2016. Then she'd lose in 2020 to a politically moderate Republican. This seems a lot more plausible than Donald Trump winning in 2016 only to lose to a far-left extremist in 2020.

The Carter-Bush Jr and LBJ-Bush Sr-Hillary comparisons work extremely well.

Which cyclical theory works the best? We'll find out in November.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hillary has a chance of being the next Jimmy/Herbert, but not Donald.

[dax00]

Hillary has a chance of being the next Jimmy/Herbert, but not Donald.

hahahahahahaha. Jimmy is way better than Hillary could ever hope to be. They are on opposite sides of the integrity spectrum.

[Wisconsin+17]

Terrible thread. So many things wrong with it.

Trump is most likely Ford. This is a Ford/Carter election - the OTHER way.

Carter won 13/14 primaries to open up the season. The only large primary he lost was CA to a favored son.

[RFayette]

Trump is unlikely to win the general, so the analogy falls flat right off the bat.

He was unlikely to win the primary last year, and unlikely to be so close to the nomination when he started primary winning...he's not out yet.

But seriously, anyone else find it suspicious that both did the worst in primaries/caucuses in the West and did ridiculously good in the Northeast and South...two "polar opposites"?

Come on...Trump was leading every primary poll for almost a year now.  The people who said he was unlikely to win the primary have been wrong about everything.  Doesn't change the fact that he's always been a big underdog in the general election.

And I don't find it surprising Hillary/Trump were strongest in the South/Northeast and weaker in the West.  The West has long preferred principled ideoologues over dealmakers and grimace at any whiff of corruption.  n the other hand, the Northeast Dems are very "establishment-oriented" and the GOP there is moderate in the same way Trump is.....as far as the South goes, it's also pretty clear - minorities are very establishment-Dem, and Trump is very  much a good candidate for much of the South.

[Angrie]

I don't really see it.  Carter was the last hurrah of the old New Deal workers' rights alignment.  Trump is an attempt at something very new and different.  The analogy would work a lot better were Jeb Bush the R nominee.

Trump could similarly be seen as the last hurrah of the old Southern Strategy.

If Trump narrowly wins in 2016, and then loses in 2020, Republicans could follow up in 2024 and 2028 by nominating Mondale and Dukakis equivalents who would lose in landslides. Finally, this would be followed up by a moderate reformer in the Bill Clinton mold in 2032, who would finally lead the GOP away from the racialized southern strategy.

[Angrie]

Like I said, if Trump wins, he could be seen as a last hurrah of the southern strategy, similar to Carter as a last hurrah of the New Deal strategy.

Obama does make sense as being the Democrats' Nixon. Liberals hated Nixon at the time, but now look back fondly and somewhat ironically at him for having implemented some actually liberal policies such as the EPA and Clean Air Act. Similarly, Conservatives hate Obama now, but might look back fondly on Obama for having implemented giveaways to private corporations like Romneycare/Obamacare. There's also the opening to China by Nixon and the opening to Cuba by Obama.

As others have said, Bernie is probably too old to be the next Reagan. Then again, everyone thought that Reagan was too old at the time, and there is better medical technology now. If you correct for medical advances, Bernie may be similarly old to Reagan (?).

If not Bernie, who would carry on the torch in 2020? Elizabeth Warren has the same age issues as Bernie. Keith Ellison/Tulsi Gabbard ticket in 2020? After 8 years of that, Gabbard then becomes President. But similarly to Bush I, she really only cares about foreign policy, and the economy suffers while she gets involved in a short seemingly-victorious war which will eventually lead to new long term entanglements.