Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[The_Doctor]

You have crafted a superb timeline, but I think you have Cordray all wrong.

Thank you for the kind words. Out of curiosity, how so on Cordray?

The Ohio Democrats he shares infrastructure with back home in Columbus/Franklin County are ... part of a wing that doesn't seem to currently have a national group. So it's a little hard to explain. Suffice it to say he's generally more allied with conservative Democrats back home and not liberals/populists. Which isn't to say he hasn't done a good job as Director over at the CFPB, but extrapolating that outwards and upwards, I don't think he's fit to be the uniter this timeline suggests.

I've sort of read about that. I don't know if it will be Cordray exactly but he fits the kinda profile of the likely next Democratic President (in my mind anyway) so I went with it, if that makes sense?

Sure. The mold you've envisioned makes sense, I just think the man chosen doesn't fit.

Any other Ohioans or Midwesterners you would have suggested? I'm curious since I want to see if I overlooked anyone in my research.

[BuckeyeNut]

You have crafted a superb timeline, but I think you have Cordray all wrong.

Thank you for the kind words. Out of curiosity, how so on Cordray?

The Ohio Democrats he shares infrastructure with back home in Columbus/Franklin County are ... part of a wing that doesn't seem to currently have a national group. So it's a little hard to explain. Suffice it to say he's generally more allied with conservative Democrats back home and not liberals/populists. Which isn't to say he hasn't done a good job as Director over at the CFPB, but extrapolating that outwards and upwards, I don't think he's fit to be the uniter this timeline suggests.

I've sort of read about that. I don't know if it will be Cordray exactly but he fits the kinda profile of the likely next Democratic President (in my mind anyway) so I went with it, if that makes sense?

Sure. The mold you've envisioned makes sense, I just think the man chosen doesn't fit.

Any other Ohioans or Midwesterners you would have suggested? I'm curious since I want to see if I overlooked anyone in my research.

Well, I suppose they don't have to be in statewide office yet, so maybe Tim Ryan if he winds up running for Governor (which I'm doubtful of) or Buttigieg. Don't know Michigan too well, but I also guess how you define "the Midwest." Are we talking about the Rustbelt, which includes, Pennsylvania, which is really part of the Northeast, or more of the plain-like States? Not that I expect a Democratic President coming out of South Dakota any time soon...

[jojoju1998]

Pete Buttgieg just dropped out of the DNC Race. He is a Democratic Mayor who is Gay, in the Red State of Indiana. He could run for Indiana Governor......

[Blackacre]

It could be Kander or Buttgieg if either wins their state's Gubernatorial election in 2020

[The_Doctor]

Apparently the lesson from today's DNC Chairman election is that I am right on the what, when (kinda), but totally blank on the who. (¬_¬)

[The_Doctor]

It could be Kander or Buttgieg if either wins their state's Gubernatorial election in 2020

My list came down to Kander, Carter, and Cordray. the prologue refers to either Kander or Carter actually, can't remember which.

[Blackacre]

It could be Kander or Buttgieg if either wins their state's Gubernatorial election in 2020

My list came down to Kander, Carter, and Cordray. the prologue refers to either Kander or Carter actually, can't remember which.

Tbh it would be absolutely hilarious if the Dem who broke the Reagan era was a Carter

[Blackacre]

Also, the prologue probably refers to Kander. He was a state officer when Trump was elected, while Carter held no office

[The_Doctor]

Also, the prologue probably refers to Kander. He was a state officer when Trump was elected, while Carter held no office

Probably. I cycled through people before settling on Cordray in December as the guy who fit my criteria (reasonably).

It could be Kander or Buttgieg if either wins their state's Gubernatorial election in 2020

My list came down to Kander, Carter, and Cordray. the prologue refers to either Kander or Carter actually, can't remember which.

Jason Kander would be an interesting person to follow these next 4-8 years to see where he fits in the future Democratic Party.

I read the levy institute article you posted. It was really interesting and I can definitely see the New New Deal job programs being a part of the democratic platform in the 2020's.

Regarding your timeline, how would you rewrite it if your friend was correct about the order being Dem win 2020, Rep win in 2024, and Dem win and realignment in 2028?

I'd say it would be Kamala Harris/Al Franken in 2020, then a republican governor in 2024, then Kander/Cordray/Buttigieg style figure in 2028.

It's definitely interesting and covers how for a significant portion of the country the recovery was never there.

As for 2020 and 2024: Sherrod Brown or someone with the ability to pull the Midwest + FL back but Texas, Georgia stay R. Rubio wins 2024 and is defeated in 2028.

[The_Doctor]

It could be Kander or Buttgieg if either wins their state's Gubernatorial election in 2020

My list came down to Kander, Carter, and Cordray. the prologue refers to either Kander or Carter actually, can't remember which.

Tbh it would be absolutely hilarious if the Dem who broke the Reagan era was a Carter

exactly why I toyed with him, lol. He fit the other criteria too but I chose the Midwest as my region of choice to find the realigning president.

[GoTfan]

It could be Kander or Buttgieg if either wins their state's Gubernatorial election in 2020

My list came down to Kander, Carter, and Cordray. the prologue refers to either Kander or Carter actually, can't remember which.

Tbh it would be absolutely hilarious if the Dem who broke the Reagan era was a Carter

exactly why I toyed with him, lol. He fit the other criteria too but I chose the Midwest as my region of choice to find the realigning president.

And that probably made it better. The last southern progressive I remember who won was LBJ. I tend to see Carter '76 as a moderate liberal and Clinton as a centrist, partly because I define progressive as slightly leftwards of a liberal.

[The_Doctor]

Does the stability of the Cordray administration cause younger millenials and older Gen Zers to settle down and start families by the late 2020's/2030's; thereby creating another baby boom?

You're the economist. What do you think would happen? I am honestly not sure so I'm asking you what you think based on the information given.

[GlobeSoc]

State of the World: 2017 to late 2018

September 2018 - (London, United Kingdom) On the world stage, the Trump Administration was neither as risky as its detractors bet or as far reaching as the supporters hoped. Like the President himself, it was a cautious blend of soft power and strategic retreat. If there was one area where Donald Trump refused to risk things, it was foreign policy. A serious miscalculation could plunge the United States into war and risk the Administration looking foolish at a time where it couldn't afford to.

The President had been rather clear on his foreign policy inclinations. He looked askance at the Muslim world, praised Russia's Putin, and raised concerns about global treaties of almost any kind. The Trump foreign policy was a throwback, in a sense, to the Harding-Coolidge isolationist years, where the United States was limited in engagement and fearful of powerful enemies around it.

The muscular foreign policy of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush was gone, replaced by a more cautious United States. The memories of Iraq had cut deep into the Republicans and their hesitance stemmed from a fear that a quagmire could sink their political fortunes. In a real sense, the Republicans had gone from being a muscular party willing to challenge those who would question America to being a more hesitant, risk averse party, on the global stage.

When the President took power, he labeled China a currency manipulator. But beyond advancing President Obama's Asian pivot and positioning more naval assets in the Pacific Ocean, the President chose not to rattle the Chinese dragon too much. The reason was simple. The Republican business backers of the President didn't want to risk their investments in Beijing and risk a trade war that could wipe out precious gains being made. In that context, the President was very limited in what he could do without huge blowback.

The President also angrily rattled the saber at Iran. He threatened to rip up the treaty, but in the end, quietly abided by it. The reason? The instability in the region would have been too much for the new Administration and the strategic advantages afforded by Iran being in compliance was too strong. Additionally, neither France, Russia, or China seemed eager to resume sanctions. Facing a losing battle, the White House stuck by the deal. There was no real point in pushing Netanyahu's wars. 

Syria became a vassal state of Russia, as President Bashir Assad held onto power. He owed his power to Vladimir Putin's strategic maneuvers. The United States had no appetite for joining in the civil war or even aiding the rebels, and the President preferred to focus on ISIS. So in that calculus, Bashir Assad was allowed to retain power, in return for the Syrian regime's promising to focus on ISIS. The Trump Administration allowed this to happen, given that the White House did not want to handle a civil war.

As far as Russia went, given Europe's appetite for Russian business, and the White House's overt friendliness, the President sought to repair relations with America's erstwhile rival. By no means did the United States "submit" to Moscow, but the Obama era hostility was gone. The President's focus - as stated in the campaign - was fighting ISIS and "radical Islam."

To that end, the United States and Russia cooperated on a series of bombing runs and drone strikes around the Middle East. Most notably, the President struck at ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria, in a bid to destroy the emerging caliphate.

As far as Crimea went, it existed in a grey area. The United States neither recognized nor disavowed Russia's territorial conquest. The American interests. Sanctions on Russia were quietly lifted in return for the Russian help on ISIS and terrorism. Europe, as tied to Russia in business as it was, went along with this Faustian bargain.""

Of course, Vladimir Putin remained in power in Russia. Russia had become an autocratic state, ruled by Putin and his cronies. They were at a political relevance not seen since the dying days of the Cold War. Washington was more friendly to them and so was London and Brussels. Putin's party remained with 80% of the seats in the Duma.

Turkey remained a statist dictatorship. "Sultan" Recep Tayyip Erdogan ruled the nation with an iron fist, relying on radicalized Muslims and nationalist Turks as a power base. A purge of anti-Erdogan forces was undertaken and the nation increasingly turned from a peaceful democracy to an armed autocracy. The European Union, alarmed at this and dealing with its own rising Islamophobia, refused to allow Turkey to join the European Union.

The Paris Accords were ripped up, given the President's personal inclinations on global warming ("A hoax by the Chinese!"). Democrats howled, the world was aghast, but in the end, the rest of the world patched up and decided to go on with global warming talks and negotiations without involving the United States.

Meanwhile, the crackup of the United Kingdom continued apace. Scotland and North Ireland pushed for independence referendums, as the May Government struggled to deliver on Cameron's promises of devolution. Experts expected Scotland to succeed this time, given the impact of Brexit. The May Government hoped to delay any such referendum but it increasingly looked like Scotland would walk out. Brexit was finalized in March 2017, with the British people retaining a few EU rights, but ceding much of their abilities to participate within the EU.

In France, Marie LePen eked out a 51-49% second round victory over Francois Fillon for the Presidency of France. The alt-right's spread through the Western world - on the backs of an increasingly fearful European population -  continued apace. The Trump Administration hailed LePen's victory as a great one for "sovereignty." Brussels grimaced and bemoaned, but the European Union, increasingly powerless was unable to stop the nationalistic fever.

As 2019 approached, the world remained a dark place, fevered by nationalistic politicians. The rosy post-Cold War World of 1995 that had looked so optimistic now looked increasingly fragile and dangerous, as Great Powers vied to be the helm on the wheel. Russia was aggressive, Europe accommodating, and the United States withdrawing (except to strategically combat radical Islam).

Finally, at home, the United States slammed the door shut on Cuba. Why? Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) led the GOP foreign policy brigade against the Castro regime and the Trump Administration went along. Cuba was an easy nation to pick on; with the Administration giving in on Iran, they had to hold the line elsewhere. Cuba was that line. It was a small island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida and easy to antagonize without a lot of consequences. Thus, the White House rolled back the Obama Administration's opening up of relations, to satisfy the Republican Senate.

The international system was slowly crumbling and the legitimacy that held it together bleeding away. Decades later, many would say the seeds of World War III were begun in the 2008 crisis and the surly decade that followed. The struggle that was coming into view was to determine who would be king and who would run the international system that had ruled the world since 1945.

Does Macron change this in any significant manner?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You're the economist. What do you think would happen? I am honestly not sure so I'm asking you what you think based on the information given.

Well the causes of increased fertility rates aren't entirely clear. There seems to be evidence that increased incomes and stronger social programs for child rearing have helped to increase fertility rates in industrialized first world countries.

I would imagine that in your timeline the United States government would have had to enact policies to keep population growth strong in the face of such strict immigration policies. Or perhaps there's a smaller Baby boom in the 2020's as a result of millenials (sometimes referred to as echo-boomers since many are the children of baby boomers) start having their own children.

Generational patterns usually go as follows:

Silent-small Generation
Boomers-large Generation (children of the greatest generation)
Gen X-smaller Generation (children of silent generation)
Millenials-larger Generation (children of boomers)
Gen Z-smaller Generation (children of Xers)
So the next generation (I think they're referred to as Generation Alpha?) born from roughly 2018 and onwards would also likely be larger since they're the children of millenials and not Xers.

What would be interesting is, how Generation Alpha votes. Baby boomers born in the 50s became very reliable Republicans.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Just caught up reading this timeline - it's almost scary how plausible this is - it's just so well written.

I've always been a believer in the cyclical nature of U.S. politics and that the next big realignment, a Democratic one, will occur sometime in the 2020s.

I just have one question though - what happens to the electoral college in the age of Cordray? Democrats having close to a 3/4 majority in the House and a filibuster proof Senate majority means they can basically amend the constitution at will, and even though the political landscape has changed, 2000 and 2016 are probably still (relatively) fresh in the public's mind. You mentioned that Cordray breaks 500 in 2028 which means it's still around then. Might the abolition of the electoral college happen in his second term or Castro's? Or have 2000 and 2016 passed far enough out of the public memory for it not to really be an issue anymore?

[The_Doctor]

1. To Sherrod Brown in Disguise: No, not really. Given LePen's recent surges, I expect her to win narrowly but I'm 0-3 or 0-4 on foreign elections, so who knows? But no, not really. I expect her loss, if it's one, to be fairly narrow and signify that the French population, like the rest of Europe, is moving towards the nationalist position and thus will force European politics to recalibrate appropriately.

2. Technocratic Timmy - your explanation seems good enough to stand as official canon. If anyone wants to do a spin off of this canon, they're more than welcome to explore that stuff.

3. Pessimistic Antineutrino - I left the Electoral College in the air deliberately. After some deliberation, I do think that there will be some movement to abolish the electoral college (after all it robbed the Democrats of their 2000 and 2016 wins, in a sense) but I am not sure how successful it will be. It could hinge on the 2032 election; if Castro (or D VP) wins comfortably, the Democrats may conclude they've overcome their political problems and no longer need to do away with it. The Electoral College is actually a solid majoritarian tool - it benefits the Republicans precisely because they're the majority coalition in this coalition. But because the GOP is so tenuously a majority coalition, with strong opposition on the Pacific and Eastern seaboards, and in the major urban areas, you could argue the EC is upholding majoritarian coalition rule while suggesting the GOP does not really have a mandate to rule as they used to. Arguably, there's some dispute over 1960 - where JFK may not have actually won the popular vote (I don't really understand the heads and tails of it) but because the Democratic coalition was so strong in 1960, and so national, they could probably have lost the popular vote and still won.

Pointedly, the Left has a great benefit in repealing the Electoral College and shifting the center of the country to the urban and coastal areas. It would push the GOP leftwards, and make the great vote sinks (which lean leftwards) crucial to electoral outcomes, rather than the disparate rural and suburban areas across the country.

On the other hand, the vast Democratic majority will include many small states that flip leftwards (West Virginia, for example) and their Senators and Congressmen may object to the diluting of their state power. Unless you convince the good denizens of these states that shifting power to the major urban areas will benefit their interests (e.g, their economic interests) any such constitutional amendment would fail.

So, really, it comes down to what the Democrats conclude is the best strategy and what the various constituencies conclude is in their best interests.

Now having answered your question, I will like to take the moment to go on an extended rant. The 2016 stuff is my rantings about general political coalitions. Warning: extended rant.

For the record, I would submit my biased opinion:

a. 2000 was intended to be a narrow Republican victory. Had Bush not been hit with the DUI, in the closing days of the 2000 campaigns, he would have likely won the popular vote. The country voted to uphold the Reagan coalition by handing W the keys but the last minute DUI charge scrambled things. W was (in my eyes) the intended confirming President that upheld Reaganism and his tenure was designed to set Reaganism for the second half of its run. Remember, 1960 was closer than 2000 and JFK still won anyway.

b. 2016 is a true aberration in the sense that the Reagan coalition limped out for Trump but Trump displayed such incompetence on the campaign trail that he lost the popular vote convincingly (relatively; third biggest popular vote loss while being an electoral college winner - and the only President to win the electoral college convincingly while losing the popular vote by that much). It signals that the coalition is increasingly weakened as time marches on and the motivations that propelled Reaganism to our majoritarian ideology is starting to fade. Even among many Republicans, they are calling Reagan "outdated."

What a lot of them don't realize, you don't change ideological majorities overnight. Reaganism took 30 years to develop and so did Roosevelt's progressive ideology. Trump is basically creating a new ideology in months, when it took a substantial amount of time to fashion the ruling ideologies of the past.  So, you either stick with Reaganism or you go home, if you're a Republican, really.

And the Constitutional system encourages this, for the record. The Framers never intended parties to rule the day or coalitions to turn out that way but somehow, our constitutional system has developed to the point where new dominant ideologies must hibernate and take time to cohere before becoming the country's ruling ideology. It's a requirement for our political stability as a country. The vast amount of effort and energy that it takes to maintain a political coalition is so enormous that you don't flip your ideology day to day. There's donors, there's constituents, there's a ton of shorthand political thinking that goes into voting, donating, and protesting, and it's an extremely complex system. Ergo, stability is a premium. You don't want your partisans to flip their message day to day and the political conversations need to be somewhat consistent and above all, on a stable axis. We humans crave that and that's seen in our political ideologies.

Trump's people do not understand this fact. They stormed the country in eighteen months with a protean reactionary populist ideology that still defies scholarly accounting and with no real mooring in the conservative movement. So, Trump himself may have done a ton of the Democrats' dirty work by breaking apart the Reagan coalition's ideological stability and to push the door open to a new ideology to take center stage. You'll see in this timeline, most of the actions undertaken have been Reaganite because the country's moorings - and the Republican Party's moorings - are rooted in that.

The Republican coalition has been left reeling and this is why so many Republicans today are uneasy about Trump. There was no measured ideological build up to Trump, no long standing academic debate about the new ideology, no whatever. You can't defend a primal scream with consistency and this is why his supporters are perpetually left with the instinct to call their rebellion a "breaking of the status quo" without explaining what the heck replaces it. When you ask Trump supporters for ideological consistency, they can't provide it or turn it on the liberals because there's none to speak of.

Bernie Sanders, however, very much understands this. His leftist Democratic ideology is not new. It dates to the 1960s and 1970s, and you can see it in the protests against welfare reform, the protests against Reagan's ideology, and the complaints of far left congressmen in the 1980s and 1990s. "Higher minimum wage," "living minimum wage," and "financial regulation" and so on isn't new - it's pretty old. The only new thing is the college thing. Even single payer has a long and storied leftist history. This is an ideology that is fully formed, has academic and political consistency, has a viable political constituency and coalition, and will someday emerge as the ruling ideology of the United States (little as I like it). This story is how really Cordray is the final beneficiary, as FDR was, of a long standing revolt against the conservative status quo. And sometime, down the line, there will be a conservative revolt against the liberal status quo. And so on, and so on, as long as we have a functional Republic, this will go on. 

Tl;dr: If you view Reagan as the beginning, W as the climax, Trump is the beginning of the downfall of the coalition and he may be paving the way for a Sanders Democratic coalition.

Sorry for the very long extended rant.

[The_Doctor]

Final note on my rant.

One thing this timeline was designed for me to do was to explore and reason out the way ideologies have a role in American political history and how they come about to be. One article I never wrote but now feel I should have written (well, I just did in a sense in my rant) is how ideologies are essential to the political stability of the United States. Indeed, it's right there in the title "Between Two Majorities." The implication is that the path between two majorities is so rocky because one ideology must replace the other in a fashion that's organized, deliberate (even if it looks electorally chaotic) and have a consistent champion.

Quick sidenote: again, if you look at the Lincoln Republicans - their ideology was around in the 1790s. Alexander Hamilton advocated the First National Bank, developing industries, and lost out to Jefferson. Lincoln is the one who won the 1860 election and defeated Jefferson's vision once and for all. It's right here, in Hamilton's own words. The stuff Hamilton writes is later upheld by Clay, who carries the Whigs-Federalists' banner in the wilderness, and is finally brought to fruition by Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley.

And yes, I wrote a lot of this timeline as a ongoing intellectual experiment to figure out where we are as a country. Which is why a lot of things weren't as developed as they should have been. (Sorry about that).

[Blackacre]

It should be noted that the results of both the 2000 and 1960 elections were disputed by the losing side. I do not think this is a coincidence. It may be a feature of the ruling coalition that by the time their era enters its second half, they've built up enough institutional strength to tip the scales in their favour. It might not have been necessary in Kennedy's case, but if he was hit with a last-minute scandal similar to the DUI, maybe it would have been.

See also: the election of Ruthorford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison during the Lincoln Majority.

[The_Doctor]

It should be noted that the results of both the 2000 and 1960 elections were disputed by the losing side. I do not think this is a coincidence. It may be a feature of the ruling coalition that by the time their era enters its second half, they've built up enough institutional strength to tip the scales in their favour. It might not have been necessary in Kennedy's case, but if he was hit with a last-minute scandal similar to the DUI, maybe it would have been.

See also: the election of Ruthorford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison during the Lincoln Majority.

Pretty much this. Well, the election of 1876 was probably supposed to be Democratic, to be fair, but the GOP majority rigged it in SC, LA, and FL. You see the resulting tension during the 1880s and culminating in McKinley's 1896 election (though Cleveland let off some steam for angry Democrats in the 1880s). Though, 1876 was in the first half of the GOP coalition.

I am pretty sure that if there had been a recount in 1960, Jack Kennedy & the Democrats would have fought any tie in Illinois and Texas to a win in their favor. They were entrenched in the government in Illinois and Texas (actually Illinois elected a Democratic Governor in 1960 to replace a two term GOP governor) and could have probably knife fighted Dick Nixon out. Same thing happened with W in 2000.

[Blackacre]

This is a really trivial thing to ask about, but what happens with the Trump and Pence Presidential libraries? Trump even getting one would be seen as controversial, (because everything Trump touches sparks outrage, down to his cabinet choices) but not having one would be strange as well. It might be that the Pence library includes documents from the Trump administration?

[The_Doctor]

This is a really trivial thing to ask about, but what happens with the Trump and Pence Presidential libraries? Trump even getting one would be seen as controversial, (because everything Trump touches sparks outrage, down to his cabinet choices) but not having one would be strange as well. It might be that the Pence library includes documents from the Trump administration?

Nixon got one, so Trump gets one, somewhere in New York. I'm not sure how they would rent out the space in Queens or something, but they get it. Pence gets his in Bloomington, Indiana.

Trump's Presidential library is a outright hagiography about #AlternateFacts. Pence is a more conventional library.

[jburnx2]

I was very impressed by this timeline, it was one of the best I've ever read. The loss of Sherrod Brown in 2020 perfectly set up for Cordray's win in 2024, and it was executed fantastically. Good job!

[The_Doctor]

Lastly, I'm not a believer in free will, so I believe a lot of events are predetermined by our environment, our collective actions, and the generally predictable behavior of humans to do certain things. So that helps remove doubt for me for a set of actions.

I have yet to read this book series, but have you read Isaac Asimov's Foundation?

What you have described here sounds a lot like the fictional idea of psychohistory from these books. Given that your timeline has been generally accurate so far I thought this idea would be interesting to bring up.

A Sherlock Holmes (BBC) quote summarizes my beliefs on predicting the future, “The world is woven from billions of lives, every strand crossing the other.  What we call premonition is just movement on the web. If you could attenuate to every strand of quivering data, the future would be entirely calculable.”

From the Wikipedia article you gave me it seems in line with that sentiment. I'll read the book too, it sounds interesting. Always meant to get into Asimov as he sounded interesting and tried to create, as it were, a timeline of his own.

[The_Doctor]

Small meta note. In reviewing this timeline, I've decided to shift this article from March 2018 to December 2018. The revelations about Trump's business dealings emerge post-midterms. This is a bit of house-cleaning to make the midterms more believable (and I think this is actually more in line with what's going to happen). So, the business dealings erupt after the midterms and then in January 2019, there's more revelations.

The economic slowdown, for the record, has been also adjusted. The following line, to be exact, now reads (from Q1 and Q2 and 2019), "Growth began contracting in Q3 2018, and continued contracting in Q4 2018; and the economic expansion wouldn't really resume until 2020." Probably, the tax reform of 2017 delays the recession for a couple of months, and this means we see the slowdown begin in late 2018, and taking up 2019, which is when Trump is at peak political crisis.

There will be probably two more supplementals out at some point, one dealing with a fuller overview of how the Democrats and Donald Trump do in 2017-2018, and another one dealing with why RyanCare fails and why entitlement reforms are impossible for Republicans to pass in this era. I feel that I should have covered these issues in more detail, so I will.

And if you don't believe me on the scandal time changes, I submit this.  Anyway, these are minor time changes, and the substance has not been altered.

[The_Doctor]

Notes: Please see the timeline changes above this post. They are minor and make the midterms (and subsequent drama of 2019) clearer. So, if you’re a Democrat, and if this timeline is right, you’ll want to start paying attention starting (latest) January 2019. If I’m wrong, well, read on. You’ve read 100 articles so what’s two more?

Supplemental: The Democrats and Trump: 2017-2018

The Democrats failed to make measurable gains in both chambers in Congress, and indeed, lost 4 seats in the Senate and gained only 4 in the House. Why? With the Trump Administration so an inviting target and the Tea Party revolt of 2009 a successful template, why not assume the Democrats simply regain the Congress in 2018?

Well, first off, it is plausible, but this is a 2024 realignment. If the Democrats gain either chamber of Congress, 2020 will be a Democratic year. Even marginal gains in the Senate (but not the House) that leave them short of the majority would be a huge red light for the GOP in 2020. One big sign of how 2020 will go is how well the Democrats do in the Senate races and if they gain the Senate in 2018, you can say the chances of a Democratic White House goes up measurably.

National Democrats Make Case Against Trump on Basis of Fitness

But one reason I have the Democrats having schizophrenic results is that the Congressional Democrats try to make it about Trump all the time in 2017, basically focusing on the scandals and his fitness for the Oval Office, and as a result, they put his supporters on the defense. Trump Republicans, starting in 2017, take ownership of their man and believe the Left is out to get them. The relentless barrage of negative articles about Trump only reinforce the urban and rural divide between the two Americas, and this is a crucial misstep that the Congressional Democrats take. So, for example, they play well in very blue states, so that’s why no Democrat from a state that’s leaning blue loses. Since knocking off the Republican congressional majority requires Democrats to win Trump leaning districts and Trump states (namely, Arizona, Texas, and Nevada). A ton of Republicans have long standing suspicions about the media and the all out war between Trump and the media buys the GOP time to win in 2018. Note: this strategy is a losing one in 2017 but pays off in 2019 as the drip-drip and opposition turns into a gushing torrent of revelations that force Trump's resignation.

Additionally, the economy slows down too late in the game (Q3 2018) and the scandals have not erupted. Remember, there’s major tax reform coming down the pike and that will probably stave off the recession until near the midterms or after. Like it or not, tax cuts usually do help GDP growth and create some measure of economic growth (how much has slowly decreased since the 1980s, where their benefits were huge, to meager; but that’s because over time, our taxes have become lower. A big reason why 2022’s tax cuts don’t do much and the economic stagnation continues).

So, there’s no external factors that come into play (unlike the 2021-2022 session, where the Republican loyalists have their illusions shattered) to force the losses required to put the Democrats into the majority. The WWC (white working class) will need strong external stimuli and forces to push them towards the Democrats again and the Democrats in 2018 are very much in an adversarial position.

So, the storylines of 2017 is that the Democrats see a 2009 in reverse, but fundamentally misunderstand the 2010 elections. In that election, Republicans gained districts that Trump would go onto win (and areas Bush and Romney won). Obama lost this group of white working class voters (a lot of them were in that demographic, if memory serves) and they stuck with the GOP. You’ll notice on this map (yes, the New York Times has the best maps) that not many districts flip that are near major urban areas. A ton of them are in urban-rural areas that white, working class areas. They won’t simply flip back because they are inherently more conservative than the average Democrat and again, won’t flip on the basis of opposition to Trump.

In fact, a major theme of this timeline is that these voters have been more or less voting Republican since Ronald Reagan nationally. Their congressional loyalties have shifted more gradually (they were voting Democratic until 1994 and in some cases, until 2010). They have a cultural affinity for the GOP and tend to instinctively vote conservative except in years that they either are fed up with the reigning Republicans (1992, 2006, 2008). Viewed in this light, the sudden shift from the Democratic majority of 2006 to the 2010 GOP House majority makes a lot more sense. The cultural backlash against Iraq and the economic collapse of 2008 had given these voters the “vote for Democrats in case of emergency” greenlight (red light?) and in 2010, they resumed normal voting patterns.

Trump won these regions and states handily on a cultural-economic axis, so their loyalty to the President is quite strong. I cannot understate how many articles I have read about people backing the President without question because they believe his policies take on the establishment and how much they believe these policies will help them reclaim an America they thought they had lost. They also have suffered economically and believe the urban-dominated Democratic Party is not interested in their interests. They will not be swayed by Democratic attacks on the President or the media’s war with him (in fact, both will reinforce their siege mentality). This support forms the bulk of what will be a 45% or so approval rating that will last until 2018.

So, as a result, the nation becomes even more polarized in 2018 as deep Trump states vote for the President’s party and deep anti-Trump states vote against him, and swing states vote in a split fashion.

State Democrats Focus on Trump on Policy Grounds and Differentiate themselves

Now, let’s talk about the states. You’ll remember from this post, that on the state level, Democrats won all over the country. Notably, one Richard Cordray won the Ohio governorship in 2018 and I’m going to sidenote that I do think the realigning President will come from a winner in 2018, even if it’s not Cordray. The reason the states are showcasing vastly different results is that historically, the states are more local issue focused. The Democrats operating on the state level know that they aren’t dealing with national issues so they tailor their cases against Trump on a policy level, instead of a scandal level. They make the case for their policies as opposed to Trump’s, which is to say they reduced him to the status of a normal politician instead of maintaining him as the anti-Christ. In this fashion, they were able to win over Trump Democrats and win back a lot of states. This is not a new phenomena. There are lots of cases of opposition party figures who historically distance themselves from whatever their congressional wing does against the President and focuses on branding themselves. In the immortal words of Tip O’Neill, they work on the premise, “All politics is local.”

So, as a result, they start winning all over the country. It’s a result at opposition to what the Congressional Democrats are facing on Election Night 2018. For Washington Democrats, Election Night 2018 will be their nadir. It will be the darkest period before the (false) dawn.

Trump’s Gotta Trump

Meanwhile, the President just gave his Congressional address. I strongly suggest you all read the text. Particularly, I would recommend you pay attention to where he explicitly makes his deportations an economic strategy, the mentions of drug cartels (that's a reference to the opioid crisis), and talks about manufacturing plus the inner cities. These are all elements of a political strategy we've covered in this timeline.  

Now, if you read this timeline as loyal readers, you were not shocked by any of it. In fact, we told you all about it back in November 2016. What we got wrong was that the President had a very rocky first month but we did get right that Congressional Republicans and the White House don’t have much space between them. The agenda we also nailed, with trade reform, tax reform, border security, and infrastructure topping the big 3 Trump wants. Trump is finally moving into the phase of the Presidency where he becomes more or less a 75% conventional Republican Presidency. So, you should expect the next 3-4 months to be peak Trump and the Left to face the first of its many existential struggles.

Over the next year, we’ve said that Trump may find himself in a slump, may be directionless but he will get enough accomplished between now and the summer to tide him over until the midterms. Tax reform, infrastructure, and trade deals renegotiated will be the big things done (with ObamaCare reforms pushed off and RyanCare dead). Every President has a window of roughly a couple of months between their inauguration and the beginning of the midterm elections to make their mark. The mark they make in this time period usually ends up influencing all their eight years and sets the tone. So what we see from Trump is him enacting neoliberal Republican priorities with a dash of nationalism (infrastructure and trade).

His opposition, in this time period, plays into his hands by casting him as the biggest starring villain. While their strategy is not wrong in the long run - the polarization means that when Trump’s first serious missteps happen in 2019, he will not have the political capital to sustain the damage - it means that in 2017 and 2018, Democrats are left furiously making the case against a President that looks like he can’t be taken down. Like his opposition, Trump will cater to his base first and foremost. Both sides make the great mistake of writing off half of the country and in turn, that will come to bite them both in the arse.  

Trump survives in this time period simply because his base of 45% is enough to get by. His opposition is fueled by a rabid angry Democratic base that isn’t interested in reaching out to the white working class. His white working class pushes back and stands by him.

One thing that could overturn this is if revelations emerge of direct collaboration with Russia or something and there is hard proof between now and 2019. But I’m guessing that there will be a steady drip-drip of information but no huge revelations and damage until after 2018. But that’s me subjectively.

I hope this fleshes out 2017-2018 and makes the 2017-2018 timeline a lot more understandable. Please ask any questions you have.