Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:57:03 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 41
Author Topic: Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration  (Read 209523 times)
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #400 on: March 17, 2017, 07:41:55 PM »

The VA link is here: http://i.imgur.com/02dk5Gz.png

I've edited the post to remove the picture and to just leave the link up.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #401 on: March 17, 2017, 07:43:47 PM »


Thanks; appreciate it.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #402 on: March 18, 2017, 05:38:03 PM »

Whites: 52% of electorate; 64-35% Republican
African Americans: 22% of electorate; 74-25% Democratic
Latinos: 16% of electorate; 55-44% Democratic
Asians: 5% of electorate; 43-56% Republican
Others: 5% of electorate; 55-44% Democratic.

Totals: 48.18%   Democratic, 50.82% Republican.

You see substantial gains for the GOP among Latinos and African Americans, and the GOP wins back Asians outright. Coupled with a strong performance among upscale whites, the GOP takes Virginia's 13 electoral votes. I suspect, quite honestly, the Republicans will actually do better among minorities, because as you can see, taking 64% of NH whites in this election barely gets them to 51% of the vote. They actively have to make the Latino vote a swing bloc and dent the African American vote and take the Asian vote to just get to 51%.

Thank you so much for the post!

I think your strategy for the GOP breaking the Democratic lock on minorities seems relatively sound, at least long-term. So long as the Democratic Party pushes redistributive and social welfare policies that lean on resources from the well-off, it will always make large, reliable bases of support among upscale voters difficult, right? I don't know if you saw it, but post-election polls show African American Male support for Democrats slipping even during the Obama era. Since 2004, it's been a constant shift to the GOP. An upscale minority+male voter problem could fit your numbers for VA 2036.

In a state such as Virginia, this issue seems pretty ripe for Democrats. If racial divisions are lessened among the parties and the GOP rebounds among the more affluent, it's bound to make Virginia a difficult state to hold on to for as long as the GOP did. My only issue is that I'm not sure racial issues will be papered over in this kind of timespan, nor am I convinced college educated/upscale whites will necessarily abandon (or resist) the Democratic Party in the numbers needed, but then again, as you may know I lean pretty heavily on generational/less-dynamic theories of voting behavior.

Keep up the good work TD!
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #403 on: March 19, 2017, 03:47:50 AM »

Hello! Like everyone else I have to say that this timeline is absolutely wonderful, TD. Thanks so much for making it!

I guess the one question I'm left with after reading it is: given that this is your best guess for the way things are going to go for the foreseeable future, how do you feel about it?

Like, as a Sanders Dem, this is a great timeline to read. Indeed, I and a lot of Sanders supporters I know got involved with the campaign with an explicitly Goldwateresque mindset. This TL (barring all the crises that brought it about, obvi) is exactly what I think Sanders Dems need to do.

But you, as a #NeverTrump, Reaganite conservative, are exactly who loses out the most (other than the small number of professional Trumpian pseudopopulists like Bannon & Steven Miller et al) in the post 2024 era. Likewise, you seem to treat as a necessary political given a lot of entitlements I'd imagine someone with your ideology fundamentally objects to.

Yet some of your language (specifically regarding what the Dems became, but I'm on my phone so I can't pull specific quotes that easily) is downright triumphalist. The Dems regaining "the greatness of the majority party they used to be."

So, I guess, what's your *normative* take on all this? Are the Cordray Dems truly massive FFs in your opinion?
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #404 on: March 20, 2017, 04:27:27 PM »

I think that's a good question. A really good one. I've been thinking about it for a bit.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The answer is ... I don't know.

I am what I say in my signature but I also have considerable pragmatic sensibilities that have long been at odds with the GOP hyper-ideology. My neoliberal and neoconservative views run from overturning Roe but pairing it with birth control to make the end of abortion easier; using multilateral and true international coalitions to install democracy abroad, and pairing major free trade deals with helping workers retrain. I'd identify myself as a conservative who favors sanding off the rough edges of conservatism to make it all work. (I'm also a strong environmentalist who wants a carbon tax that is revenue neutral to deal with global warming).

But certainly, in this timeline, that ideology is out of favor. I don't favor where the Democrats want to go on healthcare (preferring the Swiss model), where they want to go on taxes, and where they want to do in expanding Social Security and Medicare. I in fact think RyanCare is a decent idea.

I'd say that my ideology is the biggest loser in the 2024 elections, absolutely. Bannon and Miller will have a populist audience, still, but the neoliberal neoconservative age is over. I'm not sure how I feel about that; I do know that I will probably end up voting against Cordray and Castro and for the GOP. I'm undecided on my 2020 vote; but I will say I am open to Pence.

But is it so bad that the GOP ideology is junked?

I don't know. I'm not yet at that point where I am ready to accept that an ideology I've held for over a decade is defunct, even if I've written an entire timeline that says that. That's a bit of a cognitive dissonance going on, and I recognize that. It's something I'm working through, politically.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is true. I guess, I am definitely happy in one aspect that they take out the hyper-ideological Republican Party and force the GOP to come to terms with decades-long trends that have made it whiter, more radical, and less open to pragmatic ideas as well as bonded to a nationalism that is outright dangerous (in my eyes). So, I guess, I am happy when Cordray and Castro finally bring down that GOP and force the recalibration. My favorite President, in this timeline, is probably said Northern 2036 Republican guy/gal. I definitely find myself easily backing that Republican.

But I would be lying if I said I wasn't in conflict about where my party is going and how I feel the future will end up. There are good things and bad things.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personally, the Democrats are not going to be FF but they will do one important thing - they will break the gridlock and bring the United States forward into the Automation Age and the new age of technology. The decades long stagnation we've had since 2000 for the middle and lower class, hopefully, will come to a close. We leave behind the politics of the 1960s-1980s that formed the bedrock of the current GOP ideology. Good things start happening, like a leap in technological advancement, economic growth, and cultural calm. (Though it may take until the 2030s - 2040s to see this all happen).  

So in that regard, they're OK. They're essential in the long run to the United States remaining the hegemonic superpower in the world and using technology, culture, and economics to remain on top of the world. So, in that regard, they are essential FF.

On the other hand, I cringe about how expansive the state will become under the new reigning Democrats (and that old bugaboo, the higher taxes). If you've ever played the Deus Ex series, you run into a massive powerful state and technology has made the state even more pervasive and invasive in our lives. Populists are extremely authoritarian figures and the only two major populist figures I know that we've been able to live through was FDR and Jackson. And during FDR's tenure, the state became a huge powerful structure that couldn't be challenged. So, there is that lingering concern.

So, I don't know. It's a mix of (extreme) relief that our current nationalism and crazed neoliberalism comes to an end, and pragmatic politics returns, but also concern about how far the new Democratic majority will go. (And unfortunately: Trump has opened the door for this new realigning President to be an extremely powerful norm-breaking executive. For better or worse).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you elaborate and give us some anecdotes? I'm very curious about this.
Logged
GlobeSoc
The walrus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,980


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #405 on: March 21, 2017, 09:15:40 AM »

Ideologies cannot last forever. New developments arise: technological, economic, political. Wanting to not let go of an ideology that is part of what you think yourself as makes sense, but as conditions change, the issues change too. To play a meaningful role in politics, one must adapt to an ever-changing world. Those who can't adapt will be stuck voting for irrelevant 3rd parties every election.
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,172
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #406 on: March 21, 2017, 09:29:22 AM »

Ideologies cannot last forever. New developments arise: technological, economic, political. Wanting to not let go of an ideology that is part of what you think yourself as makes sense, but as conditions change, the issues change too. To play a meaningful role in politics, one must adapt to an ever-changing world. Those who can't adapt will be stuck voting for irrelevant 3rd parties every election.

You say that, but in this TL, Roosevelt's ideology from the 1930s and 1940s made a comeabck with Cordray.
Logged
GlobeSoc
The walrus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,980


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #407 on: March 21, 2017, 09:50:52 AM »

Ideologies cannot last forever. New developments arise: technological, economic, political. Wanting to not let go of an ideology that is part of what you think yourself as makes sense, but as conditions change, the issues change too. To play a meaningful role in politics, one must adapt to an ever-changing world. Those who can't adapt will be stuck voting for irrelevant 3rd parties every election.

You say that, but in this TL, Roosevelt's ideology from the 1930s and 1940s made a comeabck with Cordray.

True, but it has some differences that separate it from the original New Deal era
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,172
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #408 on: March 21, 2017, 04:30:03 PM »

You know, it's really impressive that you ended up writing a TL that had an ending that basically screwed your ideology over without much bias showing. (the only "bias" was one you admitted in PM about not mentioning issues of gun control and mass shootings) That in and of itself might be the most impressive thing about this TL.

You do gain a few things, though. With the Dems taking the national security mantle, a hawkish, neoconservative-ish foreign policy will probably continue to dominate. In addition, if you're correct about immigration laws remaining strict, that I think aligns with your view on the issue. (even though Cordray or Castro would have to sign at least the DREAM Act to keep the Sunbelt happy) As for concerns about the expansion of the state, that would probably be an issue that we'd grapple with in the later half of the era. It'll be the Dem that comes after the Northern Technocratic Republican that would be scariest on that issue. I share your concerns regarding invasion of privacy as a result of the expansive state, and I have absolutely no idea how it'll be addressed Cheesy

Having said all of that... if you end up being right about everything and the 2024 D ticket really is Cordray/Castro, (or even just Cordray at the top) would you not vote for Cordray just out of pride at having gotten it so right? Tongue
Logged
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,896
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #409 on: March 23, 2017, 11:56:58 PM »

Note: Right above this article is the just published "Donald Trump first 5 months" in power. Link: Here and Democratic Civil War Underway

RyanCare: A Huge Fight on the Floor

July 2017 -- (Washington). The Senate floor was a mess. RyanCare had barely cleared the House of Representatives 232-202. The Trump Administration was deeply divided on the topic internally. And Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) was now trying to lobby the U.S. Senate to pass RyanCare. Meanwhile, protests thronged outside the Capitol as people chanted "Hands Off My Medicare!"

The idea to grant Americans Medicare vouchers, for where they could shop for healthcare was a brainchild of Paul Ryan. It had been part and parcel of his 2011 package and became heavily identified with the Romney-Ryan ticket of 2012. The Democrats had used the issue to beat the Republicans, and now with the Trump Administration behind it, they were prepared to do it again.

Trump had been deeply wary of the idea. His aides too, but the insistent advocacy of Ryan and RNC Chair Reince Priebus overrode the concerns of Steve Bannon and other alt-right members. He finally signed onto it in a tepid announcement, and the House prepared to vote. But the Administration was always half-for it, half-against it.

From the start, the Left saw it as a moment for public outrage and ginned up the voting public against it. They resurrected the "attacks on Granny" line and attacked President Trump and the Congressional Republicans over the topic. The sustained Democratic assault caught the White House off guard, which now felt on the defensive. Deeply divided, Trump went out to campaign for the bill, calling it "essential for America's fiscal future." But his rallies were populated by many people who relied on Medicare for survival, and polls showed the public sharply against it 55-41%. During the campaign, there had been zero appetite for entitlement reform.

The House Democrats, led by Minority Leader Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) (who had ousted former Speaker Nancy Pelosi a few months earlier), expressed outrage and voted as a uniform bloc against it. About eight Republicans defected, in addition to them. In the Senate, Senate Majority Leader McConnell (R-Kentucky) struggled to whip up 60 votes to overcome a furious Democratic filibuster.

Schumer now saw it as his moment to strike. After letting much of the Trump agenda pass early on, he saw it as the moment to strike back. The Senate Democrats, sensing how vital Medicare was to many Americans, voted as a bloc to deny McConnell cloture on the bill.

In the end, with 3 Republicans defecting, it failed 49-51. Medicare would remain intact (and a growing part of the deficit). The Trump Administration's momentum would be stalled six months into the Presidency. The grand GOP legislative agenda came to a screeching halt.

Trump withdrew in defeat, without acknowledging it. He announced, to great fanfare, a bipartisan commission on Medicare, patterned on the 1983 one that saved Social Security. He called it a "win" and said that substantive reform would be a result of the hard fought battle.

The damage, however, was done. The Administration had suffered its first major loss, six months in.

Your TL may be occurring ahead of schedule Tongue
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #410 on: March 24, 2017, 04:11:31 AM »

Ideologies cannot last forever. New developments arise: technological, economic, political. Wanting to not let go of an ideology that is part of what you think yourself as makes sense, but as conditions change, the issues change too. To play a meaningful role in politics, one must adapt to an ever-changing world. Those who can't adapt will be stuck voting for irrelevant 3rd parties every election.

Indeed, that is the heart of this timeline. Economic, technological, and political developments change and ideologies that don't adapt to the times collapse. This is exactly what's going awry with the GOP ideology and why we see Trump having a hard time executing GOP policy. It's moored in the realities of the 1960s and the 1970s. The economic crisis that this timeline details is intensified because the GOP turns hyperideological and worsens it.

I recognize this but I have a hard time adapting, basically. As a limited government conservative, I can point to solutions that would fit within that ideology and be effective (in my opinion). I may end up changing with the times.
Ideologies cannot last forever. New developments arise: technological, economic, political. Wanting to not let go of an ideology that is part of what you think yourself as makes sense, but as conditions change, the issues change too. To play a meaningful role in politics, one must adapt to an ever-changing world. Those who can't adapt will be stuck voting for irrelevant 3rd parties every election.

You say that, but in this TL, Roosevelt's ideology from the 1930s and 1940s made a comeabck with Cordray.

As Sherrod said, it makes a comeback but it's heavily modified. No ideology is the same era wise. The Jeffersonian-Jacksonian populist era made a comeback a full century later under the New Deal but was radically different. Likewise, the futuristic Cordray ideology is a total different ballgame. It's not like suddenly we'll get a New Deal on steroids...the times are different. President Cordray operates in a world where AI technology is increasingly a reality and he has to adapt under these circumstances. This isn't FDR's manufacturing economy or Jackson's agrarian economy.

You know, it's really impressive that you ended up writing a TL that had an ending that basically screwed your ideology over without much bias showing. (the only "bias" was one you admitted in PM about not mentioning issues of gun control and mass shootings) That in and of itself might be the most impressive thing about this TL.

You do gain a few things, though. With the Dems taking the national security mantle, a hawkish, neoconservative-ish foreign policy will probably continue to dominate. In addition, if you're correct about immigration laws remaining strict, that I think aligns with your view on the issue. (even though Cordray or Castro would have to sign at least the DREAM Act to keep the Sunbelt happy) As for concerns about the expansion of the state, that would probably be an issue that we'd grapple with in the later half of the era. It'll be the Dem that comes after the Northern Technocratic Republican that would be scariest on that issue. I share your concerns regarding invasion of privacy as a result of the expansive state, and I have absolutely no idea how it'll be addressed Cheesy

Having said all of that... if you end up being right about everything and the 2024 D ticket really is Cordray/Castro, (or even just Cordray at the top) would you not vote for Cordray just out of pride at having gotten it so right? Tongue

To be honest, I wrote this timeline as a way to understand the reasons our reality is happening the way it is. I was shocked by Trump's victory but then I reread the original "Between Two Majorities" and it dawned on me I had explained succinctly why it happened (under President Walker). I explained white working class voters rebelled against Obama and signaled anger with the underlying economic fundamentals and vented their anger through cultural resentment. And the fact that neoliberal economics has failed the working class has led them to this state of affairs guided me to predict Walker's victory. So ... I wrote this timeline to understand the realigning politics.

As for Cordray ... if the 2024 ticket is Rich Cordray at the top, I'll be both impressed and horrified, because on some level, Rich Cordray is the personification of my nightmares - a liberal effective Democrat who recharges the welfare and administrative state. I'll be impressed at getting him right. As for voting for him, I don't know. I want to say I'll vote for Pence, but who knows?

(Sorry if this doesn't make sense. I have a mild fever).
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #411 on: March 24, 2017, 04:35:38 AM »
« Edited: March 24, 2017, 05:14:04 AM by TD »


We'll see. I honestly want to see how the House and the Senate deal with this bill. I was wrong in the sense I expected Trump to deal with politically popular positions first such as tax and infrastructure reform. I also expected Trump to be more successful in his first couple of months. I did not expect RyanCare to be rolled in with the ObamaCare repeal either.

I do expect Trump to have a, on balance, a good first year, after the AHCA fails. There is a broad appetite for tax and infrastructure reform and the GOP has historically done well with these two issues.

But yeah I've been wondering how to score this article. Among the things I got right: 1) There are major protests against the law 2) The White House is caught off guard 3) The law is extremely divisive over its Medicare provisions. 3) The GOP has tried an assault on entitlements despite a lack of mandate, and this bill is largely of Paul Ryan's creation and guided by his ideological vision, rather than Trump's 4) I pegged the unpopularity of the law roughly right (56-37% in recent polling) 5) Trump is actively campaigning for the law and is deeply internally divided What I've got wrong is 1) the order of events 2) The GOP actually tried a frontal assault on ObamaCare ALONG with the Medicaid expansion 3) the GOP may not wait until 2019 to cut a deal. Trump's ultimatum may be a sign the GOP will abandon trying to overturn the law and cut a deal down the road, I don't know. 4) the assault is on the expansion instead of Medicare vouchers.

What is really screwing me up in predicting the timeline is that I predicted, on balance, one of the best case scenarios for a Trump presidency in the first year. But his inexperience is causing so many unexpected problems that I think that I expected a Walker-level of experience and we're not seeing that.

We are definitely seeing major protests against this law, particularly over the Medicaid provisions. If Medicaid wasn't touched and we were talking about minor fixes to the law, this would pass. But because so many people are dependent on the Medicaid expansion and the exchanges, we are seeing huge pushback against the AHCA.

I expect the House to pass the law with 8 GOP defections tomorrow but I expect the GOP Senate to kill it, yes. I had Paul Ryan passing his bill in the House because it's heavily gerrymandered, the GOP is more entrenched in the House. There are a ton of Trump districts that are +20-30% Trump and their Congressmen are going to vote for the law in the end.

In the Senate, we're dealing with entire states and more moderate GOP Senators have to deal with states that are not entirely favorable to Trump. Ergo, the law dies there, because the target electorate is not your average Trump state but the country that voted by 2.1% for Hillary Clinton and has voted for Obama twice. Given that, expect defections from Cotton, Daines, and others who recognize that reality.

So I stand by the prediction that entitlement reform will fail in this Congress and the GOP will choose to cut a deal in 2019 on ObamaCare and leave Medicaid/Medicare alone. If you see my recent RyanCare article, the era is not conducive to entitlement reforms because of the deal Reagan cut with voters in 1980 to never touch SS and Medicare. This is even more amplified with the populist fervor we are currently experiencing.

I'm starting to think that TD can actually see the future and just modifies the dates and people in his timeline so that he doesn't blow his cover.

Haha. I would hold off on the accolades until October, at least, on Trump's first year.  The timeline makes several specific predictions and I'll list them so we can judge me

1. Tax reform is going to happen. TBD. McConnell has said tax reform will not happen until August.
2. Infrastructure reform will happen on a bipartisan basis. TBD.
3. Trump will be mired in quagmire and gridlock by July. TBD.
4. RyanCare and entitlement reforms will fail spectacularly. Likely to happen.
5. Trump will successfully replace Antonin Scalia with a conservative justice. Democrats will bitterly protest but in the end, Trump will win out. Likely to happen.
6. Filibuster reform will happen (for the record, this prediction was made in the old timeline). Potentially possible.
7. Democrats win both NJ and VA as the GOP battles stagnant ratings. Likely to happen, currently. Democrats are ahead in both VA and NJ, both Clinton states.
8. Trump is underwater by July but his early victories help him stay afloat. This by the way is objectively wrong. He went underwater by February.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #412 on: March 24, 2017, 04:44:19 AM »
« Edited: March 24, 2017, 05:15:23 AM by TD »

One major prediction of this timeline, regarding ObamaCare, but we will probably be unable to judge by 2019.

9. The Republican Party accepts the ACA law as legitimate and settled after symbolically trying to repeal it. If you notice in this timeline, I say the GOP repeals the law and tries to put off the time of reckoning. They eventually cut a deal with the Democrats that makes minor reforms but keeps the law largely intact. The outlook on this seems probable.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #413 on: March 24, 2017, 02:53:57 PM »
« Edited: March 25, 2017, 04:23:04 PM by TD »

It appears that RyanCare is dead and the ObamaCare law will now stand the test of time with minor modifications. I was wrong about how it would go down but it now looks like two stories are proven accurate in one go. medicare reform is now officially dead and the push to reform entitlement spending dead in the Reagan era.

The Trump Administration's internal debates here.

The stage is now set for far reaching consequences as Medicare takes up more of the deficits and increases the national debt and House conservatives prepare for war.

Make no mistake. This day will revertebrate into the future and has a role, likely, in the Great Crisis.
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,172
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #414 on: March 24, 2017, 03:31:03 PM »

What exactly happens to the deficit/debt in the Cordray era? Both in terms of raw numbers/shares of GDP and as political issues
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #415 on: March 24, 2017, 09:42:32 PM »

I'm skeptical about realignment in 2020. I mean I would need to see the fabled crisis envelope the country and Trump's directly blamed for the crisis. While I think Trump will go down as a failed president, I think it will be Pence who is the true ideological Reaganite who sees the crisis on his watch and deepens it.

We see the House Freedom Caucus winning today, a dynamic that comes back into play several years from now. We see the powerful hard right fail to take on the true levers of spending - entitlements - and that's, again, a driver of the crisis to come. The anger that they demonstrated today will come back to the fore. It's not going away.

Trump has never been ever accused of being too conservative or reactionary. Incompetent yes. Reactionary no. He's never going down as Donald the Conservative. He's shaping up to be a man controlled by events and the times. Look at the popular vote loss, polarization, the loss today. These are the signs of a one term presidency but not necessarily fundamentally a rejection of Reaganism. Which is what people have to conclude for us to move into the Cordray era.

The Democrats don't seem ready yet to take on the mantle either. I get the sense they're moving into majority position but they're not quite ready to take true control yet. They're the majority in waiting but they need to overcome the last hurdle on the way home - aka being a party hospitable to working class whites and truly being a governing party for the entire nation.

I'm increasingly wondering if Trump will choose to cut bait and go quietly into the good night a one term president, hoping that Pence suceeds him. Like this would be like Franklin Pierce from 1853-1857, then James Buchanan in 1857-1861. The crisis rips apart the country leading to a Lincoln-esq figure.

Also as an aside? The most important clue Bush is a confirming president is 9/11 and the United States going to war for a generation. That event shaped the country for a generation. I never called it, but I overlooked it stupidly. Like McKinley's foreign involvement they defined a country for a generation.

Anyway that's my thoughts. Today is unquestionably a major day that confirms the road of this timeline (I think). Whatever Trump victories, whatever happens now, this was a road taken that will define the nation. It was a seminal moment that cannot be overstated. Sort of a “ships passing through the night,” and us taking a true measure of what is to yet to come.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #416 on: March 24, 2017, 09:44:04 PM »
« Edited: March 24, 2017, 09:48:55 PM by TD »

What exactly happens to the deficit/debt in the Cordray era? Both in terms of raw numbers/shares of GDP and as political issues

Hard to gauge but they need to grow the economy considerably and to reduce the debt to GDP ratio. Both for the country's and average Americans' bottom line. That's the key. Cordray will need to stimulate a major economic boom in the 2020s to erase the crisis.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #417 on: March 24, 2017, 09:55:20 PM »

Actually would you mind leaving a link in this thread to that?
Logged
P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong
razze
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,072
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -4.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #418 on: March 25, 2017, 02:23:34 PM »

I'm gonna try to write a longer separate thread about the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory and how it relates to the next political realignment.
I'm really interested in this idea, so I can't wait for that thread
Logged
GlobeSoc
The walrus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,980


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #419 on: March 25, 2017, 04:38:57 PM »

I'm somewhat skeptical of Strauss-Howe right now because it currently looks more 3T than 4T even though we're supposedly 8 years into the crisis, but it might be useful for understanding what's going on.
Logged
GlobeSoc
The walrus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,980


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #420 on: March 25, 2017, 04:51:04 PM »

Also, in the realignment, how do the social issues and regional attitudes on them evolve? Do Southern states become more socially liberal or not, do major cities become more socially conservative etc. And which ones will fade into irrelevance or burst onto the scene?
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,124
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #421 on: March 25, 2017, 05:02:01 PM »

What would cause the cities to become more socially conservative? And how is socially conservative defined?
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #422 on: March 26, 2017, 01:12:46 PM »

What exactly happens to the deficit/debt in the Cordray era? Both in terms of raw numbers/shares of GDP and as political issues

Hard to gauge but they need to grow the economy considerably and to reduce the debt to GDP ratio. Both for the country's and average Americans' bottom line. That's the key. Cordray will need to stimulate a major economic boom in the 2020s to erase the crisis.
What if he fails.....just in time for 2032! Tongue
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #423 on: March 26, 2017, 09:15:04 PM »

TD, was your timeline at all influenced by Strauss and Howe's generational theory? I just got the book today and I'm skimming over their predictions on future political and social life and it's very reminiscent of your timeline.

Surprisingly, no. I started at the premise that we realign roughly every 50 years. Then I realized that we realign based on economic changes, and that's not necessarily 50 years. But in this case I estimated that we would realign around 2020-2028 since the economic conditions are about to change fundamentally. So it proved to me a flawed but useful starting point that largely held up.

Obama was to me the warning sign that we're about to experience significant change. So I also put realignment at the next Democratic presidency. Since Trump lost the popular vote I tagged it as 2024 because I assumed 2020 would be an incumbent favorable year.

To conclude I didn't read any books or such. I just worked off my reading of the news, general understanding of trends, and odds and ends here and there.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #424 on: March 26, 2017, 09:17:41 PM »

What exactly happens to the deficit/debt in the Cordray era? Both in terms of raw numbers/shares of GDP and as political issues

Hard to gauge but they need to grow the economy considerably and to reduce the debt to GDP ratio. Both for the country's and average Americans' bottom line. That's the key. Cordray will need to stimulate a major economic boom in the 2020s to erase the crisis.
What if he fails.....just in time for 2032! Tongue

Eh. A two term highly successful President Cordray who wins 57% and 61% and pushes through a major agenda is probably going to be succeeded by a Democrat. The election of 2032 or 2036 will probably confirm once and for all we are in a new realignment.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 41  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 11 queries.