Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[The_Doctor]

Would the late 2010s ITTL be considered similar to the late 1970s aka a period of "malaise"?

Sort of. We're in a period of stagnation and political gridlock dating to around 2005. Over time since the Iraq war our system and economy has become less productive for the vast majority of people. The actual malaise in question is an invinsible one in a sense - middle class stagnant wages date to 2000.

Think of your memories dating to 2000 of our economic and political history and you'll notice there has been no major economic booms, just getting by in general as our political system became more scelerotic. They feed on each other and things progressively worsen as people get angrier. Even the recovery from the Great Recession hasn't been complete wage wise or job quality wise.

To answer you the entire period between 2000 and the realignment will probably be a generational silent malaise. (It interestingly happened in Japan - hey! TT! - Isn't it called secular stagnation?)

I plan to cover some of this in my economic article but that's one of the things going on I think…

[Devout Centrist]

Perhaps Trump is Nixon +Carter and 2020 is the year of the realignment IRL?

Who's the Reagan figure? Al Franken?

Could be Sanders, but I caution you about trying to find an analogue to Reagan. History repeats in patterns, not in people.

[Virginiá]

True. I meant more who would be the next Lincoln/FDR/Reagan figure to lead the Democrats into a new era in 2020 if that were to be the case.

Al Franken would be my guess.

I love Franken, but things like this would really take him down a notch imo:



It's funny, and reasonable in comedy, but by doing that, he kind of sealed the deal on presidential ambitions if you ask me. It's one thing to get by in a Senate/House race or less, but presidential races have an absurd amount of focus and judgement that far outweighs any other race.


-


@TD: What do you think of this?  http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/12/richard-cordray-house-democrats-meeting-238318

Possibly strategizing for a gubernatorial campaign?

[The_Doctor]

It won't be Al Franken.

He doesn't have the skills to put together a majority coalition like FDR, Jefferson, Reagan, and Lincoln-McKinley. All of these men were deeply invested in ideological politics before their presidencies. Franken is a liberal with a strong record of advocacy but not putting together a coalition. Also he's never lost an election, which is a testament to him running only twice ever for any office.

The losing (at least twice) seems important somehow to the making of great coalition maker presidents. I don't know why but Lincoln's losses (3x or 4x right? I forgot), Reagan's (2x), Roosevelt's (2x) and Jefferson's (1x) all shapes their very successful presidencies.  To wit: Jefferson [1796], Lincoln [1858 Senate],  Roosevelt [1920], Reagan [1968, 1976 GOP primaries].

@ Virginia: all I thought was “That's not the first time you're going to meet with House Democrats, sire.” Extrapolate as you wish from that.

But yeah I think our 47th President is finally on the road to the White House. He'll run for Governor. He definitely wants the job ..and the one beyond that one. Cordray feels like the man who has concealed this great ambition to be president (if I'm right) but his long star studded career suggests he would like very much to be President. But we'll see.

[GlobeSoc]

I've been thinking about this timeline and I thought, what states and regions are most often strong for the minority coalitions?

I'm thinking that the plains are a bit above average in terms of this, not existing until 1892, and then aligning 1896 for the WJB-Wilson democrats, then gradually slipping to the republicans in FDR and Truman's term and then being solid republican most of the time.
So their loyalty would have been:
Nonexistent:(1789-1892)
Populist dems(1886-1948)
Eisenhower Republicans(1952-1980)
Reagan Republicans(1980-Present)

[The_Doctor]

I've been thinking about this timeline and I thought, what states and regions are most often strong for the minority coalitions?

I'm thinking that the plains are a bit above average in terms of this, not existing until 1892, and then aligning 1896 for the WJB-Wilson democrats, then gradually slipping to the republicans in FDR and Truman's term and then being solid republican most of the time.
So their loyalty would have been:
Nonexistent:(1789-1892)
Populist dems(1886-1948)
Eisenhower Republicans(1952-1980)
Reagan Republicans(1980-Present)

I don't get this post?

[GlobeSoc]

I've been thinking about this timeline and I thought, what states and regions are most often strong for the minority coalitions?

I'm thinking that the plains are a bit above average in terms of this, not existing until 1892, and then aligning 1896 for the WJB-Wilson democrats, then gradually slipping to the republicans in FDR and Truman's term and then being solid republican most of the time.
So their loyalty would have been:
Nonexistent:(1789-1892)
Populist dems(1886-1948)
Eisenhower Republicans(1952-1980)
Reagan Republicans(1980-Present)

I don't get this post?

Yeah, I was in a rush when I wrote this but uhh...I would want to know how the states and regions fit into this. What drives a state to mostly back the minority over the majority coalition through the eras? I know you mentioned that the Northern technocrats are a big thing in post-FDR minority coalitions a while back, but are there other factors that make a state predisposed to backing the minority?

Regional realignments, such as the ones in Appalachia in the 2000s and 2010s, and the Plains in the 40s and 50s that happen partway into these eras are also a point of interest to me. How does this type of event relate to the nationwide political situation in these eras?

[The_Doctor]

It depends on the economic and social ideology of the states in question. Their reaction to the ruling party's ideology and voters matter too.

For example in the upcoming era the minority coalition will be Republican, technocratic and probably highly appealing to a coalition of libertarian States and big urban states that have a decently large white population. So that's Idaho but also maybe the governor of New York will be a Republican. States like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio (after Richard Cordray) might move ro the Republican Party. Maybe the South will have some heavily Republican states. I don't know exactly.

In history, New England and the Midwest + New York formed the resistance to the southern dominated Jefferson-Jackson Democratic Party. (Actually the Midwest came for the ride later on but it was never that warm to J+J). Then the south formed the resistance and saw the liberal northeasterners join them (it was never exactly a clean geographic movement though). The industrial Republican Party dominated the country everywhere outside the South.

The New Deal era saw Interior West GOPers and Sunbelt Republicans unite against the liberals with auxiliary support in the Midwest and strong support in the upper New England states. Lo and behold the bedrock of the Reagan-Bush majority (except they lost CA, New England, and the Pacific Northwest and then the sunbelt).

Then the Democrats became the coastal party locked out of the Midwest (except Illinois) and the heartland. Reagan's cultural conservatism and economic libertarian ideology won the stretches of land beneath New York and ran all the way to Nevada except Illinois (the Upper Midwest went Republican locally but not for president until 2016).

In short the minority coalition will be situated on whatever states that used to be the strongest of their majority and haven't been co-opted by the majority ideology.

Under the Democratic populist ideology I expect that to play well in Dixie and the Midwest and given the Latino vote the Sunbelt. But I expect the Libertarian states to be royally ticked off so I see the Pacific Northwest, the Northeast and interior Great Plains go Republican.

I do believe the next great Republican realignment would wind up in New York/Pennsylvania and will be a strong Northeastern - Midwest - Interior states - Pacific NW majority but that's in the 2060s and way too difficult to write about.

[ShadowRocket]

How would the Democrats possibly retaking the House in 2018 factor into your timeline, TD? That is seemingly becoming a very real possibility as time goes on.

[The_Doctor]

How would the Democrats possibly retaking the House in 2018 factor into your timeline, TD? That is seemingly becoming a very real possibility as time goes on.

Makes it a 2020 or 2028 realignment; it forecloses 2024. If the Democrats regain the House, either Trump will become a Clinton and the Republicans stabilize around him, leading to his re-election and maybe Pence in 2024 (unlikely*) or he loses, and the realignment is in 2020. Frankly, I'd be shocked and I'd be inclined to think of a 2020 realignment.

*For note, this was the original timeline plan for Walker and Portman. But 2018 was never intended to be a Democratic year, because I strongly believe geographic localities, gerrymandering, and intensity of partisanship will keep the House and Senate in GOP hands.

[Pericles]

For international elections, maybe the UK polls end up underestimating the Labour vote and Theresa May still wins but not by a landslide?

[The_Doctor]

For international elections, maybe the UK polls end up underestimating the Labour vote and Theresa May still wins but not by a landslide?

I don't know - but she'll win strongly because she has 3 factors going for her (1) the populist right has no other alternative but her (2) she heads the center-right (3) the center-left/left are squabbling. So she'll win big. My article will pretty much say that the center-right holds a veto over the far right. America's center-right let Donnie T. win and the populists win. But in other countries, the center-right has checked them (not consistently: India's populist right was allowed to win).

I haven't finished the article because I need to figure out a framework in which the Left wins. But consistently, from what I'm finding, the populist right's chances hinge on the center-right agreeing to go along. When they disagree, the Left wins. See: France, Hungary.

But, for example, Ecuador's an interesting example of the populist left winning, incidentally. A banker was beaten by a vice president of a very successful populist president. Trudeau might be another example.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Wait...if a Democrat gets reelected in 2020 but the Crisis happens during his or her term, won't that discredit the Dems' economic message and screw up (or even stop) the realignment?

[The_Doctor]

Wait...if a Democrat gets reelected in 2020 but the Crisis happens during his or her term, won't that discredit the Dems' economic message and screw up (or even stop) the realignment?

Potentially but I don't think the Democrats are gonna come back until the crisis so…

In general to my readers how does the timeline look 5 months in in terms of predictions leading up to May 2017? The five months article of Trump ends this month.

[Virginiá]

In general to my readers how does the timeline look 5 months in in terms of predictions leading up to May 2017? The five months article of Trump ends this month.

It's pretty decent so far, but I still think the midterm is going to be a lot harder on Republicans than your TL prediction. We are already seeing consistent figures for various poll questions that indicate a potential wave situation. In fact at this point, if a wave doesn't happen, it would almost seem more like luck / good timing, rather than a more fundamental/structural reason.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Wait...if a Democrat gets reelected in 2020 but the Crisis happens during his or her term, won't that discredit the Dems' economic message and screw up (or even stop) the realignment?

Potentially but I don't think the Democrats are gonna come back until the crisis so…

Considering that Trump is faring very poorly even against "bad" Democratic candidates (source), it's likely (even if not certain) that he'll lose in 2020. Interestingly, that would place them in a no-win situation again - either they lose in 2020, or they win and face the Crisis, continuing the Reaganite era for who knows how long.

That said, I'm looking forwards to your analysis of globalization and the working class, especially that of China and India. Conventional wisdom says that they were the winners of globalization, free trade, and neoliberal economic policies (at expense of the Western working class), so it'll be interesting to see how much you'll support or disabuse of this notion.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Wait...if a Democrat gets reelected in 2020 but the Crisis happens during his or her term, won't that discredit the Dems' economic message and screw up (or even stop) the realignment?

Potentially but I don't think the Democrats are gonna come back until the crisis so…

Considering that Trump is faring very poorly even against "bad" Democratic candidates (source), it's likely (even if not certain) that he'll lose in 2020. Interestingly, that would place them in a no-win situation again - either they lose in 2020, or they win and face the Crisis, continuing the Reaganite era for who knows how long.

That said, I'm looking forwards to your analysis of globalization and the working class, especially that of China and India. Conventional wisdom says that they were the winners of globalization, free trade, and neoliberal economic policies (at expense of the Western working class), so it'll be interesting to see how much you'll support or disabuse of this notion.

You know he has Pence as the nominee in 2020 right?

I was thinking in real-world terms, as I personally don't think that Pence will replace Trump before 2020. That said, even if Trump is removed or resigns, that doesn't mean Pence is certain to win the presidency again, especially if the fallout from a Trump failure casts a shadow over his run.

[Former President tack50]

How would the Democrats possibly retaking the House in 2018 factor into your timeline, TD? That is seemingly becoming a very real possibility as time goes on.

Makes it a 2020 or 2028 realignment; it forecloses 2024. If the Democrats regain the House, either Trump will become a Clinton and the Republicans stabilize around him, leading to his re-election and maybe Pence in 2024 (unlikely*) or he loses, and the realignment is in 2020. Frankly, I'd be shocked and I'd be inclined to think of a 2020 realignment.

*For note, this was the original timeline plan for Walker and Portman. But 2018 was never intended to be a Democratic year, because I strongly believe geographic localities, gerrymandering, and intensity of partisanship will keep the House and Senate in GOP hands.

Maybe Democrats do win the house, but Pence still wins the election in 2020 and everything happens like in the timeline? (maybe with republicans retaking the house in 2020)

[The_Doctor]

How would the Democrats possibly retaking the House in 2018 factor into your timeline, TD? That is seemingly becoming a very real possibility as time goes on.

Makes it a 2020 or 2028 realignment; it forecloses 2024. If the Democrats regain the House, either Trump will become a Clinton and the Republicans stabilize around him, leading to his re-election and maybe Pence in 2024 (unlikely*) or he loses, and the realignment is in 2020. Frankly, I'd be shocked and I'd be inclined to think of a 2020 realignment.

*For note, this was the original timeline plan for Walker and Portman. But 2018 was never intended to be a Democratic year, because I strongly believe geographic localities, gerrymandering, and intensity of partisanship will keep the House and Senate in GOP hands.

Maybe Democrats do win the house, but Pence still wins the election in 2020 and everything happens like in the timeline? (maybe with republicans retaking the house in 2020)

That's plausible, yes.

[Frodo]

Given that Donald Trump is essentially Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter rolled into one, I have to ask this:

What do you think will be Trump (or Pence)'s version of the Iran hostage crisis? 

[The_Doctor]

Given that Donald Trump is essentially Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter rolled into one, I have to ask this:

What do you think will be Trump (or Pence)'s version of the Iran hostage crisis? 

I thought of creating a foreign policy crisis but I don't really have an answer at this point. The United States will be definitely anti Russia post Trump -- the revelations around 2016 will make further Republican and Democratic Presidents hostile to Russia. George Friedman said in 2011 that our Russian obsession would last until 2025 and he's right. There's a reason President Cordray “succeeds” on Russia by the late 2020s.

Tangent aside the 1800 realignment had a foreign policy angle (France versus Britain) as did the 1980 one (Iran). 1860 and 1932 didn't, unless you count the Great Depression as an international event.

If there is a crisis it probably may in fact be a Republican President screwing to a terrorist attack or hostage situation or a bioterror/EMP plot. The Republican Party has been highly focused on dealing with Islamic terrorism. A crisis featuring a failure here would seriously undermine the Party's credentials. But the foreign policy crisis doesn't always correlate with the governing majority's priorities and so on so it could be random.

There is an outside chance that we could see a crisis testing the GOP's ability to handle an increasingly globalized and interconnected world meaning that said crisis could propel the Democrats into power. 1980 showcased how weak the Democrats were on foreign policy and shifted the national security card to the GOP.

[CapoteMonster]

Are you still planning to work on a hypothetical Dem house map in this timeline?

[The_Doctor]

Are you still planning to work on a hypothetical Dem house map in this timeline?

You mean 2023 or 2025? There's been so many posts here so can you remind me?

[The_Doctor]

TD, wouldn't the next Republican President revamp a good amount of support in traditional GOP areas?

The pattern seems to be that the first minority coalition President (Grover Cleveland, Eisenhower, Clinton) all won by winning back states that made up the bedrock of when they were the former dominant coalition. Cleveland won the Jefferson-Jacksonian South, Eisenhower won the Lincoln-McKinley north, and Bill Clinton won large chunks of the Deep south and northeast from the FDR-Kennedy era.

How would this play out for the first minority coalition President in the Cordray era? They take back the interior plains in full, but what other areas of the Reagan-Bush era do they take back? I'm guessing they take parts of former Republican strongholds in Appalachia, the Deep South, and the sunbelt. Or do they instead lose most of the South, Appalachia, and sunbelt and instead concentrate much more on the Midwest and northeast?

I haven't forgotten this question or my AMA question from you. Just need time to put together things beyond a rapid fire answer.

[The_Doctor]

Also I hope to upload all my old articles by June so you can read the Walker timeline.