If Dukkakis won in '88 would Reagan be viewed like Obama is now

[Hindsight was 2020]

So we have this kinda myth of Reagan as this man beloved by all Americans with this great mandate due to his two landslide wins that kinda ignores that he had two horrible midterms in 82 and 86. Im thinking how while not on the same scale that mirrors Obama but unlike Reagan who handed his VP the keys to the WH when his term was done so his legacy lived while Obama handed the key to Cheeto Mussolini. So Im thinking would Reagan have the same great myth around him had in 88 Dukkakis would be the one taking over after him?

[mieastwick]

Not like Obama is now. Like Bill Clinton is now.

[Matty]

Reagan lost 26 house seats and gained a senate seat in 1982. In 1986, he lost 5 house seats and lost 8 senate seats.

In 2010, Obama lost 63 house seats and 6 senate seats. In 2014, he lost 13 house seats and 9 senate seats.

Reagan: lost 32 house seats during midterms, 7 senate seats during midterms.

Obama: Lost 76 house seats during midterms, 15 senate seats.

Those aren't comparable numbers.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Reagan lost 26 house seats and gained a senate seat in 1982. In 1986, he lost 5 house seats and lost 8 senate seats.

In 2010, Obama lost 63 house seats and 6 senate seats. In 2014, he lost 13 house seats and 9 senate seats.

Reagan: lost 32 house seats during midterms, 7 senate seats during midterms.

Obama: Lost 76 house seats during midterms, 15 senate seats.

Those aren't comparable numbers.

Well major difference the dems where really maxed out at the congressional level by the early 80's then the GOP was in 2009-10

[Mehmentum]

The reason why Reagan is so exalted by Republicans is because he's literally the only Republican president since Eisenhower who wasn't a complete failure/disgrace/lost reelection.  They don't have any other options.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The reason why Reagan is so exalted by Republicans is because he's literally the only Republican president since Eisenhower who wasn't a complete failure/disgrace/lost reelection.  They don't have any other options.

This.

[Matty]

The reason why Reagan is so exalted by Republicans is because he's literally the only Republican president since Eisenhower who wasn't a complete failure/disgrace/lost reelection.  They don't have any other options.

While HW lost reelection, very few would call him a failure or a disgrace.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Reagan was a realigning President. The reason why that wasn't as obvious as it was in say FDR's case is because Tip O'Neill and the Democrats were able to adapt to the new era and work with Reagan whereas the Republicans in the 30's and 40's still fought against FDR's New Deal programs tooth and nail out of sheer stupidity.

The 1994 Republican Revolution made it clear that Reagan had been a realigning President. As does the fact that he created a political environment which forced the opposition Party to moderate drastically to survive. Bill Clinton was forced to govern more like Reagan did than LBJ. Clinton cut the capital gains tax rate, deregulated, supported free trade deals, pushed for tough on crime laws, ended welfare as we know it, etc.

Realigning Presidents are usually succeeded by their own Party (Lincoln, FDR, Reagan) so Bush losing in 1988 would be a huge sign that Reagan didn't actually end the FDR era and become a truly transformative figure in American politics.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Reagan was a realigning President. The reason why that wasn't as obvious as it was in say FDR's case is because Tip O'Neill and the Democrats were able to adapt to the new era and work with Reagan whereas the Republicans in the 30's and 40's still fought against FDR's New Deal programs tooth and nail out of sheer stupidity.

The 1994 Republican Revolution made it clear that Reagan had been a realigning President. As does the fact that he created a political environment which forced the opposition Party to moderate drastically to survive. Bill Clinton was forced to govern more like Reagan did than LBJ. Clinton cut the capital gains tax rate, deregulated, supported free trade deals, pushed for tough on crime laws, ended welfare as we know it, etc.

Realigning Presidents are usually succeeded by their own Party (Lincoln, FDR, Reagan) so Bush losing in 1988 would be a huge sign that Reagan didn't actually end the FDR era and become a truly transformative figure in American politics.

That kinda is what sucks about the dems now is that we could be nearing a dem realignment what with the trending suburbs/Milenials entering the middle class/ growing diversity/Trump as president with Obama legacy as the guy who had to take the heat to open the door to the democratic Reagan but I don't see a Reagan out of this bunch (not to say they can't beat Donald which of course is possible an borderline likely at the rate he's going) but the realignment guy I don't see. What I wouldn't give for Jerry Brown to be 30 years younger.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Reagan was a realigning President. The reason why that wasn't as obvious as it was in say FDR's case is because Tip O'Neill and the Democrats were able to adapt to the new era and work with Reagan whereas the Republicans in the 30's and 40's still fought against FDR's New Deal programs tooth and nail out of sheer stupidity.

The 1994 Republican Revolution made it clear that Reagan had been a realigning President. As does the fact that he created a political environment which forced the opposition Party to moderate drastically to survive. Bill Clinton was forced to govern more like Reagan did than LBJ. Clinton cut the capital gains tax rate, deregulated, supported free trade deals, pushed for tough on crime laws, ended welfare as we know it, etc.

Realigning Presidents are usually succeeded by their own Party (Lincoln, FDR, Reagan) so Bush losing in 1988 would be a huge sign that Reagan didn't actually end the FDR era and become a truly transformative figure in American politics.

That kinda is what sucks about the dems now is that we could be nearing a dem realignment what with the trending suburbs/Milenials entering the middle class/ growing diversity/Trump as president with Obama legacy as the guy who had to take the heat to open the door to the democratic Reagan but I don't see a Reagan out of this bunch (not to say they can't beat Donald which of course is possible an borderline likely at the rate he's going) but the realignment guy I don't see. What I wouldn't give for Jerry Brown to be 30 years younger.

I agree on all points and I think the realignment won't come until 2024 as a result of various factors at play including the ones you mentioned.

I wrote a thread about this which talks about how the economic conditions that led to the late 70's and caused a reaction with the Reagan Revolution has now created a world that looks like the opposite politically and economically from the late 70's and how that should create a populist left reaction.

My second post with the conclusion summarizes what I expect to happen in the 2020's.

[Shadows]

There is a good thread in the Trends section talking about 2016 = 1928 if people want to talk about Re-aligned. Basically Dem primary voters had the next FDR in Bernie & didn't elect him. But I guess that debate belongs in the 2016 = 1928 section in the Trends board!

@ Topic - Possibly, but I agree that is was a re-aligned election in the 80's !

[pbrower2a]

The reason why Reagan is so exalted by Republicans is because he's literally the only Republican president since Eisenhower who wasn't a complete failure/disgrace/lost reelection.  They don't have any other options.

While HW lost reelection, very few would call him a failure or a disgrace.

True. He simply had no coherent idea of what to offer in a second term and ran a lackluster campaign. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

The reason why Reagan is so exalted by Republicans is because he's literally the only Republican president since Eisenhower who wasn't a complete failure/disgrace/lost reelection.  They don't have any other options.

While HW lost reelection, very few would call him a failure or a disgrace.

he lost reelection

[OSR stands with Israel]

Reagan lost 26 house seats and gained a senate seat in 1982. In 1986, he lost 5 house seats and lost 8 senate seats.

In 2010, Obama lost 63 house seats and 6 senate seats. In 2014, he lost 13 house seats and 9 senate seats.

Reagan: lost 32 house seats during midterms, 7 senate seats during midterms.

Obama: Lost 76 house seats during midterms, 15 senate seats.

Those aren't comparable numbers.

I dont think its fair to start with the 1980 or 2008 numbers ,because much of those gains their party made came on Reagan/Obama coat tails. I think its better to start with the 1978 and 2006 numbers as that was the last election before Reagan/Obama became the leaders of their party, and compare it to the 1988/2016 numbers as that was the first election where they were no longer the leaders of their party.


So For Reagan's  these are the numbers before and after

House:

1978 Election: 158 Seats
1988 Election: 175 Seats
Net Change: + 17 Seats

Senate:

1978 Election: 41 seats
1988 Election: 45 Seats
Net Change: +4 Seats

Governors  :

1978 Election: 18 Governorships
1988 Election: 22 Governorships
Net Change : +4 Seats




Now For Obama:

House:

2006 Election: 233 Seats
2016 Election: 194 Seats
Net Change: -39 Seats

Senate:

2006 Election: 51 Seats
2016 Election: 48 Seats
Net Change: -3 Seats

Governors:

2006 Election : 28 Governorships
2016 Election:  16 Governorships
Net Change : -12 Seats


Even though Obama lost seats while Reagan gained Dems are still stronger in Congress now then GOP was in 1988

[KingSweden]

Reagan lost 26 house seats and gained a senate seat in 1982. In 1986, he lost 5 house seats and lost 8 senate seats.

In 2010, Obama lost 63 house seats and 6 senate seats. In 2014, he lost 13 house seats and 9 senate seats.

Reagan: lost 32 house seats during midterms, 7 senate seats during midterms.

Obama: Lost 76 house seats during midterms, 15 senate seats.

Those aren't comparable numbers.

Reagan destroyed the Republican Party at the local level. By 1990, Republicans had total control of only 6 state legislatures

Which ones?

[Sumner 1868]

There's more case for Ike, Nixon, or even W. being "realignment" presidents.