Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 26, 2017, 11:49:30 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginia)
| | |-+  Would you agree with this list of political eras and realignments
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Would you agree with this list of political eras and realignments  (Read 1088 times)
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6359


View Profile
« on: May 18, 2017, 04:15:03 pm »
Ignore

1788-1826: The Era of the Founders : This era was dominated by politicians who were among our founding fathers and subscribed to the same ideology as them  .This era ended in the 1826 election when the Democratic-Republican Party split

1826-1856: The era of Jacksonian Politics : This era was dominated by the Democratic Party , whose policy were based on the ideology and principles of the Andrew Jackson administration . This era  ended with the extremely close 1856 election

1856-1894: The Era of Division and Polarization :
This era was dominated by how polarized American politics was , with nearly every election in this era with the exceptions of 1868 and 1872 , and nearly every president was very polarizing and most only were able to serve one term. This era ended with the 1894 Republican landslide.

1894-1930: Republican Dominance  : This era was dominated by the Republican party who controlled the White House for nearly this entire period and controlled both houses of congress for all but 8 years  in this period. This era though wasnt a conservative or an interventionist foreign policy era as 16 of these 36 years a progressive was in the white house, and an isolationist was in the white house. This era ended with the 1930 election which resulted in the Democrats winning big in that years midterm election.

1930-1968: Era of Liberalism : This era was dominated by the New Deal Coalition, Unions , and Liberal Politics .  In this era you saw many government programs get implemented, taxes getting massively raised  , and government take a much larger role in shaping the US economy. This era ended with the 1968 election which saw the south dealign from the democratic and Nixon win .

1968-2004: The Rise of Conservatism : This era resulted in a slow but steady rise of conservatism in the United States. Beginning with Nixon Law and Order , then moving on with the Reagan Revolution , and finally peaking with the 1994 Republican Revolution, this era saw taxes get dramatically cut, unions get curbed , and government take a smaller role in the economy. This era ended with the extremely ideologically  polarizing 2004 election .

2004-Present: The Era of Division and Polarization II: This era has been dominated by how polarizing US politics have become and how deeply despised each president is by at least 45% of the country. This era would be dominated by gridlock and neither side getting what they want.
Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1452
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2017, 04:33:07 pm »
Ignore

Good analysis. I might add that the America of 1968 (I don't remember--I was 2) was the most optimistic society perhaps in history: moon landings, the belief that we could overcome poverty and racial strife, movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Even as the 1960s became the 1970s, the general consensus was that we were going through a little rough patch and that things would be fine. I don't sense that same sense of optimism today.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6359


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2017, 04:37:06 pm »
Ignore

Good analysis. I might add that the America of 1968 (I don't remember--I was 2) was the most optimistic society perhaps in history: moon landings, the belief that we could overcome poverty and racial strife, movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Even as the 1960s became the 1970s, the general consensus was that we were going through a little rough patch and that things would be fine. I don't sense that same sense of optimism today.

I hope this new era doenst last as long as other era's or we will be in this era until 2036-2040
Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2566


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2017, 11:37:30 pm »
Ignore

I think this is a good way of looking at it. There's a few ways of examining American political party history.

Personally I like TD's analysis of Between Two Majorities (first page of the thread) where he explains it in far more detail than I could:

Jefferson-Jackson Agrarian Democrats: 1800-1860
Lincoln McKinley Industrial Republicans: 1860-1932
FDR New Deal Democrats: 1932-1980
Reagan Republican Revolutionaries: 1980-Now

While 1980-2016 seems quite hyper partisan, I think the Reagan agenda has been put to the forefront of most Presidencies. Obama and Clinton both lost the congress two years into their term and had to move hard to the center. Tip O'Neill worked well with Reagan and ultimately Reagan got much of his agenda through. Bill Clinton shifted the Democrats hard to the center and away from their New Deal FDR roots.

While the GOP has lost the popular vote 6/7 presidential elections, that doesn't really matter given how the electoral college works. Also they've won a majority of midterms going back to 1994.
Logged

liberal hawk coalition



Henry Jackson Society
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6359


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2017, 12:44:55 am »
Ignore

I think this is a good way of looking at it. There's a few ways of examining American political party history.

Personally I like TD's analysis of Between Two Majorities (first page of the thread) where he explains it in far more detail than I could:

Jefferson-Jackson Agrarian Democrats: 1800-1860
Lincoln McKinley Industrial Republicans: 1860-1932
FDR New Deal Democrats: 1932-1980
Reagan Republican Revolutionaries: 1980-Now

While 1980-2016 seems quite hyper partisan, I think the Reagan agenda has been put to the forefront of most Presidencies. Obama and Clinton both lost the congress two years into their term and had to move hard to the center. Tip O'Neill worked well with Reagan and ultimately Reagan got much of his agenda through. Bill Clinton shifted the Democrats hard to the center and away from their New Deal FDR roots.

While the GOP has lost the popular vote 6/7 presidential elections, that doesn't really matter given how the electoral college works. Also they've won a majority of midterms going back to 1994.

No I think the conservative era was from 1968-2004 not now as since 2004 we haven't gotten much conservative legislation either . While even in Nixon presidency it was clear we moved right on lots of legislation.

Also I don't feel 1860-1896 should be lumped with 1896-1932 as the latter clearly had the republicans dominate all three branches while 1860-1896 were all close and very polarizing even more then today .
Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2566


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2017, 12:49:27 am »
Ignore

I think this is a good way of looking at it. There's a few ways of examining American political party history.

Personally I like TD's analysis of Between Two Majorities (first page of the thread) where he explains it in far more detail than I could:

Jefferson-Jackson Agrarian Democrats: 1800-1860
Lincoln McKinley Industrial Republicans: 1860-1932
FDR New Deal Democrats: 1932-1980
Reagan Republican Revolutionaries: 1980-Now

While 1980-2016 seems quite hyper partisan, I think the Reagan agenda has been put to the forefront of most Presidencies. Obama and Clinton both lost the congress two years into their term and had to move hard to the center. Tip O'Neill worked well with Reagan and ultimately Reagan got much of his agenda through. Bill Clinton shifted the Democrats hard to the center and away from their New Deal FDR roots.

While the GOP has lost the popular vote 6/7 presidential elections, that doesn't really matter given how the electoral college works. Also they've won a majority of midterms going back to 1994.

No I think the conservative era was from 1968-2004 not now as since 2004 we haven't gotten much conservative legislation either . While even in Nixon presidency it was clear we moved right on lots of legislation.

Also I don't feel 1860-1896 should be lumped with 1896-1932 as the latter clearly had the republicans dominate all three branches while 1860-1896 were all close and very polarizing even more then today .

How so? Nixon established the EPA and was confined by his Democratic New Deal Congress. We should be seeing a lot of conservative legislation go through right now if it weren't for Trump's never ending rollercoaster of scandals.

Obama did extend the Bush tax cuts even for the wealthy his first two years and did cut the deficit by 2/3's.

1860-1896 had only one man elected as a Democratic President. The GOP won 8/10 presidential elections in that period.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 12:53:43 am by Technocratic Timmy »Logged

liberal hawk coalition



Henry Jackson Society
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6359


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2017, 01:19:46 am »
Ignore

I think this is a good way of looking at it. There's a few ways of examining American political party history.

Personally I like TD's analysis of Between Two Majorities (first page of the thread) where he explains it in far more detail than I could:

Jefferson-Jackson Agrarian Democrats: 1800-1860
Lincoln McKinley Industrial Republicans: 1860-1932
FDR New Deal Democrats: 1932-1980
Reagan Republican Revolutionaries: 1980-Now

While 1980-2016 seems quite hyper partisan, I think the Reagan agenda has been put to the forefront of most Presidencies. Obama and Clinton both lost the congress two years into their term and had to move hard to the center. Tip O'Neill worked well with Reagan and ultimately Reagan got much of his agenda through. Bill Clinton shifted the Democrats hard to the center and away from their New Deal FDR roots.

While the GOP has lost the popular vote 6/7 presidential elections, that doesn't really matter given how the electoral college works. Also they've won a majority of midterms going back to 1994.

No I think the conservative era was from 1968-2004 not now as since 2004 we haven't gotten much conservative legislation either . While even in Nixon presidency it was clear we moved right on lots of legislation.

Also I don't feel 1860-1896 should be lumped with 1896-1932 as the latter clearly had the republicans dominate all three branches while 1860-1896 were all close and very polarizing even more then today .

How so? Nixon established the EPA and was confined by his Democratic New Deal Congress. We should be seeing a lot of conservative legislation go through right now if it weren't for Trump's never ending rollercoaster of scandals.

Obama did extend the Bush tax cuts even for the wealthy his first two years and did cut the deficit by 2/3's.

1860-1896 had only one man elected as a Democratic President. The GOP won 8/10 presidential elections in that period.

Yes but Democrats controlled congress for much of that period as well and look at how close each election was in that period .



Obama let the tax cuts expire on the top 2%. He also expanded medicaid , put stricter regulations on the economy , and lastly moved the country significantly to the left on social issues.

 Are you also forgetting that under Nixon we began the War on Drugs , nixon cut the top rates from 77% to 70%(http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/d/a/Richard-Nixon),he proposed the new federalism and dramatically increased war powers of the presidency and ended the Bretton Woods era.



I would definitely argue that 1856-1894 was an era of polarization and not era of Republicans while 2004-Present has not been an era of conservatism but era of polarization.




« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 01:22:15 am by Old School Republican »Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2566


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2017, 05:11:04 am »
Ignore

I think this is a good way of looking at it. There's a few ways of examining American political party history.

Personally I like TD's analysis of Between Two Majorities (first page of the thread) where he explains it in far more detail than I could:

Jefferson-Jackson Agrarian Democrats: 1800-1860
Lincoln McKinley Industrial Republicans: 1860-1932
FDR New Deal Democrats: 1932-1980
Reagan Republican Revolutionaries: 1980-Now

While 1980-2016 seems quite hyper partisan, I think the Reagan agenda has been put to the forefront of most Presidencies. Obama and Clinton both lost the congress two years into their term and had to move hard to the center. Tip O'Neill worked well with Reagan and ultimately Reagan got much of his agenda through. Bill Clinton shifted the Democrats hard to the center and away from their New Deal FDR roots.

While the GOP has lost the popular vote 6/7 presidential elections, that doesn't really matter given how the electoral college works. Also they've won a majority of midterms going back to 1994.

No I think the conservative era was from 1968-2004 not now as since 2004 we haven't gotten much conservative legislation either . While even in Nixon presidency it was clear we moved right on lots of legislation.

Also I don't feel 1860-1896 should be lumped with 1896-1932 as the latter clearly had the republicans dominate all three branches while 1860-1896 were all close and very polarizing even more then today .

How so? Nixon established the EPA and was confined by his Democratic New Deal Congress. We should be seeing a lot of conservative legislation go through right now if it weren't for Trump's never ending rollercoaster of scandals.

Obama did extend the Bush tax cuts even for the wealthy his first two years and did cut the deficit by 2/3's.

1860-1896 had only one man elected as a Democratic President. The GOP won 8/10 presidential elections in that period.

Yes but Democrats controlled congress for much of that period as well and look at how close each election was in that period .


The policies that generally got through for the country were policies that benefitted northern industry over southern plantation owners. Much of the Democrats ability to keep elections competitive came from cross over votes in the north but most legislation in that time period still benefitted the northern republican base over the southern democrats. This is quite similar to the blue dog Democrats during the Reagan era pushing through conservative legislation.

Obama let the tax cuts expire on the top 2%. He also expanded medicaid , put stricter regulations on the economy , and lastly moved the country significantly to the left on social issues.

I don't think the President alone can singlehandedly move a country leftwards on social issues. Most of Obama's progressive policy came only during his first two terms in office. His last six years were defined much more by defecit reduction, trying to get a free trade deal passed, drone strikes, etc.

 Are you also forgetting that under Nixon we began the War on Drugs , nixon cut the top rates from 77% to 70%(http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/d/a/Richard-Nixon),he proposed the new federalism and dramatically increased war powers of the presidency and ended the Bretton Woods era.

JFK also cut the top marginal tax rate by an even greater percentage than that, LBJ oversaw Vietnam (and generally speaking it was the Democratic Party at the time that was more interventionist militarily, so the idea of this being a conservative virtue isn't true).

I would definitely argue that 1856-1894 was an era of polarization and not era of Republicans while 2004-Present has not been an era of conservatism but era of polarization.

It was certainly an era with policies that prioritized the needs of the northern Republican industrialist base over the desires of the southern Democrats.

I have a very hard time believing that 2008-2010 couldn't be anything but a deeply rooted reflection of Joan conservative the country was given that the GOP could leave office with a President in the low 30's/high 20's while overseeing a disastrous war, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, etc.

...and somehow manage to win back congress in 2010 in the largest wave since the 1930's. That's a very clear cut sign that the Reagan era in politics is still the dominant force in this country. Obama's approval rating was nearly twice that of Bush yet the country threw the Democrats out of office during his term with the same level of condemnation as they did for Bush and the GOP.


« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 05:12:42 am by Technocratic Timmy »Logged

liberal hawk coalition



Henry Jackson Society
Virginia
Virginia C
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7144
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2017, 11:27:06 am »

...and somehow manage to win back congress in 2010 in the largest wave since the 1930's. That's a very clear cut sign that the Reagan era in politics is still the dominant force in this country. Obama's approval rating was nearly twice that of Bush yet the country threw the Democrats out of office during his term with the same level of condemnation as they did for Bush and the GOP.[/color]

Wouldn't the Democrats success downballot from 1986 - 1992, at the time, serve as a similar argument that we weren't in a new era? Although, I suppose GHWB's election would also be a counterargument. I think you are right that we are still milling about in the Reagan era, but the 2010 election alone doesn't seem like the best angle. The timing of the beginning of Obama's presidency meant that Democrats had to absorb a lot of anger, as the recession was still going on when he took office. In light of that, the PPACA was probably bad timing, even if well-intentioned. All of that was bound to be hard on Democrats, and all things considered, their House PV loss wasn't as drastic as the actual offices lost would suggest.

Also, and I know I'm nitpicking here (Tongue), but I'd say 1958 and 1974 were bigger waves if you consider more than just the House of Representatives. Democrats gained 15 Senate (almost 19) seats in '58, and both waves had huge implications at the state level.
Logged

Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2566


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2017, 11:51:12 am »
Ignore

...and somehow manage to win back congress in 2010 in the largest wave since the 1930's. That's a very clear cut sign that the Reagan era in politics is still the dominant force in this country. Obama's approval rating was nearly twice that of Bush yet the country threw the Democrats out of office during his term with the same level of condemnation as they did for Bush and the GOP.[/color]

Wouldn't the Democrats success downballot from 1986 - 1992, at the time, serve as a similar argument that we weren't in a new era? Although, I suppose GHWB's election would also be a counterargument. I think you are right that we are still milling about in the Reagan era,

Not necessarily. Tip O'Neill and the Democrats of that era worked very well with Reagan and Bush even in spite of how far right Reagan was considered when he won in 1980. By comparison, today's GOP wouldn't work at all with Obama and were ultimately rewarded for their obstinance in the short and long run.

Tip O'Neill worked with Reagan to get a lot of the President's agenda through and the Democrats did quite well for themselves as a result. But in doing this they made it clear that we were in a new era of politics that had gone from FDR New Dealism to Reaganism. Bill Clinton was the final harbinger of that.

Obama wasn't able to usher in a new era since the GOP both refused to work with him (unlike the 80's Democrats with Reagan) and because the GOP weren't swept out of office (the way the GOP in the 30's were when they refused to work with FDR.)


but the 2010 election alone doesn't seem like the best angle. The timing of the beginning of Obama's presidency meant that Democrats had to absorb a lot of anger, as the recession was still going on when he took office. In light of that, the PPACA was probably bad timing, even if well-intentioned. All of that was bound to be hard on Democrats, and all things considered, their House PV loss wasn't as drastic as the actual offices lost would suggest.

Yes, but it was quite a turnaround for the GOP after carrying the legacy of George W. Bush just two years prior. Given how dominant FDR's Democratic Party was or how influential Reagan's ideology was on the 1980's/1990's Democrats, I think Obama clearly falls short in either regard.

Obama's very Nixonian. He posed a forewarning that the given era was beginning to end (Nixon making cracks in the New Deal coalition; Obama in the Reagan coalition) but even then their Party suffered especially when they themselves were not on the ballot. Because they were clear threats to the political eras, they dealt with opposition Party congresses that were very hostile to them and much of their agenda. What enabled Obama was Bush. What enabled Nixon was LBJ.


Also, and I know I'm nitpicking here (Tongue), but I'd say 1958 and 1974 were bigger waves if you consider more than just the House of Representatives. Democrats gained 15 Senate (almost 19) seats in '58, and both waves had huge implications at the state level.

This is true at the senate and state level. The New Deal coalition was much more far reaching than the Reagan coalition was. In this sense I guess I could see the Reagan era ending sooner in 2020. That would be only 40 years compared to the FDR era which lasted 48 years. I'm torn on this though. On one hand millennials will make up just under 40% of the electorate in 2020 and polls show that progressive policies are popular with the American people as a whole. On the other hand, unions have been decimated and many of those workers are going to the GOP. Gun owners, evangelical christians, nativists, and baby boomers are not shrinking fast enough to lead me to believe that they'll be outnumbered anytime soon. So idk Tongue
Logged

liberal hawk coalition



Henry Jackson Society
Virginia
Virginia C
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7144
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2017, 12:00:33 pm »

Not necessarily. Tip O'Neill and the Democrats of that era worked very well with Reagan and Bush even in spite of how far right Reagan was considered when he won in 1980. By comparison, today's GOP wouldn't work at all with Obama and were ultimately rewarded for their obstinance in the short and long run.

Actually that is a good point. I'd like to think of a time that happened in reverse, but the New Deal realignment was and all-in-one deal, all at the same time.

This is true at the senate and state level. The New Deal coalition was much more far reaching than the Reagan coalition was. In this sense I guess I could see the Reagan era ending sooner in 2020. That would be only 40 years compared to the FDR era which lasted 48 years. I'm torn on this though. On one hand millennials will make up just under 40% of the electorate in 2020 and polls show that progressive policies are popular with the American people as a whole. On the other hand, unions have been decimated and many of those workers are going to the GOP. Gun owners, evangelical christians, nativists, and baby boomers are not shrinking fast enough to lead me to believe that they'll be outnumbered anytime soon. So idk Tongue

This is why I had pestered TD if a realignment could occur earlier than the electorate was fully ready for. Given everything we are seeing, it's really not a stretch to imagine a Democrat taking back the White House with a sizable win (perhaps 2008-like) in 2020, and then proceeding to fully realize the implications of generational turnover in 2024. I agree that 2024 is probably going to be the most consequential display of Millennial/GenX political power, but in 2020 they will still be strong as well, keeping in mind that Democrats don't just have a slight advantage among these groups - in fact, they regularly pull in landslide margins. After Trump, I'd be willing to bet the 2020 Democrat, if the right choice, could be gifted with Obama '08-like margins among 18-29 year olds, and similar with 30-40 year olds, given that those voters are the 18-29s of the Obama era.

Though, I might be a little optimistic in light of recent events Roll Eyes
Logged

Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2566


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2017, 12:18:49 pm »
Ignore

I've been mulling over TD's timeline for some time and I'm starting to think that 2020 could be the year. I think 2028 has likely been foreclosed on.

One thing I can be pretty sure on in 2020 is that the Democrats will most likely nominate a progressive. Brown, Warren, etc. somebody from that wing of the Party. Ultimately 2020 will be a referendum on if America is ready for such a radical agenda that breaks strongly from the current political consensus. If they are not (and Pence hasn't been implicated by Trumps scandals) then I think Pence will win in 2020.

Foreign affairs, Trumps far reaching effects, and when the business cycle recession occurs are all important factors that will decide whether or not the American people will accept this new political consensus in 2020.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 12:22:14 pm by Technocratic Timmy »Logged

liberal hawk coalition



Henry Jackson Society
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6359


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2017, 12:49:58 pm »
Ignore

I've been mulling over TD's timeline for some time and I'm starting to think that 2020 could be the year. I think 2028 has likely been foreclosed on.

One thing I can be pretty sure on in 2020 is that the Democrats will most likely nominate a progressive. Brown, Warren, etc. somebody from that wing of the Party. Ultimately 2020 will be a referendum on if America is ready for such a radical agenda that breaks strongly from the current political consensus. If they are not (and Pence hasn't been implicated by Trumps scandals) then I think Pence will win in 2020.

Foreign affairs, Trumps far reaching effects, and when the business cycle happens are all important factors that will decide whether or not the American people will accept this a political consensus in 2020.

If Dems want to create an ideological realignment they will
Have to nominate a governor . FDR and Reagan ( if going by yours ) were able to create and ideological realignment since being governors of the largest state in the union had the experience needed to do that .

McKinley on the other hand was not able to create an ideological realignment as we had progressives such as teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson easily able to pass their agenda .
Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2566


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2017, 01:04:06 pm »
Ignore

I've been mulling over TD's timeline for some time and I'm starting to think that 2020 could be the year. I think 2028 has likely been foreclosed on.

One thing I can be pretty sure on in 2020 is that the Democrats will most likely nominate a progressive. Brown, Warren, etc. somebody from that wing of the Party. Ultimately 2020 will be a referendum on if America is ready for such a radical agenda that breaks strongly from the current political consensus. If they are not (and Pence hasn't been implicated by Trumps scandals) then I think Pence will win in 2020.

Foreign affairs, Trumps far reaching effects, and when the business cycle happens are all important factors that will decide whether or not the American people will accept this a political consensus in 2020.

If Dems want to create an ideological realignment they will
Have to nominate a governor . FDR and Reagan ( if going by yours ) were able to create and ideological realignment since being governors of the largest state in the union had the experience needed to do that .

McKinley on the other hand was not able to create an ideological realignment as we had progressives such as teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson easily able to pass their agenda .

Mckinley was a continuation of Lincoln's GOP. Although it seems like majority coalitions have two phases:


Within the majority coalition there's usually a first and second half right? Jefferson-Jackson Democrats had the Founders and the Democrats. Lincoln-McKinley had the Civil War radical Republicans and the Industrialists. The Roosevelt-Kennedy era had the New Deal and the New Frontier/Great Society (which is the same agenda). The Reagan-Bush era saw the Cold Warriors and the War on Terror hawks.
 


But yes, a Governor is far more likely to be a realigning Democratic President. I think Lincoln was only a senator/representative though.
Logged

liberal hawk coalition



Henry Jackson Society
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3835
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2017, 01:12:47 pm »
Ignore

1st Party System - Foundational Underpinnings:  1776-1800
2nd Party System - Jefferson and Jackson:  1800-1860
3rd Party System - Land of Lincoln:  1860-1896
4th Party System - Populists and Progressives:  1896-1932
5th Party System - The New Deal Coalition:  1932-1968
6th Party System - Conservative Resurgence:  1968-2008
7th Party System - An Hourglass Coalition:  2008-present
Logged

2017/18 Gubernatorial Endorsements:
AL - Kay Ivey (R)
CA - Gavin Newsom (D)
FL - Adam Putnam (R)
GA - Brian Kemp (R)
ID - Brad Little (R)
MI - Bill Schutte (R)
TN - Randy Boyd (R)

VA - Ed Gillespie (R)
AKCreative
Nyvin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2277
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2017, 01:27:39 pm »
Ignore

1896 to 1920 needs to be separated from 1921 to 1930.   The two are really, really different.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 01:29:15 pm by AKCreative »Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2566


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2017, 01:36:33 pm »
Ignore

1896 to 1920 needs to be separated from 1921 to 1930.   The two are really, really different.

This is pretty much why Party eras are very subjective. Unless there's a clear cut date (1932) where one Party goes from dominance then abrubtly switches, almost any analysis of political eras can be called into question.
Logged

liberal hawk coalition



Henry Jackson Society
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6359


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2017, 02:52:44 pm »
Ignore

1896 to 1920 needs to be separated from 1921 to 1930.   The two are really, really different.

Thats why I said 1896 was a party realignment and not an ideological one.
Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
Da-Jon-Ben Jealous & Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16461
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2017, 01:16:22 am »
Ignore

1776-1865 Jeffersonian Agricultural Conservative Slavery Era

1865-1905 Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt Urban ERA

1905-1940  Conservative Hoover/Taft Banking ERA followed by the Depression ERA

1940-1975 LBJ-Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights ERA

1975-2004 Nixon/Reagan ERA

2004-present Millineal/Obama-ERA of Polarization and Immigration
« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 01:19:56 am by Da-Jon »Logged
NHI
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5452


P P P

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2017, 09:15:22 am »
Ignore

1776-1865 Jeffersonian Agricultural Conservative Slavery Era

1865-1905 Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt Urban ERA

1905-1940  Conservative Hoover/Taft Banking ERA followed by the Depression ERA

1940-1975 LBJ-Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights ERA

1975-2004 Nixon/Reagan ERA

2004-present Millineal/Obama-ERA of Polarization and Immigration
Logged



Favorite Presidents: FDR, Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, Truman, JFK, TR, Ike
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6903
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -4.70

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2017, 12:56:52 pm »
Ignore

1776-1865 Jeffersonian Agricultural Conservative Slavery Era

1865-1905 Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt Urban ERA

1905-1940  Conservative Hoover/Taft Banking ERA followed by the Depression ERA

1940-1975 LBJ-Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights ERA

1975-2004 Nixon/Reagan ERA

2004-present Millineal/Obama-ERA of Polarization and Immigration

It's a shame any Republican empty-quoted that garbage, implying Lincoln was a liberal.
Logged

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6359


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2017, 01:32:07 pm »
Ignore

1776-1865 Jeffersonian Agricultural Conservative Slavery Era

1865-1905 Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt Urban ERA

1905-1940  Conservative Hoover/Taft Banking ERA followed by the Depression ERA

1940-1975 LBJ-Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights ERA

1975-2004 Nixon/Reagan ERA

2004-present Millineal/Obama-ERA of Polarization and Immigration

It's a shame any Republican empty-quoted that garbage, implying Lincoln was a liberal.

would you agree with my list
Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6903
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -4.70

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2017, 01:35:19 pm »
Ignore

1776-1865 Jeffersonian Agricultural Conservative Slavery Era

1865-1905 Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt Urban ERA

1905-1940  Conservative Hoover/Taft Banking ERA followed by the Depression ERA

1940-1975 LBJ-Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights ERA

1975-2004 Nixon/Reagan ERA

2004-present Millineal/Obama-ERA of Polarization and Immigration

It's a shame any Republican empty-quoted that garbage, implying Lincoln was a liberal.

would you agree with my list

I don't really buy into the notion of anything of major significance actually changing in one year in politics.
Logged

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6359


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2017, 02:09:23 pm »
Ignore

1776-1865 Jeffersonian Agricultural Conservative Slavery Era

1865-1905 Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt Urban ERA

1905-1940  Conservative Hoover/Taft Banking ERA followed by the Depression ERA

1940-1975 LBJ-Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights ERA

1975-2004 Nixon/Reagan ERA

2004-present Millineal/Obama-ERA of Polarization and Immigration

It's a shame any Republican empty-quoted that garbage, implying Lincoln was a liberal.

would you agree with my list

I don't really buy into the notion of anything of major significance actually changing in one year in politics.

Lets look at the years I chose my realignments and what happened those years


1826- Democratic-Republican party splits

1856- The Northern opposition parties to the dominant Democratic party coalesce around the newly created Republican party , leading to a very close race and an era where nearly all elections with exceptions of 1868 and 1872 were close

1894- Republicans gains 100 seats in the house and gain a clear majority in house for first time since 1860s while the Democratic party enters a period of internal civil war.

1930 or 1932- The Great Depression which causes huge amounts of people to leave the GOP at once, and join the dems. If you dont believe this compare the election of 1928 to 1932 both at presidential level and congressional level.

1968- Vietnam War , the south bolts the democratic party with Wallace 3rd party candidacy, 1968 democratic riots cause the New Deal Coalition to come crumbling down allowing Nixon to sweep to victory ushering in a new conservative age as without the south the democrats are unable to win elections in this period.

2004(This one now had been boiling throughout Bush's first term)- Bush's controversial victory in 2000,  Bush ramming his agenda through congress, and the polarizing Iraq War  causes the left to unite to oppose Bush who is hated with passion by 48% of the country but at the same time loved by 48% of the country . This leads to the very polarizing 2004 election where Bush and Kerry just campaign on appealing to their base. 
Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3335
View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2017, 05:11:53 pm »
Ignore

2008 being only a 7 point win for Obama and the GOP winning every close election since 1976 strongly suggests that we are still in the tail end of the Reagan era IMO.  I expect there will be an obvious transition, with a Dem version of 1894 happening in either 2018 or 2022. 

From that chart someone attached, it's interesting how consistently Democrats have done better in the House than anywhere else since the Civil War.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines