Would you agree with this list of political eras and realignments

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

[Technocracy Timmy]

...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 (), 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

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

2008 was only a 7 point victory cause obama was facing McCain who is one of the most liked republicans in the country . If he faced someone like Giuliani it would have been an 9-10 point obama victory and if he faced dubya it would be a 14-15 point obama victory

If Obama had faced somebody younger who hadn't been in Washington for decades (perhaps Romney) then 2008 could've been closer.

Anyhow, the fact that McCain and Obama were running neck and neck right before the financial crisis hit even though Bush's approval rating was in the toilet really goes to show how strong the Republican Party is in this era. Sweeping congress in 2010 just two years after Bush left office reinforces that.

Obama also didn't improve on his 2008 margin in his reelection his whereas most Presidents do better in their reelection bids (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, JFK (had he lived and faced Goldwater in 64'), Eisenhower, FDR, etc.)

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

2008 was only a 7 point victory cause obama was facing McCain who is one of the most liked republicans in the country . If he faced someone like Giuliani it would have been an 9-10 point obama victory and if he faced dubya it would be a 14-15 point obama victory

If Obama had faced somebody younger who hadn't been in Washington for decades (perhaps Romney) then 2008 could've been closer.

Anyhow, the fact that McCain and Obama were running neck and neck right before the financial crisis hit even though Bush's approval rating was in the toilet really goes to show how strong the Republican Party is in this era. Sweeping congress in 2010 just two years after Bush left office reinforces that.

Obama also didn't improve on his 2008 margin in his reelection his whereas most Presidents do better in their reelection bids (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, JFK (had he lived and faced Goldwater in 64'), Eisenhower, FDR, etc.)

Reagan in 1980 likely also doesn't beat Kennedy by more then 7-8 points .

Also just like obama Reagan lost Huge in the 1982 midterms

There's a big difference between 2010 and 1982 though. Democrats in the 80's drifted from their New Deal roots, moderated, and worked with Reagan and helped get much of his agenda passed which allowed him to win in a landslide in 1984. Republicans in 2010 refused to work with Obama at every turn, stuck to their decades long Reagan ideology and proceeded to cut Obama's 2012 margin almost in half while sweeping to a federal trifecta by 2016.

Democrats won in the 80's by adapting to Reagan's ideology thus cementing Reagan as a realigning President who ushered in a new era (along with Bush's victory in 88'). Republicans won in the 2010's by repudiating Obama's ideology and winning a federal trifecta when he left office, thus reaffirming that the Reagan era was still alive in the short run.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I really don't see how 2004-onwards is an era of polarization when a Democratic President who left office almost twice as popular as Bush got treated the same at the ballot box. Politics is all about coalition building, and from 2004-onwards, the GOP has proven that they have a far, far more durable coalition that actually shows up to vote. That's why they always win close elections. That's why opinion polls can show a country that's inching more and more to the left on various issues but the republicans are in the most dominant position they've been in since the 1920's.

The Obama coalition is the only coalition thus far that has cracked the Reagan coalition. But that is not a Democratic coalition as we saw in 2016: it's Obama's coalition. And it's only his until proven otherwise.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I really don't see how 2004-onwards is an era of polarization when a Democratic President who left office almost twice as popular as Bush got treated the same at the ballot box. Politics is all about coalition building, and from 2004-onwards, the GOP has proven that they have a far, far more durable coalition that actually shows up to vote. That's why they always win close elections. That's why opinion polls can show a country that's inching more and more to the left on various issues but the republicans are in the most dominant position they've been in since the 1920's.

The Obama coalition is the only coalition thus far that has cracked the Reagan coalition. But that is not a Democratic coalition as we saw in 2016: it's Obama's coalition. And it's only his until proven otherwise.

Yah no

Dems had 59  seats in Senate after Bush GOP only has 52 now, and dems had 257 seats in the house while gop only has 241.


2010 should have been much much worse then it was if you look at how bad the conditions in the country was that year, its actually a success for the democrats  that 2010 was not worse then 1994 and they didnt lose 80+ seats in the house.

Many of the Democrats that were elected into congress in 2006-2008 were blue dog moderates. The same cannot under any circumstance be said of the GOP elected from 2010-2016. Their moderate wing numbers in in much smaller numbers than the moderate wing of the Democratic Party did back in 2006-2008.

FDR entered office in horrible economic conditions and when the GOP outright refused to work with him by 1934 the GOP were punished for their obstinance while the Democratic Party gained 9 House seats and 9 senate seats! FDR then proceeded to win reelection in a huge landslide.

Obama by comparison got a middle finger from people like McConnell right from the beginning and the GOP have been rewarded handsomely from 2010-2016 in a way that the Republicans of the 30's couldn't even have imagined.

2010 was just as bad as 1994:
2010: Dems lose 63 House seats and 6 senate seats
1994: Dems lose 54 House seats and 8 senate seats

[Technocracy Timmy]

Unemployment rose and GDP declined in 1933 but unemployment fell and GDP rose in 1934. Democrats went into 1934 midterms with mixed (albeit slightly good) economic improvements. But 1936 was when the electoral benefits of the New Deal actually kicked in. 1934 was more of a continuing backlash against the GOP for doing little during the depression itself.

Bush didn't just leave office being blamed for the financial crisis, he also had the worst foreign policy debacle since Vietnam hanging on him. Hoover never had anything that amounted to that by comparison. So even if the GOP didn't take the blame for the crisis in 2008 the way the GOP in 1932 did for the Depression, they did get blamed harshly for a horribly executed war which the GOP in 1932 never dealt with.

All in all, 2004-2017 has been a fairly conservative era. Obama's most signature accomplishment, ACA, was basically a triangulated move straight from Bill Clinton's playbook. This was an eerily similar healthcare plan to that of Nixon, Chuck Grassley and Newt Gringrich from the 90's, Bob Dole, Romney in Massachusetts, and even the heritage foundation. At best this healthcare bill was a "centrist" compromise but in reality it had historically been the conservative alternative to healthcare.

The stimulus package wasn't really a liberal hallmark for a couple reasons. 1. Reaganism has never really been defined by defecit reduction anyhow (although Obama did end up cutting the defecit by 2/3s) and 2. Most of this stimulus was just making up for the lost economic revenue from individual states that were forced to balance their state budgets during a recession.

Dodd-Frank was probably the only big ticket liberal item that's come out of the 2004-2017 era. Hell, all of the even remotely progressive policies of Obama will likely be getting rolled back if and when Pence becomes President and the GOP holds onto the house in 2018.

The hallmarks of the Bush administration, Obama being forced to govern much more like a centrist his last six years in office, plus the current GOP trifecta have pretty much evaporated any and all consideration that this decade will be marked with a similar prose that the 1930's or even 1910's were marked with. The Great liberal of 2009-2017 will be remembered for being a figure that was unable to do much to move the needle on progressive legislation, especially for 3/4's of his term.