Talk Elections

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.

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

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.

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 (:P), 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 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261607.msg5590165#msg5590165)) seats in '58, and both waves had huge implications at the state level.

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 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 ::)

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.

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:



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

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

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.

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

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. 

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.

I labelled 2004 as a liberal era, notwithstanding 2004, 2010 and 2016, 2020 will be a Democratic lead country again and a Democratic president will get into office again on the Obama coalition.

Given this spiel a ton of times. Realignments are discussed here in Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election). Essentially in my opinion they are a specific election that sets off a new ideological era distinct from both the old ideology and the old party. Their cause are changing economic and social conditions that denote the realignment. They create a new majority coalition that is generally stable and the same throughout the alignments. You can tell when the realignment has occurred when one dominant ideology replaces another and the old ideology is subordinated to the new one.

So:

1800 - 1860: the Founders - New Frontier Era. The election of Thomas Jefferson sparks the agrarian - frontiersman Revolution that is rooted in the South holding preeminent political power. The Jeffersonians are limited government folk who are interested in settling the West and pushing the United States westwards while preserving an agrarian economy. By 1824 this Founding epoch ended with John Adams and King Caucus. The election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 sparked the second round of the same ideology. Jackson doubles down on Jefferson's ideology killing the National Bank and paying off the national Debt. There's a reason the Democratic Party holds Jefferson-Jackson events. The era is notable for Manifest Destiny and the South's iron grip on American politics (Jefferson was from Virginia; Jackson from Tennessee).

1860 - 1932: The Civil War - Industrial Age. Abraham Lincoln is elected to the Presidency and the GOP assumes their first Congressional majorities, rooted in the Midwest and Northeast. They're a collection of pro business abolitionists who believe in the power of machines over farms and don't like the South's slavery stances. By 1865 they win the Civil War and dominate American politics straight to 1932. Democratic Congresses are few and far between in the era. They're all about making Standard Oil and the railroads great again and transforming the American economy from farms to factories. The election of 1896 pits a pro business genteel Ohio governor against a fiery populist Nebraskan; the Ohio Republican wins and business interests (temporarily capped from 1901-1909, 1913-1918) rule for a generation as seen in the Roaring 1920s. This remains the most pro business and most Republican era in American history.

1932 - 1980: the New Deal - New Frontier. The long Democratic drought ends with the election of New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt and begins a long period of liberal hegemony. The unfettered Lochner era has come to an end and regulated capitalism is in. The welfare state becomes prominent and as income inequality is reduced and the economic boom after World War II ends the longest and most powerful economic expansion begins from 1946-1974. (With a couple of minor recessions). The Democrats flag under Ike but the second half opens with Jack Kennedy leading the social crusaders on a moral cause. Civil rights, the New Frontier is enacted. The Democratic majority's base stretches from lower New England to the Rust Belt. FDR was New York and JFK Massachusetts and the ideology stemmed from the Northeast urban liberals and Midwestern unions.

1980 - 2020/2024: Cold War - War on Terror + globalization Republicans. The election of Ronald Reagan signifies the triumph of the service economy over the old factory order. Sunbelt Republicans ally with Dixie GOPers to put Reagan as President. In Congress a coalition of conservatives rule with Southern Democrats functionally acting as Republicans. Reagan triumphs in the Cold War and neoliberal economics sweeps the globe as the Soviet Union crumbles. The election of 2000 sends another Sunbelter to the White House named George W. Bush. Unlike 1980 the Republican Party had unified control for the first time since 1954. Bush rams through tax cuts and deregulation and free markets - and a national security state on steroids. The GOP's heart lays from the foothills of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia to the deserts of Phoenix and rolls across the lower Midwest and the Plains States and the Rockies. A southern coalition that runs to the Interior states and the Sunbelt.

2020 - 2024 and beyond: the Artificial Intelligence Age. After the Trump and Pence eras, the election of a Midwestern Democratic progressive brings to to a close the Reagan-Bush neoliberal epoch and starts the United States on the road to being in the Artificial Intelligence age. Socially liberal and rooted from Ilinois and then the fast growing minority majority states of Georgia, Arizona and Texas the Democrats will push through reforms that change the American economy to fit the robotics age and the new economic order.

Basically realignments come down to the economic order and the needs of the American electorate. Jefferson-Jackson worked to forge a (white) cultural identity and expanded the country westwards while preserving the agrarian economy. Lincoln-McKinley's GOP were factory dominated and determined to create a pro-business order that emphasized the rapidly changing technology that upended American society. The New Deal and New Frontier recognized that unfettered capitalism and racism were no longer effective for the country. Reagan's Revolution pushed the service economy and the Internet age to the forefront and provided for rapid technological growth. They also solidified the gains of the 60s and 70s and allowed them to mature.

The Republican business eras are usually where rapid growth and massive wealth is made along with huge technological strides made. I suspect that the business philosophies of the Republican coalition both times paved the way for that stuff. The Democratic eras seem to be about solidifying gains and building in a sustainable manner the growth. The upcoming era however might see even more rapid technological upheaval though.

except 1860 and 1896 were different realignments . 1860 began a period of massive polarization, and both parties were basically  even for that 36 year period when it came to policy except from 1864-1872 and much of those policies they pushed through during those 8 years got undermined in the late 1870s anyway. It wasnt until 1894 did the  GOP started dominating the democrats.  I want to ask you this question, from 1872-1894 how much GOP agenda get passed , and for the ones was it something they really disagreed with the democrats on(as both parties supported Laissez faire economics ).


Also 1896-1932 was not much of an era where one ideology dominated the other. Progressives controlled the white house for 16 of those 32 years while conservative held the white house for the other 16 years. Teddy Roosevelt policies were closer to Woodrow Wilson for example then it was to Harding and Coolidge.



Thats why these are my dates for the different realignments:


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 from 1864-1872 were close

1894- Republicans gains 100 seats in the house and gain a clear majority in house for first time since the 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- Bush's controversial victory in 2000,  Bush ramming his agenda through congress, and the polarizing Iraq War causes the 48% of the people who hate bush with a passion to unite behind the Democrats  but at the same time 48% love bush for exactly those reasons and they all unite behind the Republicans . This leads to the very polarizing 2004 election where Bush and Kerry just campaign on appealing to their base and neither try to even appeal to the other side. 

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

The Republicans won every presidential election between 1860 and 1896 except Cleveland's two wins. They held the House for 18 of the 36 years too. If memory serves me right the general policy of high tariffs and anti unionization seems to have prevailed plus sticking with the gold standard. I don't recall free trade happening (a big deal for the Dems). It seems philosophically pretty Republican and even more after 1896. Reformers won the Pendleton Act but that doesn't seem too partisan.

The one major Democratic goal, ending Reconstruction was because of a compromise to make Republican Rutherford Hayes President.



That isn't true entirely. Conservatives were generally dominant here except between 1913-1918 and 1901-1909. Even then so TR was far more limited than his liberal successors. Lochner was decided in 1905 and TR's progressive achievements were quite modest in comparison to FDR and even Wilson.

Taxes were cut, an anti union policy held by the federal government, no working hours, no restriction on child labor, etc. TR was no conservative but his presidency wasn't as domestically active as later presidents. No FCC, no Federal Reserve, no income taxes (that came during Wilson), no suffrage for women. And all of that pales compared to the New Deal.

McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made up 20 of this 36 year epoch. If you believe TR was generally a moderate Republican President during this era rather than his later radical Bull Moose posture that goes up to 28.


Jackson inherited the party while the losers formed the Whigs, basically. I don't understand the 1856 point.



Nixon won only a plurality in 1968 but more to the point the South didn't become Republican committed.  1968 ended the New Deal hegemony but nominally left it in place as we transitioned to a new era. Nixon foreshadowed Reagan.

Carter won the South and governed like a liberal. For that matter Nixon did the same more or less, preferring to focus on law and order but agreeing to a liberal Democrats agenda on spending and domestic priorities.



Bush was a continuation of Reagan's ideology. He called himself Reagan's heir in 2000 and campaigned on tax cuts and an updated version of Reaganism in “compassionate conservatism.” W also governed from the same coalition that put RR in power and was fairly similar in many ways to Reagan. Polarization is a bigger deal in the second half of this era but W had a homogenous Republican majority and a decent Reaganite agenda.

the 1856 point is as that election began a period of great division in this country due to all the northern parties uniting behind the newly formed republican party.


Werent the democratic party of the gilded age pretty anti union then too, and werent they just as laaiz faire as the republicans as well . On the issue of free trade, I believe that America was  a protectionist country from the early 1800s all the way up till the 1940s.


TR during his presidency busted up trusts , created the FDA, and implemented many safety regulations which I believe was considered progressive at the time. He wasnt as progressive as Wilson but he was still a progressive , and if you had McKinley from 1901-1909 you likely dont get much of the above happen. In my opinion 1896 was a party realignment and not an ideological one which  realignments can be.


To Timmy Point:

Yes Dems made gains in 1934 but I believe the unemployment rate was trending down  ,while by 2010 unemployment had trended sharply up .


In 1934 you had Unemployment trending down, and many job programs implemented which people credited for the drop in unemployment.Things were also way worse in 1932 then 2008 so the people hated the GOP a lot more then they did in 2008.

In 2010 you had Unemployment which had gone sharply over up from 2008(people tend to blame the party in office for that no matter how long they had been in office), so Obama stimulus at the time was viewed as a failure due to that . This led to the perception that Obama has done nothing but run up the national debt and cared more about passing obamacare then doing a job program(such as an infrastructure deal).

I look at it less from partisan results & more from polity.

For example the early 1900's was the era of progressive. Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster was an uber-pro labour candidate & Teddy Roosevelt IMO left much of the policies regarding labour which FDR borrowed in his 1s term. Same with Wilson who was pretty left & even a socialist Debs got 6% of the vote. Taft also started in the mould of Teddy but then digressed but he was still fairly liberal by today's standards & considering that time.

But then somewhere in the 20's perhaps it got to the point with huge economic concentration & political power. 1933 onwards with FDR was the re-alignment, 1935 Social Security Act, Industrial Recovery Act 1933 for collective bargaining, Wagner Act 1935, Minimum wage 1938, Massive income tax increases consistently. I think, it is fair to say that New Deal coalition started from 1933.

I personally think it lasted till 1980 but in the mid 1970's onwards, certain cracks & de-regulations begin to occur. But the re-alignment occurred in the 1980's. Even post the New Deal, tax rates continued to be 70% (top marginal rate) till Reagan came slashed it, estate tax, corporate tax, cut welfare, adopted certain social policies (which I consider divisive, you may disagree), increased military spending etc. It was new era since Reagan.

And the post 1980 era has persisted. Polarization started a long time back but has become worse. the African American & Southern Whites were massively polarized during Reagan. I am not sure if this is a new partisan era, but when it comes to the economic system we are in the post Reagan world.

I look at it as -

1932-1980 - New Deal Coalition
1980 - 2016 - Post Reagan world

When it comes to re-alignment, it happened since 1980 IMO but the seeds were already being sown like the seed for a progressive re-alignment is being sown now. But the re-alignment will happen with a transformational President.

@ Virginia - Re-alignments generally are about economic, social, racial policy oriented & not necessarily uber partisan. They don't necessarily have to happen after 10-20-30 years but certain economic & social conditions cause it along with transformative Presidents.

Many of them including FDR & even Reagan go beyond partisan lines & try to establish a direct connection with the people (although they may very extreme ideologies for many people). It doesn't necessarily happen because the other party is very bad (read Anti-Trump resistance).

But people stood for something, wanted to change the system, were united for a bigger cause (read  policies) & the re-alignment Presidents got massive stuff done to change the system, moved people in left/right direction & created a new coalition.

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.