Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[The_Doctor]

Small meta note. In reviewing this timeline, I've decided to shift this article from March 2018 to December 2018. The revelations about Trump's business dealings emerge post-midterms. This is a bit of house-cleaning to make the midterms more believable (and I think this is actually more in line with what's going to happen). So, the business dealings erupt after the midterms and then in January 2019, there's more revelations.

The economic slowdown, for the record, has been also adjusted. The following line, to be exact, now reads (from Q1 and Q2 and 2019), "Growth began contracting in Q3 2018, and continued contracting in Q4 2018; and the economic expansion wouldn't really resume until 2020." Probably, the tax reform of 2017 delays the recession for a couple of months, and this means we see the slowdown begin in late 2018, and taking up 2019, which is when Trump is at peak political crisis.

There will be probably two more supplementals out at some point, one dealing with a fuller overview of how the Democrats and Donald Trump do in 2017-2018, and another one dealing with why RyanCare fails and why entitlement reforms are impossible for Republicans to pass in this era. I feel that I should have covered these issues in more detail, so I will.

And if you don't believe me on the scandal time changes, I submit this.  Anyway, these are minor time changes, and the substance has not been altered.

[The_Doctor]

Notes: Please see the timeline changes above this post. They are minor and make the midterms (and subsequent drama of 2019) clearer. So, if you’re a Democrat, and if this timeline is right, you’ll want to start paying attention starting (latest) January 2019. If I’m wrong, well, read on. You’ve read 100 articles so what’s two more?

Supplemental: The Democrats and Trump: 2017-2018

The Democrats failed to make measurable gains in both chambers in Congress, and indeed, lost 4 seats in the Senate and gained only 4 in the House. Why? With the Trump Administration so an inviting target and the Tea Party revolt of 2009 a successful template, why not assume the Democrats simply regain the Congress in 2018?

Well, first off, it is plausible, but this is a 2024 realignment. If the Democrats gain either chamber of Congress, 2020 will be a Democratic year. Even marginal gains in the Senate (but not the House) that leave them short of the majority would be a huge red light for the GOP in 2020. One big sign of how 2020 will go is how well the Democrats do in the Senate races and if they gain the Senate in 2018, you can say the chances of a Democratic White House goes up measurably.

National Democrats Make Case Against Trump on Basis of Fitness

But one reason I have the Democrats having schizophrenic results is that the Congressional Democrats try to make it about Trump all the time in 2017, basically focusing on the scandals and his fitness for the Oval Office, and as a result, they put his supporters on the defense. Trump Republicans, starting in 2017, take ownership of their man and believe the Left is out to get them. The relentless barrage of negative articles about Trump only reinforce the urban and rural divide between the two Americas, and this is a crucial misstep that the Congressional Democrats take. So, for example, they play well in very blue states, so that’s why no Democrat from a state that’s leaning blue loses. Since knocking off the Republican congressional majority requires Democrats to win Trump leaning districts and Trump states (namely, Arizona, Texas, and Nevada). A ton of Republicans have long standing suspicions about the media and the all out war between Trump and the media buys the GOP time to win in 2018. Note: this strategy is a losing one in 2017 but pays off in 2019 as the drip-drip and opposition turns into a gushing torrent of revelations that force Trump's resignation.

Additionally, the economy slows down too late in the game (Q3 2018) and the scandals have not erupted. Remember, there’s major tax reform coming down the pike and that will probably stave off the recession until near the midterms or after. Like it or not, tax cuts usually do help GDP growth and create some measure of economic growth (how much has slowly decreased since the 1980s, where their benefits were huge, to meager; but that’s because over time, our taxes have become lower. A big reason why 2022’s tax cuts don’t do much and the economic stagnation continues).

So, there’s no external factors that come into play (unlike the 2021-2022 session, where the Republican loyalists have their illusions shattered) to force the losses required to put the Democrats into the majority. The WWC (white working class) will need strong external stimuli and forces to push them towards the Democrats again and the Democrats in 2018 are very much in an adversarial position.

So, the storylines of 2017 is that the Democrats see a 2009 in reverse, but fundamentally misunderstand the 2010 elections. In that election, Republicans gained districts that Trump would go onto win (and areas Bush and Romney won). Obama lost this group of white working class voters (a lot of them were in that demographic, if memory serves) and they stuck with the GOP. You’ll notice on this map (yes, the New York Times has the best maps) that not many districts flip that are near major urban areas. A ton of them are in urban-rural areas that white, working class areas. They won’t simply flip back because they are inherently more conservative than the average Democrat and again, won’t flip on the basis of opposition to Trump.

In fact, a major theme of this timeline is that these voters have been more or less voting Republican since Ronald Reagan nationally. Their congressional loyalties have shifted more gradually (they were voting Democratic until 1994 and in some cases, until 2010). They have a cultural affinity for the GOP and tend to instinctively vote conservative except in years that they either are fed up with the reigning Republicans (1992, 2006, 2008). Viewed in this light, the sudden shift from the Democratic majority of 2006 to the 2010 GOP House majority makes a lot more sense. The cultural backlash against Iraq and the economic collapse of 2008 had given these voters the “vote for Democrats in case of emergency” greenlight (red light?) and in 2010, they resumed normal voting patterns.

Trump won these regions and states handily on a cultural-economic axis, so their loyalty to the President is quite strong. I cannot understate how many articles I have read about people backing the President without question because they believe his policies take on the establishment and how much they believe these policies will help them reclaim an America they thought they had lost. They also have suffered economically and believe the urban-dominated Democratic Party is not interested in their interests. They will not be swayed by Democratic attacks on the President or the media’s war with him (in fact, both will reinforce their siege mentality). This support forms the bulk of what will be a 45% or so approval rating that will last until 2018.

So, as a result, the nation becomes even more polarized in 2018 as deep Trump states vote for the President’s party and deep anti-Trump states vote against him, and swing states vote in a split fashion.

State Democrats Focus on Trump on Policy Grounds and Differentiate themselves

Now, let’s talk about the states. You’ll remember from this post, that on the state level, Democrats won all over the country. Notably, one Richard Cordray won the Ohio governorship in 2018 and I’m going to sidenote that I do think the realigning President will come from a winner in 2018, even if it’s not Cordray. The reason the states are showcasing vastly different results is that historically, the states are more local issue focused. The Democrats operating on the state level know that they aren’t dealing with national issues so they tailor their cases against Trump on a policy level, instead of a scandal level. They make the case for their policies as opposed to Trump’s, which is to say they reduced him to the status of a normal politician instead of maintaining him as the anti-Christ. In this fashion, they were able to win over Trump Democrats and win back a lot of states. This is not a new phenomena. There are lots of cases of opposition party figures who historically distance themselves from whatever their congressional wing does against the President and focuses on branding themselves. In the immortal words of Tip O’Neill, they work on the premise, “All politics is local.”

So, as a result, they start winning all over the country. It’s a result at opposition to what the Congressional Democrats are facing on Election Night 2018. For Washington Democrats, Election Night 2018 will be their nadir. It will be the darkest period before the (false) dawn.

Trump’s Gotta Trump

Meanwhile, the President just gave his Congressional address. I strongly suggest you all read the text. Particularly, I would recommend you pay attention to where he explicitly makes his deportations an economic strategy, the mentions of drug cartels (that's a reference to the opioid crisis), and talks about manufacturing plus the inner cities. These are all elements of a political strategy we've covered in this timeline.  

Now, if you read this timeline as loyal readers, you were not shocked by any of it. In fact, we told you all about it back in November 2016. What we got wrong was that the President had a very rocky first month but we did get right that Congressional Republicans and the White House don’t have much space between them. The agenda we also nailed, with trade reform, tax reform, border security, and infrastructure topping the big 3 Trump wants. Trump is finally moving into the phase of the Presidency where he becomes more or less a 75% conventional Republican Presidency. So, you should expect the next 3-4 months to be peak Trump and the Left to face the first of its many existential struggles.

Over the next year, we’ve said that Trump may find himself in a slump, may be directionless but he will get enough accomplished between now and the summer to tide him over until the midterms. Tax reform, infrastructure, and trade deals renegotiated will be the big things done (with ObamaCare reforms pushed off and RyanCare dead). Every President has a window of roughly a couple of months between their inauguration and the beginning of the midterm elections to make their mark. The mark they make in this time period usually ends up influencing all their eight years and sets the tone. So what we see from Trump is him enacting neoliberal Republican priorities with a dash of nationalism (infrastructure and trade).

His opposition, in this time period, plays into his hands by casting him as the biggest starring villain. While their strategy is not wrong in the long run - the polarization means that when Trump’s first serious missteps happen in 2019, he will not have the political capital to sustain the damage - it means that in 2017 and 2018, Democrats are left furiously making the case against a President that looks like he can’t be taken down. Like his opposition, Trump will cater to his base first and foremost. Both sides make the great mistake of writing off half of the country and in turn, that will come to bite them both in the arse.  

Trump survives in this time period simply because his base of 45% is enough to get by. His opposition is fueled by a rabid angry Democratic base that isn’t interested in reaching out to the white working class. His white working class pushes back and stands by him.

One thing that could overturn this is if revelations emerge of direct collaboration with Russia or something and there is hard proof between now and 2019. But I’m guessing that there will be a steady drip-drip of information but no huge revelations and damage until after 2018. But that’s me subjectively.

I hope this fleshes out 2017-2018 and makes the 2017-2018 timeline a lot more understandable. Please ask any questions you have.

[The_Doctor]

Hey, so I've just been curious: what's the end status of the Supreme Court here?

Obviously, we know that Gorsuch will have replaced Scalia, but what else happens? Which justices leave the court; when do they leave the Court; by what means do they leave the Court (retirement or death); which President appoints their replacement; who are the replacements?? Very curious, so thanks if you can answer!

Well, Ginsburg was replaced by a conservative so the court is 6-3 conservative. Breyer hangs on all the way to Cordray replacing him in 2025. Roberts quits in 2030 and the United States gets its first Democratic Chief Justice in decades. Sam Alito joins him in retirement and the Court swings 5-4 liberal. Some of the conservative justices begin shifting to the left, to preserve their legacy on the Court and in the public eye.

By 2036, the Court is ruling as a liberal front.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was thinking from the perspective of Democrats hoping to replicate the Tea Party's victory of 2010 and finding they didn't gain either chamber of Congress. Ergo, nadir in terms of the Democratic strategy failing on a Congressional level.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I considered this and the answer is yes. As we de-polarize in the age of Cordray, Republicans and Democrats alike start breaking from their national parties and Republicans strategically appeal to Northern voters to win elections. So, by 2030, you're going to see a bunch of Northern Republicans winning seats and political positions in unusual areas.

The fate of Senators like Boozman, Kennedy, and Paul probably hinges on how well they adapt to the new political climate. People like Boozman and Kennedy, who are natural populists, shift to find ground with the ruling Democratic class. People like Paul, who have been longtime ideologues, find themselves defeated down the line.

[The_Doctor]

You must be a timetraveler or some kind of 4 dimensional being

[The_Doctor]

One more thing Spenstar, about the Democratic focus on Trump vis a vis the Russian issues and the business dealings: It may be a short term electoral loss but it will probably be the big reason Trump falls in 2019. The persistence of the Democrats will probably lead to a lot of investigations. Remember, as we've said, Trump is not that popular or holds a ton of loyalty among Congressional Republicans.

In a sense, the Democrats may be squandering 2018 to relentlessly focus on taking down Trump over his ethical lapses. The short term resistance of Trump's base will be strong but I assume that there is a smoking gun (e.g, there's no tax returns, there's a lot of questions about Russia, etc). The story may die down for a while between now and 2019 but there is something there that Trump does not want to be known.

Remember, Watergate's investigation began in 1972 and culminated two years later. The first response of Nixon's supporters was to bash the media and the Left, right? So we're going through that phase and when real evidence comes out, I assume that is when things start to fall apart.

[The_Doctor]

Supplemental: Why RyanCare Failed

To understand why Paul Ryan’s RyanCare failed in 2017, you have to go back to the 1950s and understand the longstanding Republican compact with the electorate that guaranteed support in return for never enacting a key element of GOP orthodoxy: cutting the safety net.

Eisenhower to Goldwater

Start in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower won the Presidency by winning 45% of the manual collar class (as they were defined in 1952) and 50% in 1956. One reason Eisenhower won the Presidency was because unlike past nominees, Eisenhower was regarded as a moderate who would uphold the New Deal. Indeed, Eisenhower expanded the New Deal. His victory over Senator Robert A. Taft (R-Ohio) signaled the triumph of the eastern establishment moderate Republicans - the people later reviled by the Reaganites.

In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) lost the same group 71-29%. In fact, Goldwater won 46% of professional and business class workers, and 43% of white collar workers. So you can see the key differential for the Republicans, in one aspect, was their strength among the “manual class.” Reagan himself supported Goldwater’s position - a statement that later came back to haunt him in 1976.

One reason that Goldwater lost was because he campaigned on making Social Security optional and lambasted the notion of Medicare. After that election, the Republicans dropped the idea of challenging either Social Security or Medicare seriously. During the Nixon Presidency, President Richard Nixon largely adopted the Democratic line on entitlement programs (even going so far to contemplate a deal with Senator Ted Kennedy on healthcare reform in 1971).  

The Florida Republican Primary of 1976

The election of 1976 saw a watershed moment for the conservative movement. The Republican primary in Florida would set, inadvertently, the movement’s path forward on entitlements. Governor Reagan and President Ford fought for Florida’s Republican delegates on the issue of Social Security. Namely, a gaffe by the California governor, where he had said, “One of the failures of Social Security as a pension program is that the funds do not grow. They are not invested as they could be in the industrial might of America.” President Ford hit back, saying “Let's take the issue of Social Security. He has suggested from time to time that it ought to be voluntary, not mandatory as it is under the existing law. He has suggested that maybe the funds from the Social Security program ought to be invested in the stock market. I disagree with both of those proposals. I believe in the firm integrity of the Social Security program.” In the end, Ford won Florida by 53-47% - one of the two Southern primaries Reagan lost (and in Tennessee, it was 49-49%). The effort would leave a lasting mark on Ronald Reagan.

Meanwhile, in the same state, Governor George C. Wallace, in the Democratic Primary, also came out against Social Security cuts, arguing, “I would much rather see general revenues going as stop‐gap dollars to Social Security than to many of the crackpot schemes for which funds are now being budgeted.” Governor Wallace would be a conservative forerunner of Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump, suggesting that many of the Reagan-Buchanan-Trump voters were not amenable to Social Security cuts. In 1980, Reagan quietly shelved his idea of making Social Security voluntary and pledged to not change the program.

The Reagan Years

It was for this reason that in 1981, James Baker III, Ronald Reagan’s Chief of Staff, urged the President to not tackle Social Security. A Reagan plan to “reduce Social Security benefits for people who had retired before they turned 65”  failed 96-2 in the Senate and failed the House as well. Of course, the Reagan Administration was able to make substantive changes to Social Security disability benefits, but by and large, the program survived. In 1983, a deal to raise the payroll tax and the retirement age was cemented by a bipartisan commission headed by future Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the Reagan Administration’s involvement in Social Security functionally stopped at that compromise.

The Gingrich Congress and Bush 43

During the 1990s, Republicans talked about privatizing Social Security, a longstanding idea that dated to Goldwater.  In fact, they shut down the government in 1995-1996 over their bid to change Medicare - and paid a political price for it. However, their opportunity did not come until the election of Governor George W. Bush (R-Texas.) The Texas Governor had campaigned on privatization and won a razor thin 2000 election. After his 2004 re-election, President Bush tried to push privatization but was rebuffed by Republicans in Congress after the Democrats put up a furious fight.

RyanCare in the 2010s

In 2011, Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) pushed a plan to create Medicare vouchers to limit the growth of the program. Democrats howled that he was “pushing Grandma off a cliff,” and the plan was headed nowhere. When he was added to the Republican ticket in 2012, President Obama lambasted the Republican campaign on the basis of RyanCare. The 4 point loss suggested that there wasn’t enough of a market to promote major changes to the program.

Donald Trump's Populism

In 2016, Donald Trump campaigned on not touching either Social Security or Medicare. As far as Social Security went he said on March 10, 2016, “And it’s my absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as is.” On Medicare he said, “Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security. They want to do it on Medicare. They want to do it on Medicaid. And we can't do that.” His election to the Presidency seemed to foreclose that there was political support for RyanCare.

Putting it all together

Putting together the history, it suggests that Republicans have continually been unable to create a political coalition in favor of entitlement reforms instituted during the New Deal and Great Society. The only major welfare program reform they were able to reform was TANF - and that was with Democratic support. Given Mr. Trump’s refusal to campaign on entitlement reforms and given that the House GOP won the popular vote by only 1%, it suggests there is no mandate to pass a sweeping program like RyanCare that would limit Medicare substantially. The voters have long held a silent bargain with the Republicans that they could cut taxes, they could cut the EPA, they could cut minor programs but they could not touch Social Security or Medicare. Each time the program was even talked about in terms of reforms, voters have revolted.

There is another hidden reason that the programs are unlikely to be touched.  With the economic recovery weak and a considerable number of working families reliant on government benefits (e.g, Social Security disability benefits), and the fact that the Baby Boomers are retiring, it is unlikely there is mass support for reforms to these programs. And politically, the groups that are collecting these benefits are among the most Republican. Seniors were among the most Republican and so were the 45-64 crowd. Mr Trump won 40-49 49-46%, 50-64 52-44% and 65+ 52-45%.  

Without a sustained campaign to gain a mandate to reform the program, there is unlikely to be any support to pass it. If you want to do major changes to a political program with the extensive history that Social Security and Medicare have, you need a significant mandate to change it. Since the political mandate is neither there and the most affected groups would be Republican-leaning, there is little incentive for House and Senate Republicans to go along with the changes without Democratic support (which will not be forthcoming, as they are in opposition). This might not have been the case if Hillary Clinton had been President, but with an all-Republican government, it is unlikely the Democrats will cooperate at all.

Lastly, as part of the Reaganite majority coalition, it appears that the electorate (specifically blue collar conservatives) has agreed to support the GOP in return for no major entitlement changes. It just seems, at this point, a iron law of the Reagan era.

For these reasons, this is why I had RyanCare failing.

[The_Doctor]

I wonder when TX-1 would flip Democratic.

Don't miss the article about RyanCare above this post.

I'll be working on the House map. Unfortunately, I need to manually input blue collar, white collar, and grey collar into my sheet so it'll be a long while. But at some point, I'll update it. 

[The_Doctor]

Above post is canonical.

 And we can have SD Dem if you want. I have no problem if people want to write more stories or continue this timeline or post more maps.

Correction to 2030: the Republican Party won New York in a sign of their 2036 victory which saw a 51-48% victory there and a 55-43% win in PA,  54-45% win in Connecticut. So 57-43.

[The_Doctor]

Hey, so I've just been curious: what's the end status of the Supreme Court here?

Obviously, we know that Gorsuch will have replaced Scalia, but what else happens? Which justices leave the court; when do they leave the Court; by what means do they leave the Court (retirement or death); which President appoints their replacement; who are the replacements?? Very curious, so thanks if you can answer!

Well, Ginsburg was replaced by a conservative so the court is 6-3 conservative. Breyer hangs on all the way to Cordray replacing him in 2025. Roberts quits in 2030 and the United States gets its first Democratic Chief Justice in decades. Sam Alito joins him in retirement and the Court swings 5-4 liberal. Some of the conservative justices begin shifting to the left, to preserve their legacy on the Court and in the public eye.

By 2036, the Court is ruling as a liberal front.

Paul Watford (Chief Justice).... Replaced Roberts, 2030 (Appt'd. by Cordray) Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch.......................... Replaced Scalia, 2017 (Appt'd. by Trump) Thomas Hardiman.................. Replaced Kennedy, 2017 (Appt'd. by Trump) Bill Pryor............................... Replaced Thomas, 2018 (Appt'd. by Trump) Raymond Kethledge................ Replaced Ginsburg, 2023 (Appt'd. by Pence) Sri Srinivasan......................... Replaced Breyer, 2025 (Appt'd. by Cordray) Ketanji Brown Jackson............. Replaced Alito, 2031 (Appt'd. by Cordray) So you'd reasonably say that this is what the Court may look like by the end of the Cordray Presidency??

Reasonably, yes. Castro did a few appointments too so revise your list.

[The_Doctor]

Hey, so I've just been curious: what's the end status of the Supreme Court here?

Obviously, we know that Gorsuch will have replaced Scalia, but what else happens? Which justices leave the court; when do they leave the Court; by what means do they leave the Court (retirement or death); which President appoints their replacement; who are the replacements?? Very curious, so thanks if you can answer!

Well, Ginsburg was replaced by a conservative so the court is 6-3 conservative. Breyer hangs on all the way to Cordray replacing him in 2025. Roberts quits in 2030 and the United States gets its first Democratic Chief Justice in decades. Sam Alito joins him in retirement and the Court swings 5-4 liberal. Some of the conservative justices begin shifting to the left, to preserve their legacy on the Court and in the public eye.

By 2036, the Court is ruling as a liberal front.

Paul Watford (Chief Justice).... Replaced Roberts, 2030 (Appt'd. by Cordray) Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch.......................... Replaced Scalia, 2017 (Appt'd. by Trump) Thomas Hardiman.................. Replaced Kennedy, 2017 (Appt'd. by Trump) Bill Pryor............................... Replaced Thomas, 2018 (Appt'd. by Trump) Raymond Kethledge................ Replaced Ginsburg, 2023 (Appt'd. by Pence) Sri Srinivasan......................... Replaced Breyer, 2025 (Appt'd. by Cordray) Ketanji Brown Jackson............. Replaced Alito, 2031 (Appt'd. by Cordray) So you'd reasonably say that this is what the Court may look like by the end of the Cordray Presidency??

Reasonably, yes. Castro did a few appointments too so revise your list.

Paul Watford (Chief Justice).... Replaced Roberts, 2030 (Appt'd. by Cordray) Neil Gorsuch.......................... Replaced Scalia, 2017 (Appt'd. by Trump) Thomas Hardiman.................. Replaced Kennedy, 2017 (Appt'd. by Trump) Bill Pryor............................... Replaced Thomas, 2018 (Appt'd. by Trump) Raymond Kethledge................ Replaced Ginsburg, 2023 (Appt'd. by Pence) Sri Srinivasan......................... Replaced Breyer, 2025 (Appt'd. by Cordray) Ketanji Brown Jackson............. Replaced Alito, 2031 (Appt'd. by Cordray) Goodwin Liu........................... Replaced Sotomayor, 2034 (Appt'd. by Castro) Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar....... Replaced Kagan, 2035 (Appt'd. by Castro) Ok, so w/ Castro's appt's. ^^

Works for me.

[The_Doctor]

Regarding Montana I screwed up in my math. The math didn't survive from my paper notebooks to here. You're right. I suppose we can do one of two three things:

1.) Montana narrowly votes Republican for Senate Bad outcome as Cordray won the state. Tester also won in 2018 so highly unlikely he would lose. First elected in 2006 he could theoretically retire.

2.) Change the Senate totals to 62 instead of 61 and make 2026 a 3 seat gain instead of 4 and we're okay.

3.) Tester resigns and a Republican is appointed. Montana elected a Republican Governor in 2020 and 2024. In theory Tester, for whatever reason, resigns in late 2024, making the majority 61, not 62. This is the cleanest retcon. It happened in 2000 with Paul Coverdell's death in Georgia that reduced the Republican majority in the Senate from 55 to 54. As a libertarian State Montana isn't really projected to be a Democratic state down the line.

I'll pick whatever is recommended. Good catch on my math btw.

[The_Doctor]

It doesn't even need to be a retcon. Jon Tester could be Cordray's choice for Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of the Interior or something. The Republican Governor appoints a Republican Placeholder, and Rs win the special election in 2025.

There we go, that's the new canon. OK so that squares away that bug. I'll edit it in one of the articles.

[The_Doctor]

Two articles that deal with this timeline's main issues.

[1] Why Republicans Can't Do Healthcare by Ross Douthat. (A center-right commentator).  He goes into some depth about how Trump is possibly a disjunctive President that would pave the way for a realigning President. Which is a component of this timeline. [2] Purple America Has All But Disappeared by David Wasserman at 538. Increasing polarization is unsustainable, as this timeline, again, talks about.

[The_Doctor]

It bothered me a little bit to see so many prominent Republicans like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul go down, but I guess it makes sense considering the magnitude of the waves that happened in those 3 cycles. After all we did see people like Frank Church, George McGovern and Warren Magnuson go down in 1980. An entire generation of GOP leaders getting wiped out does open up the party for new leaders to arise and reform the party in 2036 and beyond.

Yup. One reason I didn't do more in this timeline is that the names beyond 2024 on the GOP and Democratic side is an entirely new generation of political leaders that have a very different ideological matrix than what we have seen in the past. On the GOP side, we see the re-emergence of Northern Republican moderate technocrats (Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, etc) begin to dominate the GOP. On the Democratic side, we see liberal populists emerge to dominate the Democrats. Today, you don't see these groups dominating their respective parties (at least, not on the Democratic side as much as they will).

The Northern technocrats will retake their party and that's one reason for New York going Republican in the U.S. Senate election. The GOP will start breaching the Democrats' firewall in the blue states once social issues are off the table and Cordray has initiated the next major economic system in American political history, thus taking off a lot of issues like income inequality, etc off the table (relatively). This allows the Northern GOP to capitalize on issues like effective government, using technology to advance social goods, and so on. In essence, the Republican Party of 2030 looks a lot like the Clinton Democratic Party of the 1990s, if a bit more conservative.

A small aside; Romney and Trump are harbingers of the Northern strategy and the shift towards embracing Northern Republicans. It's just that both are located within the era where the GOP is a dominant Southern - Western - rural/suburban Midwestern party. The GOP becomes basically the Mitt Romney Republican Party but a lot more attuned to populist causes than Mitt was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much. The first seats to fall will be the rich white college educated seats - but they're the GOP's low hanging fruit. They'll stick with Cordray for a while but will form the backbone of the new GOP Northern Strategy by 2030. The working class white and minority districts, however, will be much harder to dislodge. Minorities aren't about to return to the GOP fold after two generations of the Southern Strategy and white working class voters will be burned by the economic crisis and neoliberalism (and fairly relatively happy with the new populist Democratic Party).

The GOP could honestly win the House back in 2030 or 2036 or something, but it would be a very different House majority than in the past. Any Republican majority will be highly pragmatic, aware that part of the GOP majority will hold working class districts that will bolt back to the Democrats if they feel the GOP majority is not in line with the new ideological framework.

This, by the way, is exactly what happened in 1994. The Democratic majority was deemed to be out of line with the Reagan era, and was tossed out, especially in blue collar areas. That allowed the GOP to gain its first Congressional majority in decades.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kinda interesting you mention it ... but now that's weirdly and eerily accurate. The Lincoln Republican majority was built in the North and the (then) frontier Northwest. Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson came from the Northeast. The Congressional Democrats, though, were largely Southern based.

In the New Deal era, the opposition, though, came from the West and later, in the second half, the South. Right?

But largely, that seems accurate for the minority party to go through. They become politically the establishment (the famous Liberal Eastern Republican establishment is the best example). They take over, act technocratic and try to steer the party away from its more crazy wings. Then as the minority coalition transitions to the majority, they are kicked to the curb. That's really something I only discovered writing this timeline and it's fascinating to watch this political process play out over and over.

I would need to study for example, the minority coalition during the Jefferson-Jackson era and Lincoln-McKinley era to see how the Democrats operated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't really speak to this because Congressional fluctuations are less predictable.  You may be well right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good question. That's kind of a timeline for the GOP Majority of the 2060s - 2080s. But we don't know what that is going to be even like or how things will shake out.

[The_Doctor]

This is a draft guesstimate of the 2036 Presidential election. Critique and suggest changes; I'll make them appropriately. Some of you are better versed in this TL than I am (and that's a good thing!). I'll write up a short explanation.

The election of 2036 featured a technocratic Northern Republican based in Maryland/Virginia/Pennsylvania/New Jersey squaring off against President Castro. After twelve years of Rich Cordray and Julian Castro, the country was ready to embrace a technocratic moderate Republican President. The Republican nominee is either a governor or a Senator well versed in navigating blue state politics. The Southern GOP base has withered away forcing the GOP to moderate to win Northern and Upper Pacific Coastal states.

President Castro falls back on the Hillary Clinton strategy of appealing to minorities and trying to play up the demographic card and trying to paint the GOP as the same old Trumpist type party. Meanwhile, the GOP nominee is socially moderate, even liberal, and is economically technocratic, e.g, a blend of careful populism and traditional neoliberal stands. The GOP nominee is also pro-climate change action, holds a semi-conservative line on immigration, and wants to budget like Ike and Bill Clinton did - funding towards programs that have a big return on their value. This Republican President will be Bill Clinton, basically. By 2036, Bill Clinton looks very much like a conservative for his time, so this President will draw parallels in policy to Bill Clinton.

The election ends with the GOP nominee taking New York with strong margins in the suburbs, Long Island, and Upstatate New York while holding Democratic margins in the city to something like 68-31% Democratic. The GOP won 53% in New Jersey, 56% in Pennsylvania, and did well across the Midwest. They lost Illinois, on account of Chicago being too strongly Democratic but it was a close fight in Illinois (51-48% D). The Sunbelt proved the most Democratic of the country, with its heavily Latino and Asian populations still voting strongly D (but less so). CA is, let us say, 55-43% Democratic, Arizona 52-47% D, etc. The Pacific Northwest goes Republican, since this guy is a moderate, as does most of the MW. The South is the area I'm least sure of but because the region remains fairly conservative relatively to everyone else, I think the South goes Republican.

Economy hits a snag around 2034-2036 which enables the GOP to win. Congress is either (1) Democratic (2) One chamber GOP that goes back to the Democrats in 2038 (2) GOP for 2 years, a la 1952-1954.

[The_Doctor]

The big problem in forecasting beyond Castro is this. We might be entering a new realignment period and I'll elaborate on this just now. Feel free to argue and critique.

The 19th century Jefferson-Lincoln era are bookend realignment eras. Ditto the 20th century FDR-Reagan. Jefferson-Lincoln corresponded directly from the transition from Agrarian era to the Industiral Era; a political epoch that took 132 years to complete. From the FDR to Reagan era, that's another 92 year epoch, marking the transition from the post-Industrial mass market era to the Service Economy. I'd call them super-aligning eras.

You'll notice Jefferson's era saw 40 years of basically Democratic dominance (the Democratic-Republican Party became the Democrats, with Jackson taking Jefferson as his ideological heir, while the JQ Adams faction became the Whigs, and later, the Republicans). The GOP era, conversely, is basically a weaker form but still strong dominance all the way from 1860 to 1912 (with only one Democratic Presidency and mixed congressional control from 1876 to 1896 but strong GOP control after).

Roosevelt and Reagan's era very much mirror each other, except FDR's era was much more strongly Democratic entrenched while Reagan's GOP needed time to gain Congress. (Although, arguably, we've had a conservative coalition ruling this country in Congress, with periodic breaks since 1981).

In a lot of ways, we're still in the 20th century politically, even as our economy and culture has shifted to the 21st century. This is not unusual to me - 19th century politics prevailed all the way into 1932 (with significant interruptions, namely TR and Wilson's Administrations). A lot of our politics right now being as chaotic as they are is probably because there's a disjunctive disconnect between our 20th century politics and 21st century cultural, demographic, and economic realities.

You'll remember most of the current era's political philosophy was formed in the 1950s to the 1970s, and is applicable to the 1980s to the 2000s. It starts to break down now because honestly, the GOP uses this time period as a frame of reference to answer the problems of today. So, I still feel we're in the 20th century politically.

Now, this upcoming 21st era is probably a whole new ballgame in terms of politics, our economy, and international position. The economy and technology are going to probably take a giant leap forward, and we might see the beginnings of a whole new economic reality and as a consequence, alignment, which could take two realignments to complete, ending somewhere in the 22nd century.

One thing I've wondered is if the Republican Party will survive this era or if a brand new pro-business party will replace the GOP.  There will be a need for a pro-business party to balance the Democratic populist party, but I wonder how the GOP's civil war between 2024-2036 (and maybe beyond) will play out.

So this technocratic Republican may not actually happen in 2036 - this is just a guess. I'd assume this era will diverge significantly from the FDR-Reagan model significantly. But we'll go with it for now.

i'm spitballing and this is kind of a very broad discussion of realignments and how they may bookend.

[The_Doctor]

Would Mark Cuban running as an independent candidate change much?  I'm guessing no, but he could cause the democrats to shift to Sanders-esque populism ahead of schedule

I doubt he runs at all. He might but I believe that this whole "political outsider" thing is a passing phase that is an overreaction to Ronald Reagan's "outsider" persona and fails to understand the complexity of actually operating a government. On some level, we see how much of a bust Obama's celebrity persona and "outsider" status was - he increasingly relied on his political experience as a Illinois State Senator and (somewhat) a U.S. Senator to guide his presidency. In this timeline, Trump has even less experience and this becomes a major issue that helps doom his presidency outside the scandals. The long and short of it, by 2019-2020, I think we'll be reverting to electing Presidents from inside the political system.

The Democrats, I think, are already becoming a Sandernista Party. Sanders won a lot of the ideological fights back in June 2016. One important divergence from the 1932 - 1980 era is that there was no major blowout against such a candidate that would end up being the basis for the Democratic governing majority. But the Whigs/GOP suffered no such ideological defeat in the Jeffersonian era and in 1908, William Jennings Bryan might have come closest to such an ideological loss in the Lincoln era when he lost by 8 points (presaging Wilson's win 4 years later). One thing that's interesting about the current era is that the Democratic nominee has convincingly won 48% of the two party vote or better since 1992. That may be in part because of how weak the GOP is as a governing coalition in this time. (Sidenote: It could be that the combined elections of 2000 and 2016 represent the "searing" watersheds of the Democratic losses).

To answer your question, if he did run, he would probably run on a "minority coalition" liberal agenda that might split the Democratic vote and yes, put the Bernie Sanders people firmly in charge of the Democratic Party.

[The_Doctor]

One upcoming article coming up and that's going to require some major research: the failing neoliberal capitalistic regime and how that has led to right wing populist movements in the United States and the globe. Tied into that article is how realignments are broadly tied to economic changes and shifts (at least in the United States). Some cliff notes is how working class areas in the United States, England, and elsewhere have been devastated and political leaders fail to address that, leading to them resenting "the others," and then leading to the stated realignment in the US (can't speak for England and elsewhere) as economic conditions deteriorate.

This will go a long way to explaining the election of 2024 and the Cordray White House. But it also hopefully will explain what we're looking at in the next decade. It will also explain the resurgence of the economic left who will take power to supplant the neoliberals (but not entirely discarding their ideology).

[The_Doctor]

1. Yes; as the Republicans realign towards their technocratic Northern Strategy, they court upscale minorities and try to stop race baiting. In the current era, their Southern/Midwestern strategy is predicated on winning evangelical and culturally conservative white voters. That's not viable down the road...so the Northern Strategy Republicans will be a lot more careful. I'd be a prime example of the kind of Republican they'd be targeting with the Northern strategy, FWIW.

2. I'll try to do some research ... I assumed Virginia going GOP was because the GOP won the Southwest, the areas surrounding Richmond, and made inroads into the white electorate + some minorities in Northern Virginia, that made it return Republican. It's solidly Democratic, in this timeline, not going Republican once between 2008 and 2036. But I will do some geographic footwork on Virginia to figure out how it goes GOP under this technocratic coalition.

[The_Doctor]

Virginia:

Here's the map of Virginia in 2036 or whenever the GOP nominee wins the Presidency carrying Virginia.

http://i.imgur.com/02dk5Gz.png

North Virginia swings markedly to the GOP nominee, but not so overwhelmingly, like they did in 2000. It's much narrower, a string of 51-47% wins. Meanwhile, in richer counties that Clinton won, the X GOP nominee carries them as they no longer feel threatened by the cultural conservative identity of the GOP nominee. They are voting economics/tired of Cordray-Castro.

Rural areas break sharply Republican, suburban areas break narrowly Republican, the urban areas are down in turnout and Democratic strength. The coalition of educated whites + minorities who are upscale and face the looming scepter of basic income possibly meaning much higher taxes and the threat that their college educations may be devalued, etc turn to the GOP to defend capitalistic ethos.

I threw this together based on the Bush v. Gore 2000 map and modified to add Trump areas + areas I thought the GOP nominee would carry. Hope this helps. It may be wildly off - just food for thought. I looked up some census figures for the counties that I flipped blue, based on median income and # of whites. (If the whites were 45%+ and the income was high, I made it a candidate to vote GOP).

EDIT: More info. I based the data on exit polling, since NH whites tend to outpace their population totals.

Whites: 52% of electorate; 64-35% Republican
African Americans: 22% of electorate; 74-25% Democratic
Latinos: 16% of electorate; 55-44% Democratic
Asians: 5% of electorate; 43-56% Republican
Others: 5% of electorate; 55-44% Democratic.

Totals: 48.18%   Democratic, 50.82% Republican.

You see substantial gains for the GOP among Latinos and African Americans, and the GOP wins back Asians outright. Coupled with a strong performance among upscale whites, the GOP takes Virginia's 13 electoral votes. I suspect, quite honestly, the Republicans will actually do better among minorities, because as you can see, taking 64% of NH whites in this election barely gets them to 51% of the vote. They actively have to make the Latino vote a swing bloc and dent the African American vote and take the Asian vote to just get to 51%.

You see the strength in North Virginia, as they no longer feel mortally threatened by the GOP and that strength helps them enormously. College graduates make up 70% of Virginia's electorate, with the universal college education now part of the national framework. The above $100k brackets go heavily Republican while the $50-100k brackets go GOP 52-47% and the lower go Democratic.

Can you imagine the GOP in 2016 doing this? Not likely. The sea change to flip VA like that means an entirely different Republican Presidential nominee who is far more technocratic, racially and culturally tolerant, and focused on economics. Think a change from Silent Cal Coolidge to Dwight Eisenhower.

EDIT 2: Let me know if the VA map is not viewable on mobile.

[The_Doctor]

The VA link is here: http://i.imgur.com/02dk5Gz.png

I've edited the post to remove the picture and to just leave the link up.

[The_Doctor]

Another sticked TL

Thanks; appreciate it.

[The_Doctor]

I think that's a good question. A really good one. I've been thinking about it for a bit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The answer is ... I don't know.

I am what I say in my signature but I also have considerable pragmatic sensibilities that have long been at odds with the GOP hyper-ideology. My neoliberal and neoconservative views run from overturning Roe but pairing it with birth control to make the end of abortion easier; using multilateral and true international coalitions to install democracy abroad, and pairing major free trade deals with helping workers retrain. I'd identify myself as a conservative who favors sanding off the rough edges of conservatism to make it all work. (I'm also a strong environmentalist who wants a carbon tax that is revenue neutral to deal with global warming).

But certainly, in this timeline, that ideology is out of favor. I don't favor where the Democrats want to go on healthcare (preferring the Swiss model), where they want to go on taxes, and where they want to do in expanding Social Security and Medicare. I in fact think RyanCare is a decent idea.

I'd say that my ideology is the biggest loser in the 2024 elections, absolutely. Bannon and Miller will have a populist audience, still, but the neoliberal neoconservative age is over. I'm not sure how I feel about that; I do know that I will probably end up voting against Cordray and Castro and for the GOP. I'm undecided on my 2020 vote; but I will say I am open to Pence.

But is it so bad that the GOP ideology is junked?

I don't know. I'm not yet at that point where I am ready to accept that an ideology I've held for over a decade is defunct, even if I've written an entire timeline that says that. That's a bit of a cognitive dissonance going on, and I recognize that. It's something I'm working through, politically.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is true. I guess, I am definitely happy in one aspect that they take out the hyper-ideological Republican Party and force the GOP to come to terms with decades-long trends that have made it whiter, more radical, and less open to pragmatic ideas as well as bonded to a nationalism that is outright dangerous (in my eyes). So, I guess, I am happy when Cordray and Castro finally bring down that GOP and force the recalibration. My favorite President, in this timeline, is probably said Northern 2036 Republican guy/gal. I definitely find myself easily backing that Republican.

But I would be lying if I said I wasn't in conflict about where my party is going and how I feel the future will end up. There are good things and bad things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personally, the Democrats are not going to be FF but they will do one important thing - they will break the gridlock and bring the United States forward into the Automation Age and the new age of technology. The decades long stagnation we've had since 2000 for the middle and lower class, hopefully, will come to a close. We leave behind the politics of the 1960s-1980s that formed the bedrock of the current GOP ideology. Good things start happening, like a leap in technological advancement, economic growth, and cultural calm. (Though it may take until the 2030s - 2040s to see this all happen).  

So in that regard, they're OK. They're essential in the long run to the United States remaining the hegemonic superpower in the world and using technology, culture, and economics to remain on top of the world. So, in that regard, they are essential FF.

On the other hand, I cringe about how expansive the state will become under the new reigning Democrats (and that old bugaboo, the higher taxes). If you've ever played the Deus Ex series, you run into a massive powerful state and technology has made the state even more pervasive and invasive in our lives. Populists are extremely authoritarian figures and the only two major populist figures I know that we've been able to live through was FDR and Jackson. And during FDR's tenure, the state became a huge powerful structure that couldn't be challenged. So, there is that lingering concern.

So, I don't know. It's a mix of (extreme) relief that our current nationalism and crazed neoliberalism comes to an end, and pragmatic politics returns, but also concern about how far the new Democratic majority will go. (And unfortunately: Trump has opened the door for this new realigning President to be an extremely powerful norm-breaking executive. For better or worse).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you elaborate and give us some anecdotes? I'm very curious about this.