Coalitions

[uti2]

The context of this discussion originated here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=266282.0

With the exception of TR's influence on FDR, those other two examples don't have much influence. Reagan never actually rolled back on desegregation to the extent Wallace wanted and instead pursued a policy in regards to civil rights issues, the drug war, and foreign policy that was very similar to Nixon's approach. Donald Trump cares nothing about the federal debt (and is likely to make it worse) which was one of Perot's signature campaign issues. In regards to trade, Trump did kill a trade deal that was unlikely to pass anyhow (and was likely more of a slight towards Obama if anything) but he's by and large governing like a standard Reagan Republican which is why even Mitch McConnell openly admitted that President Trump has essentially become a President Jeb Bush.

Also that cycle isn't coherent since the beneficiary Party isn't always the one to adapt said policies down the line:

1912: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Wilson and later becomes Democrat FDR's policies. Works out.
1968: Third Party revolt benefits Republican Nixon and later becomes Republican Reagan's policies. Works out. (Although not entirely since Reagan's civil rights, drug war efforts, and foreign policy were more akin to Nixon than Wallace).
1992: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Clinton (which it didn't-Perot drew from both Parties fairly equally by most accounts) and later becomes...Republican Trump's policies?) Here it skipped over Obama who should've adopted the policies of Perot in office according to this theory...but largely didn't. The GOP were the ones who forced him to pursue fiscal discipline when it came to the budget to deal with the national debt, and he tried ramming through a free trade deal near the end.

Most Perot '92 voters were Bush '88 voters similar to how most TR '12 voters were Taft '08 voters.

Both Obama and Clinton campaigned on opposition to free trade deals in '08, and Clinton opposed the TPP. Obama offered a Grand Bargain to the GOP in 2011. The GOP rejected that because they rejected Perot-style centrism, and wanted to go even harder-right.

Perot wanted to balance the budget through tax hikes on the wealthy combined with spending cuts. This was basically the Grand Bargain. Trump was the only GOP candidate who suggested tax hikes on the wealthy, although he didn't bring forth a formal plan. Perot opposed broad-brush Capital Gains Tax cuts. He only supported special tax credits for the purposes of entrepreneurship and r&d.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I guess the first question is, were most Perot voters Bush voters? If I remember right, Clinton was leading Bush by a very large amount before Perot re entered the race. I thought the general consensus was that Perot probably didn't act as a spoiler for Bush since his support was fairly split between the two Parties.

I think that the Third Party elements are sort of a reflection of the times. A lot of Teddy Roosevelt's populist zeal could be seen in William Jennings Bryan just 4 years prior and much of George Wallace's Dixiecrat beliefs were a reflection of Barry Goldwater's campaign just 4 years prior as well.

I think Ross Perot's fears about debt, international trade, etc. will be increasingly reflected in both political Parties dialogue (The top ranking Democrat in DC was opposed to TPP and called china a currency manipulator, Bernie Sanders was also hostile towards international trade agreements albeit not as overtly so as Donald Trump). How this plays into a realignment remains to be seen though.

[uti2]

I guess the first question is, were most Perot voters Bush voters? If I remember right, Clinton was leading Bush by a very large amount before Perot re entered the race. I thought the general consensus was that Perot probably didn't act as a spoiler for Bush since his support was fairly split between the two Parties.

I think that the Third Party elements are sort of a reflection of the times. A lot of Teddy Roosevelt's populist zeal could be seen in William Jennings Bryan just 4 years prior and much of George Wallace's Dixiecrat beliefs were a reflection of Barry Goldwater's campaign just 4 years prior as well.

I think Ross Perot's fears about debt, international trade, etc. will be increasingly reflected in both political Parties dialogue (The top ranking Democrat in DC was opposed to TPP and called china a currency manipulator, Bernie Sanders was also hostile towards international trade agreements albeit not as overtly so as Donald Trump). How this plays into a realignment remains to be seen though.

The first poll taken in March had Bush winning, it wasn't until Perot picked up momentum did Bush fall, and Bush was never able to regain the initial momentum he lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_1992

In the context of the prior election, most Perot voters did vote for Bush in '88, that's the parallel to TR and Taft in 1912.

There is also another interesting angle to this equation in terms of foreign policy. Perot was critiqued for his FP since he wanted Europe to 'pay its fair share'.

Obama's election in '08 was a breakaway from the traditional foreign policy consensus, and had some elements of Perot's foreign policy r.e. Europe. Obama killed the missile defense shield.

A term added on top of Obama would've been a rough continuation of the Obama's administration policies, thus reflecting the fulfillment of Perot's agenda.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Wasn't Clinton polling at or near 55% before Perot jumped back into the race in early October? I think Clinton was decisively ahead of Bush for most of the race post Democratic convention. Teddy Roosevelt was a clear cut spoiler for the GOP in 1912, but the same can't be said of Perot spoiling the race for Bush I in 1992. Bill Clinton campaigned as a moderate blue dog Dem and ran ads like this. Clinton understood that the political era had changed by the 90's and adapted appropriately. He was likely gonna win since he was the first Democrat post Reagan to run as a moderate that accepted the Reagan era consensus.

Obama's foreign policy is mixed, but he was active in foreign affairs. Drone strikes, opening up relations with Cuba, reaffirming our commitment to NATO, the Paris climate agreement, intervention of some kind in 7 different middle eastern countries, etc. He also took a tough line on Russia post-Crimea with the sanctions. I don't know much about Ross Perot's foreign policy (although I don't think foreign policy is what many voters found appealing about him).

[uti2]

Wasn't Clinton polling at or near 55% before Perot jumped back into the race in early October? I think Clinton was decisively ahead of Bush for most of the race post Democratic convention. Teddy Roosevelt was a clear cut spoiler for the GOP in 1912, but the same can't be said of Perot spoiling the race for Bush I in 1992. Bill Clinton campaigned as a moderate blue dog Dem and ran ads like this. Clinton understood that the political era had changed by the 90's and adapted appropriately. He was likely gonna win since he was the first Democrat post Reagan to run as a moderate that accepted the Reagan era consensus.

Obama's foreign policy is mixed, but he was active in foreign affairs. Drone strikes, opening up relations with Cuba, reaffirming our commitment to NATO, the Paris climate agreement, intervention of some kind in 7 different middle eastern countries, etc. He also took a tough line on Russia post-Crimea with the sanctions. I don't know much about Ross Perot's foreign policy (although I don't think foreign policy is what many voters found appealing about him).

That's why I mentioned the book ''Three's a Crowd'. It discusses the dynamics of that election. Perot's entry into the race allowed him to break up the Reagan Coalition. This is why back in March of '92, Bush was initially leading. Wilson adopted elements from TR's platform in 1912, and Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy to court Wallace voters in '68. It's how coalitions split.

Obama maintained a restrained foreign policy, which was closer to Perot's position. Hillary/Biden would've continued that.

Russia would've preferred Clinton over a normal republican on foreign policy, they specifically preferred Trump, and we know this effort led to the forged Russian document that convinced Comey to go public. That unique series of events had an impact on the election.

[Technocracy Timmy]

But Clinton was decisively ahead of Bush before Perot reentered the race. That seems to suggest that Perot didn't really fracture the Reagan coalition but that Clinton won over enough of those voters on his own merits.

Third party candidacies didn't split the dominant coalition of the respective eras-at least not in the long run. The GOP went on to win decisive victories in the 1920's without adopting TR's progressivism. Jimmy Carter won with the New Deal coalition in 1976 without adopting a staunch anti-civil rights platform. George Bush Jr. went on to win two consecutive presidential wins without adopting the protectionist, tax the rich and pay down the national debt rhetoric of Ross Perot.

The majority coalitions weren't permanently fractured in the aftermath of Third Party candidacies. It was macroeconomic conditions that ultimately did them in. The Great Depression for the GOP in 1932, stagflation for the Democrats in 1980, etc. The GOP stayed in tact in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis since congress and the Federal Reserve took very quick and drastic measures to bail out the system in place; lessening the damage done to the GOP. Those bailouts quickly became the subject of strict scrutiny from deficit hawks within the GOP and that movement became the Tea Party.

[OSR stands with Israel]

But Clinton was decisively ahead of Bush before Perot reentered the race. That seems to suggest that Perot didn't really fracture the Reagan coalition but that Clinton won over enough of those voters on his own merits.

Third party candidacies didn't split the dominant coalition of the respective eras-at least not in the long run. The GOP went on to win decisive victories in the 1920's without adopting TR's progressivism. Jimmy Carter won with the New Deal coalition in 1976 without adopting a staunch anti-civil rights platform. George Bush Jr. went on to win two consecutive presidential wins without adopting the protectionist, tax the rich and pay down the national debt rhetoric of Ross Perot.

The majority coalitions weren't permanently fractured in the aftermath of Third Party candidacies. It was macroeconomic conditions that ultimately did them in. The Great Depression for the GOP in 1932, stagflation for the Democrats in 1980, etc. The GOP stayed in tact in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis since congress and the Federal Reserve took very quick and drastic measures to bail out the system in place; lessening the damage done to the GOP. Those bailouts quickly became the subject of strict scrutiny from deficit hawks within the GOP and that movement became the Tea Party.

Jimmy Carter only won cause of Watergate. If not for watergate gop wins again in 1976.

[Technocracy Timmy]

But Clinton was decisively ahead of Bush before Perot reentered the race. That seems to suggest that Perot didn't really fracture the Reagan coalition but that Clinton won over enough of those voters on his own merits.

Third party candidacies didn't split the dominant coalition of the respective eras-at least not in the long run. The GOP went on to win decisive victories in the 1920's without adopting TR's progressivism. Jimmy Carter won with the New Deal coalition in 1976 without adopting a staunch anti-civil rights platform. George Bush Jr. went on to win two consecutive presidential wins without adopting the protectionist, tax the rich and pay down the national debt rhetoric of Ross Perot.

The majority coalitions weren't permanently fractured in the aftermath of Third Party candidacies. It was macroeconomic conditions that ultimately did them in. The Great Depression for the GOP in 1932, stagflation for the Democrats in 1980, etc. The GOP stayed in tact in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis since congress and the Federal Reserve took very quick and drastic measures to bail out the system in place; lessening the damage done to the GOP. Those bailouts quickly became the subject of strict scrutiny from deficit hawks within the GOP and that movement became the Tea Party.

Jimmy Carter only won cause of Watergate. If not for watergate gop wins again in 1976.

Maybe. We can't say exactly what would've happened. Watergate made the 1976 election look like an easy win for the Democrats so they had a packed primary that allowed Carter (who was disliked by the Democratic establishment)  to squeeze through. If 76' had no Watergate then there would've probably would've been a strong consensus candidate to run for the Democratic ticket in 1976 which would've kept the race close as well.

It's all conjecture though. We don't know exactly what would've happened.

[uti2]

But Clinton was decisively ahead of Bush before Perot reentered the race. That seems to suggest that Perot didn't really fracture the Reagan coalition but that Clinton won over enough of those voters on his own merits.

Third party candidacies didn't split the dominant coalition of the respective eras-at least not in the long run. The GOP went on to win decisive victories in the 1920's without adopting TR's progressivism. Jimmy Carter won with the New Deal coalition in 1976 without adopting a staunch anti-civil rights platform. George Bush Jr. went on to win two consecutive presidential wins without adopting the protectionist, tax the rich and pay down the national debt rhetoric of Ross Perot.

The majority coalitions weren't permanently fractured in the aftermath of Third Party candidacies. It was macroeconomic conditions that ultimately did them in. The Great Depression for the GOP in 1932, stagflation for the Democrats in 1980, etc. The GOP stayed in tact in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis since congress and the Federal Reserve took very quick and drastic measures to bail out the system in place; lessening the damage done to the GOP. Those bailouts quickly became the subject of strict scrutiny from deficit hawks within the GOP and that movement became the Tea Party.

Not if you look at that wiki link. Bush was ahead until after many months of Perot's attrition caused his numbers to collapse, he just couldn't recover after that initial hit.

Generally, the breakup of the coalition leads to the opposing party benefiting. TR was an R, Wallace was a D, Perot was originally an R.

What this means is that after Hillary/Biden's term, you would've had a socially centrist/economically semi-progressive third party candidate, maybe someone like Mark Cuban running in 2020, costing Hillary/Biden their reelection. The GOP candidate of that year would've also slightly moderated their tone on certain issues like healthcare, TPP, etc. Eventually in the 2030s you would've had the realigning populist GOPer taking his proper cues from the Cuban 2020 platform. Someone who is socially more centrist and populist, but is reasonably so (rather than someone who wants 90% tax rates on the rich), perhaps someone who backs reorganizing the Federal Government (including reallocating defense spending) to support a balance of funded programs.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I'd wager that those declining numbers for Bush could just as very well have been reflective of the economic downturn and Bill Clinton consolidating support after being a "comeback kid" in the primaries. Bill Clinton ran a very strong campaign that triangulated and took the high ground on issues that had defined the GOP either in their policies or rhetoric in the 1980's.

I don't see the scenario you described playing out. We bailed out a financial system in 2008 to keep the macroeconomic order that was reconfigured and formed in 1980 in tact and chugging along. I wrote about this in much more detail in my other thread, but there has to be a realignment eventually in the 2020's to address the issues that are present in today's macroeconomy.

[uti2]

I'd wager that those declining numbers for Bush could just as very well have been reflective of the economic downturn and Bill Clinton consolidating support after being a "comeback kid" in the primaries. Bill Clinton ran a very strong campaign that triangulated and took the high ground on issues that had defined the GOP either in their policies or rhetoric in the 1980's.

I don't see the scenario you described playing out. We bailed out a financial system in 2008 to keep the macroeconomic order that was reconfigured and formed in 1980 in tact and chugging along. I wrote about this in much more detail in my other thread, but there has to be a realignment eventually in the 2020's to address the issues that are present in today's macroeconomy.

Bush ran after an economic downturn in 2004, and he still won. Very good chance Clinton '92 would've been like Kerry '04 without Perot.

The idea is that eventually there would be some need for debt restructuring (which would include defaults), and that 30s era GOP candidate running on Cuban's 2020 platform would be expressing those ideas.

[uti2]

But Clinton was decisively ahead of Bush before Perot reentered the race. That seems to suggest that Perot didn't really fracture the Reagan coalition but that Clinton won over enough of those voters on his own merits.

Third party candidacies didn't split the dominant coalition of the respective eras-at least not in the long run. The GOP went on to win decisive victories in the 1920's without adopting TR's progressivism. Jimmy Carter won with the New Deal coalition in 1976 without adopting a staunch anti-civil rights platform. George Bush Jr. went on to win two consecutive presidential wins without adopting the protectionist, tax the rich and pay down the national debt rhetoric of Ross Perot.

The majority coalitions weren't permanently fractured in the aftermath of Third Party candidacies. It was macroeconomic conditions that ultimately did them in. The Great Depression for the GOP in 1932, stagflation for the Democrats in 1980, etc. The GOP stayed in tact in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis since congress and the Federal Reserve took very quick and drastic measures to bail out the system in place; lessening the damage done to the GOP. Those bailouts quickly became the subject of strict scrutiny from deficit hawks within the GOP and that movement became the Tea Party.

Jimmy Carter only won cause of Watergate. If not for watergate gop wins again in 1976.

Another parallel between Bill and Nixon. Watergate allowed Carter to break Nixon's southern firewall, and Lewinsky allowed Bush to break Clinton's southern firewall.

[Technocracy Timmy]

But Clinton was decisively ahead of Bush before Perot reentered the race. That seems to suggest that Perot didn't really fracture the Reagan coalition but that Clinton won over enough of those voters on his own merits.

Third party candidacies didn't split the dominant coalition of the respective eras-at least not in the long run. The GOP went on to win decisive victories in the 1920's without adopting TR's progressivism. Jimmy Carter won with the New Deal coalition in 1976 without adopting a staunch anti-civil rights platform. George Bush Jr. went on to win two consecutive presidential wins without adopting the protectionist, tax the rich and pay down the national debt rhetoric of Ross Perot.

The majority coalitions weren't permanently fractured in the aftermath of Third Party candidacies. It was macroeconomic conditions that ultimately did them in. The Great Depression for the GOP in 1932, stagflation for the Democrats in 1980, etc. The GOP stayed in tact in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis since congress and the Federal Reserve took very quick and drastic measures to bail out the system in place; lessening the damage done to the GOP. Those bailouts quickly became the subject of strict scrutiny from deficit hawks within the GOP and that movement became the Tea Party.

Jimmy Carter only won cause of Watergate. If not for watergate gop wins again in 1976.

Another parallel between Bill and Nixon. Watergate allowed Carter to break Nixon's southern firewall, and Lewinsky allowed Bush to break Clinton's southern firewall.

I think that had more to do with the fact that it's been very difficult in the post WWII political atmosphere to win a third consecutive WH term for your Party unless youre succeeding a realigning President. This wasn't so much the case in the 1920's and before though.

[darklordoftech]

It seems to me that third party runs forshadow a realignment. The Free Soilers and Know-Nothings forshadowed the rise of the GOP, the Populists forshadowed Bryan's takeover of the Democrats, Thurmond forshadowed Goldwater's southern wins, etc.

[Technocracy Timmy]

It seems to me that third party runs forshadow a realignment. The Free Soilers and Know-Nothings forshadowed the rise of the GOP, the Populists forshadowed Bryan's takeover of the Democrats, Thurmond forshadowed Goldwater's southern wins, etc.

On second thought, I do think uti2 is onto something here. And I do agree with your statement as well. It all does seem to fit very well with the typical alignment I think of (Jefferson-Lincoln-Roosevelt-Reagan).

I could actually see a lot of Perot's platform being the crux of the next Democratic majority's platform: Link. I don't think the next Democratic President will be either a globalist or a protectionist, but will instead tread a fine line on the issue in their efforts to renationalize the economy in certain respects. But a lot of his positions (minus drug policy) does seem to fit well with what I foresee the Democrats embracing down the line.

One more caveat: I think the fears of debt with Perot are real but slightly misplaced. It's privately held debt and to a lesser extent pensions and debts at a state and local level that will be the challenges; not so much national debt. The United States is the world currency reserve and we can't actually go bust. Greece for example didn't even have their own printing press. Push comes to shove, we can raise taxes at the federal level to combat our national debt.

I'm gonna study this a little more because there does seem to be something here. Thank you uti2 and darklordoftech!

[hopper]

The context of this discussion originated here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=266282.0

With the exception of TR's influence on FDR, those other two examples don't have much influence. Reagan never actually rolled back on desegregation to the extent Wallace wanted and instead pursued a policy in regards to civil rights issues, the drug war, and foreign policy that was very similar to Nixon's approach. Donald Trump cares nothing about the federal debt (and is likely to make it worse) which was one of Perot's signature campaign issues. In regards to trade, Trump did kill a trade deal that was unlikely to pass anyhow (and was likely more of a slight towards Obama if anything) but he's by and large governing like a standard Reagan Republican which is why even Mitch McConnell openly admitted that President Trump has essentially become a President Jeb Bush.

Also that cycle isn't coherent since the beneficiary Party isn't always the one to adapt said policies down the line:

1912: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Wilson and later becomes Democrat FDR's policies. Works out.
1968: Third Party revolt benefits Republican Nixon and later becomes Republican Reagan's policies. Works out. (Although not entirely since Reagan's civil rights, drug war efforts, and foreign policy were more akin to Nixon than Wallace).
1992: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Clinton (which it didn't-Perot drew from both Parties fairly equally by most accounts) and later becomes...Republican Trump's policies?) Here it skipped over Obama who should've adopted the policies of Perot in office according to this theory...but largely didn't. The GOP were the ones who forced him to pursue fiscal discipline when it came to the budget to deal with the national debt, and he tried ramming through a free trade deal near the end.

Most Perot '92 voters were Bush '88 voters similar to how most TR '12 voters were Taft '08 voters.

Both Obama and Clinton campaigned on opposition to free trade deals in '08, and Clinton opposed the TPP. Obama offered a Grand Bargain to the GOP in 2011. The GOP rejected that because they rejected Perot-style centrism, and wanted to go even harder-right.

Perot wanted to balance the budget through tax hikes on the wealthy combined with spending cuts. This was basically the Grand Bargain. Trump was the only GOP candidate who suggested tax hikes on the wealthy, although he didn't bring forth a formal plan. Perot opposed broad-brush Capital Gains Tax cuts. He only supported special tax credits for the purposes of entrepreneurship and r&d.

Probably "The Tea Party" or "Freedom Caucus" Republicans wanted to go farther right not the Republican Establishment at least I don't think the Republican Establishment wanted to go farther right.

[uti2]

The context of this discussion originated here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=266282.0

With the exception of TR's influence on FDR, those other two examples don't have much influence. Reagan never actually rolled back on desegregation to the extent Wallace wanted and instead pursued a policy in regards to civil rights issues, the drug war, and foreign policy that was very similar to Nixon's approach. Donald Trump cares nothing about the federal debt (and is likely to make it worse) which was one of Perot's signature campaign issues. In regards to trade, Trump did kill a trade deal that was unlikely to pass anyhow (and was likely more of a slight towards Obama if anything) but he's by and large governing like a standard Reagan Republican which is why even Mitch McConnell openly admitted that President Trump has essentially become a President Jeb Bush.

Also that cycle isn't coherent since the beneficiary Party isn't always the one to adapt said policies down the line:

1912: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Wilson and later becomes Democrat FDR's policies. Works out.
1968: Third Party revolt benefits Republican Nixon and later becomes Republican Reagan's policies. Works out. (Although not entirely since Reagan's civil rights, drug war efforts, and foreign policy were more akin to Nixon than Wallace).
1992: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Clinton (which it didn't-Perot drew from both Parties fairly equally by most accounts) and later becomes...Republican Trump's policies?) Here it skipped over Obama who should've adopted the policies of Perot in office according to this theory...but largely didn't. The GOP were the ones who forced him to pursue fiscal discipline when it came to the budget to deal with the national debt, and he tried ramming through a free trade deal near the end.

Most Perot '92 voters were Bush '88 voters similar to how most TR '12 voters were Taft '08 voters.

Both Obama and Clinton campaigned on opposition to free trade deals in '08, and Clinton opposed the TPP. Obama offered a Grand Bargain to the GOP in 2011. The GOP rejected that because they rejected Perot-style centrism, and wanted to go even harder-right.

Perot wanted to balance the budget through tax hikes on the wealthy combined with spending cuts. This was basically the Grand Bargain. Trump was the only GOP candidate who suggested tax hikes on the wealthy, although he didn't bring forth a formal plan. Perot opposed broad-brush Capital Gains Tax cuts. He only supported special tax credits for the purposes of entrepreneurship and r&d.

Probably "The Tea Party" or "Freedom Caucus" Republicans wanted to go farther right not the Republican Establishment at least I don't think the Republican Establishment wanted to go farther right.

If the establishment didn't want to go further right, then they never would've abandoned Jeb/Kasich, instead, they tried to push harder-right tea party candidates in their places. In the end, the John Anderson wing of the party chose Kasich on their own volition, despite the establishment trying to discourage them from doing so.

[hopper]

The context of this discussion originated here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=266282.0

With the exception of TR's influence on FDR, those other two examples don't have much influence. Reagan never actually rolled back on desegregation to the extent Wallace wanted and instead pursued a policy in regards to civil rights issues, the drug war, and foreign policy that was very similar to Nixon's approach. Donald Trump cares nothing about the federal debt (and is likely to make it worse) which was one of Perot's signature campaign issues. In regards to trade, Trump did kill a trade deal that was unlikely to pass anyhow (and was likely more of a slight towards Obama if anything) but he's by and large governing like a standard Reagan Republican which is why even Mitch McConnell openly admitted that President Trump has essentially become a President Jeb Bush.

Also that cycle isn't coherent since the beneficiary Party isn't always the one to adapt said policies down the line:

1912: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Wilson and later becomes Democrat FDR's policies. Works out.
1968: Third Party revolt benefits Republican Nixon and later becomes Republican Reagan's policies. Works out. (Although not entirely since Reagan's civil rights, drug war efforts, and foreign policy were more akin to Nixon than Wallace).
1992: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Clinton (which it didn't-Perot drew from both Parties fairly equally by most accounts) and later becomes...Republican Trump's policies?) Here it skipped over Obama who should've adopted the policies of Perot in office according to this theory...but largely didn't. The GOP were the ones who forced him to pursue fiscal discipline when it came to the budget to deal with the national debt, and he tried ramming through a free trade deal near the end.

Most Perot '92 voters were Bush '88 voters similar to how most TR '12 voters were Taft '08 voters.

Both Obama and Clinton campaigned on opposition to free trade deals in '08, and Clinton opposed the TPP. Obama offered a Grand Bargain to the GOP in 2011. The GOP rejected that because they rejected Perot-style centrism, and wanted to go even harder-right.

Perot wanted to balance the budget through tax hikes on the wealthy combined with spending cuts. This was basically the Grand Bargain. Trump was the only GOP candidate who suggested tax hikes on the wealthy, although he didn't bring forth a formal plan. Perot opposed broad-brush Capital Gains Tax cuts. He only supported special tax credits for the purposes of entrepreneurship and r&d.

Probably "The Tea Party" or "Freedom Caucus" Republicans wanted to go farther right not the Republican Establishment at least I don't think the Republican Establishment wanted to go farther right.

If the establishment didn't want to go further right, then they never would've abandoned Jeb/Kasich, instead, they tried to push harder-right tea party candidates in their places. In the end, the John Anderson wing of the party chose Kasich on their own volition, despite the establishment trying to discourage them from doing so.

Its not about the Republican Establishment  not wanting or wanting Kasich or Jeb its that Jeb got shown up badly by Trump in the Republican Primary Debates. Kasich-he lacked
"the populist zeal" that Trump had in a "change election cycle".  The Republican Primary Electorate was looking for a candidate that had "populist zeal" that was gonna stick up for "the little guy" sort of like Sanders was doing in the Dem Primary vs Hillary.

[uti2]

The context of this discussion originated here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=266282.0

With the exception of TR's influence on FDR, those other two examples don't have much influence. Reagan never actually rolled back on desegregation to the extent Wallace wanted and instead pursued a policy in regards to civil rights issues, the drug war, and foreign policy that was very similar to Nixon's approach. Donald Trump cares nothing about the federal debt (and is likely to make it worse) which was one of Perot's signature campaign issues. In regards to trade, Trump did kill a trade deal that was unlikely to pass anyhow (and was likely more of a slight towards Obama if anything) but he's by and large governing like a standard Reagan Republican which is why even Mitch McConnell openly admitted that President Trump has essentially become a President Jeb Bush.

Also that cycle isn't coherent since the beneficiary Party isn't always the one to adapt said policies down the line:

1912: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Wilson and later becomes Democrat FDR's policies. Works out.
1968: Third Party revolt benefits Republican Nixon and later becomes Republican Reagan's policies. Works out. (Although not entirely since Reagan's civil rights, drug war efforts, and foreign policy were more akin to Nixon than Wallace).
1992: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Clinton (which it didn't-Perot drew from both Parties fairly equally by most accounts) and later becomes...Republican Trump's policies?) Here it skipped over Obama who should've adopted the policies of Perot in office according to this theory...but largely didn't. The GOP were the ones who forced him to pursue fiscal discipline when it came to the budget to deal with the national debt, and he tried ramming through a free trade deal near the end.

Most Perot '92 voters were Bush '88 voters similar to how most TR '12 voters were Taft '08 voters.

Both Obama and Clinton campaigned on opposition to free trade deals in '08, and Clinton opposed the TPP. Obama offered a Grand Bargain to the GOP in 2011. The GOP rejected that because they rejected Perot-style centrism, and wanted to go even harder-right.

Perot wanted to balance the budget through tax hikes on the wealthy combined with spending cuts. This was basically the Grand Bargain. Trump was the only GOP candidate who suggested tax hikes on the wealthy, although he didn't bring forth a formal plan. Perot opposed broad-brush Capital Gains Tax cuts. He only supported special tax credits for the purposes of entrepreneurship and r&d.

Probably "The Tea Party" or "Freedom Caucus" Republicans wanted to go farther right not the Republican Establishment at least I don't think the Republican Establishment wanted to go farther right.

If the establishment didn't want to go further right, then they never would've abandoned Jeb/Kasich, instead, they tried to push harder-right tea party candidates in their places. In the end, the John Anderson wing of the party chose Kasich on their own volition, despite the establishment trying to discourage them from doing so.

Its not about the Republican Establishment  not wanting or wanting Kasich or Jeb its that Jeb got shown up badly by Trump in the Republican Primary Debates. Kasich-he lacked
"the populist zeal" that Trump had in a "change election cycle".  The Republican Primary Electorate was looking for a candidate that had "populist zeal" that was gonna stick up for "the little guy" sort of like Sanders was doing in the Dem Primary vs Hillary.

The establishment, as in Mcconnell & Co. were actually pushing pretty aggressively for Kasich to exit the race. Don't pretend as if they didn't take sides.

[hopper]

The context of this discussion originated here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=266282.0

With the exception of TR's influence on FDR, those other two examples don't have much influence. Reagan never actually rolled back on desegregation to the extent Wallace wanted and instead pursued a policy in regards to civil rights issues, the drug war, and foreign policy that was very similar to Nixon's approach. Donald Trump cares nothing about the federal debt (and is likely to make it worse) which was one of Perot's signature campaign issues. In regards to trade, Trump did kill a trade deal that was unlikely to pass anyhow (and was likely more of a slight towards Obama if anything) but he's by and large governing like a standard Reagan Republican which is why even Mitch McConnell openly admitted that President Trump has essentially become a President Jeb Bush.

Also that cycle isn't coherent since the beneficiary Party isn't always the one to adapt said policies down the line:

1912: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Wilson and later becomes Democrat FDR's policies. Works out.
1968: Third Party revolt benefits Republican Nixon and later becomes Republican Reagan's policies. Works out. (Although not entirely since Reagan's civil rights, drug war efforts, and foreign policy were more akin to Nixon than Wallace).
1992: Third Party revolt benefits Democrat Clinton (which it didn't-Perot drew from both Parties fairly equally by most accounts) and later becomes...Republican Trump's policies?) Here it skipped over Obama who should've adopted the policies of Perot in office according to this theory...but largely didn't. The GOP were the ones who forced him to pursue fiscal discipline when it came to the budget to deal with the national debt, and he tried ramming through a free trade deal near the end.

Most Perot '92 voters were Bush '88 voters similar to how most TR '12 voters were Taft '08 voters.

Both Obama and Clinton campaigned on opposition to free trade deals in '08, and Clinton opposed the TPP. Obama offered a Grand Bargain to the GOP in 2011. The GOP rejected that because they rejected Perot-style centrism, and wanted to go even harder-right.

Perot wanted to balance the budget through tax hikes on the wealthy combined with spending cuts. This was basically the Grand Bargain. Trump was the only GOP candidate who suggested tax hikes on the wealthy, although he didn't bring forth a formal plan. Perot opposed broad-brush Capital Gains Tax cuts. He only supported special tax credits for the purposes of entrepreneurship and r&d.

Probably "The Tea Party" or "Freedom Caucus" Republicans wanted to go farther right not the Republican Establishment at least I don't think the Republican Establishment wanted to go farther right.

If the establishment didn't want to go further right, then they never would've abandoned Jeb/Kasich, instead, they tried to push harder-right tea party candidates in their places. In the end, the John Anderson wing of the party chose Kasich on their own volition, despite the establishment trying to discourage them from doing so.

Its not about the Republican Establishment  not wanting or wanting Kasich or Jeb its that Jeb got shown up badly by Trump in the Republican Primary Debates. Kasich-he lacked
"the populist zeal" that Trump had in a "change election cycle".  The Republican Primary Electorate was looking for a candidate that had "populist zeal" that was gonna stick up for "the little guy" sort of like Sanders was doing in the Dem Primary vs Hillary.

The establishment, as in Mcconnell & Co. were actually pushing pretty aggressively for Kasich to exit the race. Don't pretend as if they didn't take sides.

I don't doubt politicians take sides in liking one presidential candidate over another for example. Kasich wasn't gonna win though it was basically Trump vs Cruz.

[Kingpoleon]

It seems to me that third party runs forshadow a realignment. The Free Soilers and Know-Nothings forshadowed the rise of the GOP, the Populists forshadowed Bryan's takeover of the Democrats, Thurmond forshadowed Goldwater's southern wins, etc.

Perot foreshadowed Trump.


I think it's unfair to compare a massive FF like Goldwater with a massive HP like Thurmond, though. Thurmond foreshadowed Wallace who foreshadowed Carter who foreshadowed "moderate populist Democrat" Bill Clinton.