Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[King Lear]

I'm skeptical of a wave in 2018 without a realigning election in 2020 because the foreshadowing and realigning down-ballot gains are usually similar. E.g., I don't expect a Democratic wave in 2018 with a Republican victory in 2020 because it's impossible for the Democratic Party to gain 6-8 seats in 2024 in the Senate to mirror past realignments.

How do you know that democrats won't flip the house and senate next year but in 2020 trump wins a narrow 270-268 victory in the electoral college (holding all his 2016 states minus Michigan and Pennsylvania) leading to another democratic wave in 2022 strengthening their majorities in the house and senate followed by the realignment happening in 2024.

Maybe it’s because Trump won 46% of the electorate on the backs of almost every shrinking demographic group against the most unpopular Democratic candidate in modern American history?

Also why are PA and MI written off but not Wisconsin? Obama won the state by 14 in 2008 and by 7 in 2012 but after Trump’s landslide win of less than a percent last year we’re suppose to believe it’s become Wississippi?

Wisconsin is by far more republican then Michigan and Pennsylvania, Remember Wisconsin voted out Russ feingold in 2010, rejected Feingold again in 2016, voted for the Far-Right, Anti-Union, Governor Scott Walker three times in 2010, 2012, and 2014, and at the presidential level nearly voted for George W Bush in both 2000 and 2004 (he came within less then a point of winning the state twice). This shows Wisconsin has been itching to vote republican in a presidential election since at least 2000, and along with the fact Wisconsin is significantly more White and Rural then Michigan and Pennsylvania, shows it is by far the most likely of those three states to vote for Trump again.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Can King Lear get out of the big boys thread? You can get your diaper changed in some other thread, Lear.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

The problem with the idea that "Trump is a symptom of our economic problems, and that's why the WWC will flip" is that many, many studies have shown that racial and cultural resentment, not economic anxiety, is the root of Trump support. Of course, the two aren't completely separate, but how do you explain so many people overcoming their cultural anxieties to vote Democrat during the realignment?

[jojoju1998]

The problem with the idea that "Trump is a symptom of our economic problems, and that's why the WWC will flip" is that many, many studies have shown that racial and cultural resentment, not economic anxiety, is the root of Trump support. Of course, the two aren't completely separate, but how do you explain so many people overcoming their cultural anxieties to vote Democrat during the realignment?

Because in the end the White Working Class don't care about economic issues, most of them make decent incomes for the areas they live in (50k gets you a lot more in Alabama then California) and own their homes free and clear due to the cheap property values in rural America, for these reasons these people aren't really "Working Class", the real Working Class are Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and White College educated Millennials that have Minimum wage jobs (Mainly in Fast food and retail) and live in small appartments in Major cities in the Northeast and West Coast (these so-called coastal elites vote overwhelmingly Democratic) not Rural White people that live on farms and ranches and make plenty of money for the cheap areas they live in. For these reasons the White Working Class will never vote Democratic because all they care about is preserving Racial and Religious bigotry, if theirs going to be a Democratic realignment it's going to be Because democrats run on a Left-wing economic platform and get the real Working Class to turn out for them (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and College-educated White Millenials).

Maybe in the South..... but President Obama won Working Class Whites in the North. Iowa went for Obama by 5 Points but Trump won it by 10.  For example if you go to the Scranton Area, Home of Vice President Joe Biden, Obama won the Counties in 2008 and 2012 but Trump won it. Hardly a sign of Racism and Religious Bigotry. If States like Michigan, and Wisconsin voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukaisis.... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/the-face-of-trumps-america-in-clinton-heartland/news-story/e1e11d5a5682723f86befd61589754d3

Life Long Union Democrats who abandoned Clinton for Trump. The Reason why they voted for Obama, Kerry, Bill Clinton, Walter Mondale was not necessarily because of Racial Issues.

Fighting for the Working Class. Another Example ? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mcdowell-county-trump_us_582f18dde4b030997bbefa0d
This County has a crappy Income Level, and Low Life Expectancies....  Now they're hooked on Drugs.

[jojoju1998]

The problem with the idea that "Trump is a symptom of our economic problems, and that's why the WWC will flip" is that many, many studies have shown that racial and cultural resentment, not economic anxiety, is the root of Trump support. Of course, the two aren't completely separate, but how do you explain so many people overcoming their cultural anxieties to vote Democrat during the realignment?

The Current Political Order rests on Racial Divisions. Ironic Thing is that is Coming from the Republicans who are now preaching a form of Right Wing Populist NeoLiberalism.

For Decades Now we have heard how We have Welfare Queens and Takers and Losers.....


The Crisis would need to bite us in the Butt so Hard that we are willing to try anything.

[jojoju1998]

Every single realignment in American history has had a segment of the former majority shift to the new majority. That’s partly why it’s called a realignment. The idea that no former Federal republicans will vote for the new realigning Democratic majority is pretty silly.

Ah, but what if it's not the WWC that's the segment that shifts? Already, we're seeing upscale suburbanites trend from Republican to Democrat. Many had been staunchly R before, so they would count as part of the "former majority." Or perhaps upscale white Republicans don't shift but upscale Hispanic and Asian Republicans do (e.g. if the Republicans go full and explicitly Bannonite), ensuring that both groups go from 70-30 D to being as D as Blacks?

These are both alternative possibilities for the realignment, don't you think?

Yes these are alternative possibilities (not Latinos and Asians voting as D as blacks since that would make the GOP’s path to 270 damn near impossible in 2036 ). We won’t know who these groups are until they shift post crisis in 2024 (or 2020).

Romney-Clinton voters were primarily Swing voters and not ardent Republicans until Trump. 9 Romney-Clinton counties voted Obama in 2008 and many McCain-Romney counties that voted for Clinton last year were pretty close in 2008 (my home of Orange County only went for McCain by 3-4 points for example).

White working class voters do seem to have the most to lose in a crisis and are more easily incorporated into a populist Democratic Party than upscale republicans. Perhaps it’s my own bias here, but having lived in Huntington Beach and having connections to even more upscale republican Newport Beach, I just can’t see it. I could see them voting for a Cory Booker Third Way-ist Dem Party but a more populist economic centered Cordray one? Not happening unless they stop thinking money is the end all be all to life and I wouldn’t bet two pennies on them doing that.

Btw the Bannonite concessions are on economics and not social issues.

As someone who also lives in Orange County, I can tell you the transformation of Orange county’s partisan preferences is all because of the demographic shifts that have transformed the county in the last 30 years (the massive increase in the Hispanic and Asian population), it has nothing to do with the old, rich, white population of Newport Beach turning from bigoted republicans to progressive democrats (believe me theirs nothing but trump signs on that side of the 73 toll road). If the county had the same racial makeup it did 30 years ago it definitely wouldn’t have voted for Hillary Clinton by 9 points last year, and on the other point I don’t see the “White working class” going Democratic anytime soon because number one these people are not working class the vast majority own their own homes and make more than the national average of 50k and number two due to the previous fact these voters don’t vote on economic issues they vote on social issues so if democrats don’t start embracing racial, religious, and sexual bigotry (they won’t and shouldn’t) they’ll never win these voters again. The next political realignment is going to be based on the demographics shifting and causing the country to get less White and less Christian along with young white liberals replacing their old, white conservative parents (this process will probably take 20-30 years to unfold).

As someone who lives North of You.. aka Sacramento, I have a different view. Hillary Clinton actually narrowed the Gap between her and Trump in the White College Educated Area.

And as someone who works with Rural People up in Placer County, I can tell you this. People who voted for Trump are not Racists. However.... they are much more Economically Liberal.... some of them supported Sanders and the whole Single Payer Stuff.

[jojoju1998]

Let me tackle a few things on my phone.

First I want to disagree here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First I think that we underestimate the strength of the economic crisis here. The crisis will fall on those who are in debt the most and are weakest in the economy not the best off. Who was the angriest in 2008 and 2016? Working class minorities (who rebelled against Hillary) and working class whites (who revolted against the Republican establishment). The Sanders left is full of people who are angry about the economic ideology that rules the United States.

Why would Fairfax voters be moved towards the Democratic Party in the long run? What's their economic motivation? (Ignore that Fairfax is close to federal jobs for a second and focus on the income side; I'm using them as a representation). When Bob McDonnell ran in 2009 he almost won North Virginia. These people are making $200,000+ and are professionals who are comfortably off. They aren't outraged on economic grounds but social grounds. If the Republican Party was socially liberal a lot of these voters would be voting Republican.  

The Democratic Party kind of threatens their long term well being because the Sanders wing wants to raise their taxes, target their stock trades via taxation, and even universal college can pose a threat by adding to the workforce skilled workers who might bring down their wages. I just don't get why these voters would align with the Democratic Party over the long run.

Working class voters however have a ton to like in the Cordray - Sanders Democratic Party ranging from universal health care and college education to higher taxes to deal with income inequality. Bernie’s platform is geared towards these people not the Fairfax set.

Also upscale Asians (like my family) are far more economically conservative but socially liberal. Their biggest complaint is the Republican Party’s evangelical influences rather than the tax side. The Republican tax bill probably helps my family. But they won't vote Republican for social reasons. So if the party moderates on these issues they could vote Republican.  Also there are very few upscale Latinos who have very weak household assets.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually look a bit closer. Slavery was a threat to the North in terms of cheap labor versus paid factory labor. But more broadly the political class from 1800 to 1860 were geared towards the agrarian pro-slavery free trade Southern philosophy rather than the Midwestern and Northern political leaders. Look at the Republican Speakers after 1860 and where they're from compared to Democratic Speakers 1800-1860.

The Civil War didn't merely wipe out slavery. It also replaced a Southern friendly political majority with a Northern - Midwestern political majority that embraced the Industrial Revolution. This is why the Republican Party became so anti-union and explains the party's shift in the 1870s to 1890s.

All crises tend to be rooted in economics and replacing inefficient majorities that no longer speak to the national economic focus. In this case the pro-free trade low tax Southern and Midwestern political class shut out the coastal areas with carry and support from Appalachian areas.  Now we're moving to a whole new economy where this political class no longer really makes sense. That's the whole point of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They're honestly usually the icing on an already baked cake. Jimmy Carter was already going down for stagflation while World War II cemented the Democratic majority. In the Civil War they didn't really figure prominently. There probably may be a crisis that cripples President Pence but it won't be center stage I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That's completely asinine. Presidents McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover all were squarely on the side of business interests. Even the Republican President Roosevelt took tons of corporate donations. All of these Presidents with the possible exception of Roosevelt backed tariffs, the gold standard, and union busting. 1896 to 1932 is generally considered the most pro-business era in United States history.

The Republican Congresses were completely on the side of business interests basically. Lochner was handed down by a conservative Supreme Court in 1905. About the only liberal stuff happened was probably a bunch of stuff in Teddy’s time (and he was actually far more pro business than his rhetoric) and Taft's breakup of Standard Oil. And of course the foreshadowing Democratic presidency of Woodrow Wilson.

Theory ? You're the Doctor. You Time Travel.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

OK, it was drawn to my attention via reports that there's been a kerfuffle here.

Since I'm a strong supporter of OPs having autonomy over their own threads on this board (within reason), is this whole argument derailing your timeline, The Doctor?

[The_Doctor]

Please remove King Lear's posts. A number of regulars here in the BTM crowd have concerns with him. Everyone else seems okay for now. Thank you.

[Devout Centrist]

The Republican Party is historically overextended in gubernatorial races and in statehouse races. I'd also argue they're overextended in the House, but to a lesser degree. Under this administration, I think there's a potential for monumental losses, greater than those suffered by the incumbent party in 1994 or 2010.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

TD, I wonder what are some stats for the Crisis in this timeline, e.g. % of GDP lost and maximum unemployment rate. It'll give people an idea of how bad it would be (and you did say that a lot of people underestimate it). (Also, it would give me a baseline on how bad to make the Crisis in my own timeline.)

[OSR stands with Israel]

The problem with the idea that "Trump is a symptom of our economic problems, and that's why the WWC will flip" is that many, many studies have shown that racial and cultural resentment, not economic anxiety, is the root of Trump support. Of course, the two aren't completely separate, but how do you explain so many people overcoming their cultural anxieties to vote Democrat during the realignment?

Do they vote Democrat? Cuz TD’s 2036 GOP victory map has the Republican sweeping almost everywhere minus the Southwest going Dem (stretching from California-Texas).

The Bannonite economic reforms to the GOP after their 2028 landslide loss help rein in a good amount of WWC voters who left them in the 2020’s. These economic reforms mirror Einsehower embracing the New Deal in 1952 and Bill Clinton embracing neoliberal economics. This is what the GOP will be pressured into doing as the Cordray populist Democratic Party restructures the macroeconomic regime of the United States and cement it with public support.

The 2044 election will probably see the trends of 2024-2028 start to cement themselves. Baby boomers will have passed away in 2044 and the Millennial generation will likely muscle Gen Xers out of the political arena (who are a smaller generation since the 1960’s-70’s saw a baby bust).

Except the Sanders  left has to be successful in governing the country like Reagan was for realignment to happen which I don’t see happening.


Also I don’t think the new realigned dem party will be as far left as Sanders/Warren as they are to the left of even the democrats  from 1930s -1970s and remember none of the GOP presidents since 1980 have been as right wing as McKinley/Harding/Coolidge were so I don’t see the Dems being as far left as FDR/Truman/LBJ were.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Except the Sanders  left has to be successful in governing the country like Reagan was for realignment to happen which I don’t see happening.


Also I don’t think the new realigned dem party will be as far left as Sanders/Warren as they are to the left of even the democrats  from 1930s -1970s and remember none of the GOP presidents since 1980 have been as right wing as McKinley/Harding/Coolidge were so I don’t see the Dems being as far left as FDR/Truman/LBJ were.

So you’re just here to argue with the entire premise of this timeline? Ok Lol.

I'm not saying there won't be a democratic realignment but I would say it would be to the left of Clinton but right of FDR/LBJ

[Deblano]

Considering the deterioration of US-Russo relations (both due to Trump's ties with Russia and Russia's geopolitical moves), do we see a Second Cold War under the Cordray Administration?

[The_Doctor]

“I, Michael Richard Pence …”

BTM is formally updating the timeline to recommend to readers that the Pence Presidency - contrary to the current timeline - will take place in 2018, not 2019 (unless we go to a 2020 realignment). Most likely, it will be spring 2018.

The Trump Administration is actually far more crippled and in serious shape than imagined. Three major situations have led to Trump’s precarious position. One is the Mueller probe. The other is his very weak political standing. Three, his weak relationship on Capitol Hill. When they intersect, they spell the potential end of the Trump Administration.

First, the Mueller probe. Contrary to the timeline, Trump’s position is more precarious. General Flynn was fired. George Papadopoulos has entered a plea bargain (and wasn’t a coffee boy but the one who launched the entire FBI investigation by leaking to the Australian government drunkenly).  Paul Manafort has been indicted on multiple counts. Rick Gates, same situation. Revelations have come out that the Trump campaign has had contact with the Russian government. So, given all these loose strands, and given how precarious the President is, we can expect Pence to be in prime position for 2018.  Let’s just say, the Mueller probe is not wrapping up anytime soon. Our timeline had Trump embroiled in this scandal type as 2018 closed. Yet, he’s speeded up the drama by firing James Comey in 2017. 2018 will almost certainly see far more information shaken out.

Second, the President’s popularity portends both houses of Congress going Democratic in 2018.  The 37% rating he’s sporting in 538 is highly dangerous to Congressional Republicans and they know it. In Alabama the President was at 48-48% in exit polls that allowed Senator G. Doug Jones to prevail (not for nothing did Moore match the President’s approval rating in final results). Assuming that on balance the President sits at 37% rating, which is comparable to the Iraq War rating of President George W. Bush in 2006, that would translate into a roughly 10-15% lead for House Democrats. And with the Senate now in play, Senate Republicans are now extraordinarily vulnerable with a just 51-49 Senate.  And Trump’s approval rating will not improve (especially with the first signs of economic slowdown). If the President is at 32% on election day, it could be the single greatest wipeout of the Congressional GOP since 1974.

Now, pause for a second. Were you Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, you would be extremely wary of putting your majorities at the risk of a President who has little to no connection to the Congressional Republicans or the Republican Party as a whole. For 2017, Ryan and McConnell have telegraphed support for the President but also a willingness to criticize him and implicitly seem to protect the Mueller probe as legitimate. The political rationale is pretty clear. If you wanted a way to oust Trump and install a more conventional and calm President (Pence or Ryan), protecting that probe is one way to do it.  Trump needed to demonstrate he could act as a conventional Republican President in 2017 and protect these GOP majorities in order for these majorities to protect him. This was probably his biggest misstep. These majorities now know that with Alabama’s Senate election special, that nobody really wins in protecting Donald Trump.

This is so important we’ll repeat it. Congressional Republicans are the firewall against impeachment or removal from office for the President. The President has feuded constantly with congressional leaders and Republicans like Jeff Flake, John McCain, and others. By doing so, he’s signaled that there’s no payoff in loyalty to the President if your electoral prospects are in danger. Recall the President won 46% and lost the popular vote by 2% to his Democratic challenger, meaning that he’s even less politically able to help protect vulnerable majorities. It means if Congressional Republicans begin to abandon the President, or at least appear divided (just 40% of the Congressional GOP could abandon Trump and it would be enough combined with united Democratic support), the President’s political position would begin to crumble.

The President would overnight be a politically illegitimate figure.  Assume Mueller handed down indictments and Trump looks like he’s not only guilty of unscrupulous business dealings or unethical conduct with a foreign nation, the Congressional GOP splitting would put Trump in an extremely perilous position politically. At this juncture, with how much information we know about the Trump campaign and the Russian contacts, it may be almost impossible to merely remove Trump for shady business dealings, given what exists in the public domain (which could precipitate a true realignment or constitutional crisis, which would be ironic for a GOP formed in the war against slavery and Southern secession).

Combine these three, and you get three strikes and Trump’s out.

But I hear you saying “TD, what about the Trump base? The fanaticism? We saw it in Charlottesville, Virginia. These guys are hell bent on staying with Trump and punishing any Republican who strays?” Let me answer. The simplest answer is that the Republican coalition - like all human beings - want to win. They do identify with the President on a visceral level but as 538 has noted, his “strong approval” has dropped dramatically, meaning there are far more people who are willing to trade a bombastic and controversial GOP Presidency for a more conventional GOP presidency. It comes down to this: the amount of face saving needed. If you’re one of the strong GOP partisans who was never hot on Trump but wanted him to win, you bolt the ship when a major scandal that implicates the President comes up. That’s probably half of the remaining Trump support. Major scandals that wear away the remaining support do so because it becomes highly politically unpalatable to sustain the damage. (See: Moore, Roy, who probably was on course to a 6-8 point win but was so badly damaged he lost Alabama).  Read the scenario for how this works out.

Now, why Pence or Ryan? (Or whoever emerges unscathed). Probably, the chief reason is that the crisis is not yet inbound (but beginning to seem clear). Congressional Republicans do have a way to achieving a majority in November 2018 under a President who would be able to stabilize the political damage. The Republican coalition is probably capable of eking out a majority with a stable GOP President. Unfortunately, that president is no longer Donald Trump, given he blew his year. Pence or Ryan would be the most logical figures to present to the Republican coalition a “new page.”  

A scenario could unfold like this. Say, something revelatory like a smoking gun comes out about Trump and Russia or something extremely shady. It’s eight months out to the election. Or Mueller announces sweeping findings that implicate Trump in something really bad. At that point, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell would need to spend months defending the President - a President who would be increasingly out of control. Instead, they do what Republican leaders in 1974 did. The backbenchers are allowed to launch broadsides against the Trump administration (especially from liberal states). A mounting outcry in Congress begins. Then they go to him and tell him the votes aren’t there to sustain impeachment in 2019. McConnell and Ryan have very little real loyalty to the President. This crisis would be enough for Ryan (who has never had any personal love for Trump) and McConnell (who cares about preserving his caucus) to let the dogs loose and to get Pence or Ryan in to stabilize the crisis. Ryan and McConnell could strike a deal with Trump, who would feel legally jeopardized.

Trump’s age (71) and his contempt for the job could propel him to cut a deal to get out (which is exactly what BTM says).

The greatest mistake BTM has made is assuming Trump was on the order of bad presidents like Warren G. Harding or Jimmy Carter - that he had a slow enough fuse to stay sane throughout 2018. This was clearly a mistake. President Trump has actually sown the seeds of his own political destruction and they are likely to bloom in 2018.

Enter the title of this story: “I, Michael Richard Pence…”

[The_Doctor]

Considering the deterioration of US-Russo relations (both due to Trump's ties with Russia and Russia's geopolitical moves), do we see a Second Cold War under the Cordray Administration?

Not sure. I'll defer to NJ_is_better_than_ME there. My initial feeling is that the Cordray Administration is as hawkish on Russia as Reagan and Pence are. The Democrats have especial reason to be vengeful towards Russia given 2016.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

10-15% unemployment and -3% GDP to -5% GDP per year. Between the Great Depression and the 2008 crisis, really. However, Cordray should lead an economic boom and the recovery should be faster because of the effective federal response compared to 2009 and 2021.

But to give you an idea, so you can make your own informed arguments ...  

The crisis, in my mind, is bad purely because of several factors. People have no income to pay off debts that mount but corporations and the rich hang onto their money, which is sorely needed to stimulate the economy. When the crisis hits, people are hit even harder and revolt. Pence is caught in the crossfire and the rich and corporations try to repeat 2009 with promises of bailouts and crap.

If I have $100, and I'm a billionaire, and you have $5 and we need $50 to get the economy to maintain it's growth, and I hold onto $95 of my money, the economy isn't going to go anywhere. This is the crux of our problem right now. Corporations are so scared of the 2008 crash and the damage it did to balance sheets and the rich are deeply anxious about a repeat of 2008 that they are inadvertently pushing the next crisis on steroids. Neoliberal arguments that worked in the 1980s no longer work because the wealth has been steered so heavily towards the upper echelons and corporations, leading to very little for the vast majority of Americans and people around the world to push the economy with.

Remember all the quantitative easing that disappeared into "black holes" of corporate and upper class pockets and the very sluggish recovery as a result? Yeah.

So, with that backdrop, the crisis could be very well an ordinary one that mushrooms into an extraordinary one. In a time where everyone has money, a banking run in China might not affect everyone else. But when everyone else  has very little money and is hit with a recession or mini-crisis, then their own personal situation - multiplied by say, 100-200 million - creates a true national crisis. International, even. Conservative leaders across the globe will be caught in the crossfire because every conservative ideology globally subscribes to some form of neoliberal thought.

There's a reason I have Corbyn becoming Premier, ousting May (well, in the timeline it was Cameron, but whatever) in 2022. Prime Minister Corbyn is a harbinger of President Cordray and between Western Europe and the United States dramatically shifting, the rest of the world will spend the 2020s restructuring neoliberalism.

(President Cordray will understand that the best way to re-stimulate the economy is a dramatic restructuring of shifting profits to the electorate at large and this is borrowed from Clintonian arguments in the 1990s that if you help the vast majority of people, they propel the economy).

I anticipate a quicker recovery because of the national debt. Democrats will want to stimulate an economic boom to be able to start having an economy that can sustain a $20 trillion national debt (that's the only real solution at this point). They will want to speed up the economic boom so that we can sustain $300-400 billion interest payments (thus this means expanding the federal revenues to something like $5-6 trillion). 

Hope that helps. (ALSO WHY ISN'T CORDRAY THE REALIGNER IN YOUR TIMELINE?)

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I want to preface this post by again praising your excellent work. Your analysis is based in facts and logic, not wish fullfillment, which has made this timeline particularly interesting. I agree with a vast majority of what you have said, but I think you are making the mistake of underestimating Trump's tact or mistaking it for mental instability.

I highly recommend you check out "The 48 Laws of Power" if you haven't done so. I read it in 2013 and I suspect Trump has done so at some point as well. He frequently employs a number of these rules, particularly Law 21: play a sucker to catch a sucker. Mainly in terms of his rhetoric on Twitter and at his rallies.

I'm not arguing that Trump will win reelection (though I confess the odds are more likely than his opposition cares to admit - especially if Russiagate continues to dominate the discussion rather than focusing on bread and butter issues), but I have to disagree with you on that last post. I think Trump will be around long after Spring 2018. I'll give my reasons below:

First of all, the circumstances surrounding the alleged dossier are very murky, and that is putting it gently. There remains no evidence to support it's contents actual existence (ie, the "piss tape"), which until now lends some credence to the theory that it was used to obtain a FISA to spy on Trump's campaign. The fact that it was funded by a Clinton connected lawyer and an anti-Trump conservative paper does not help in legitimizing the dossier.

There are enough questions surrounding the FBI's role in investigating both Clinton and Trump (the lack of an interview before Clinton's exoneration, allegations that Mueller was involved in a possible coverup of Uranium One, etc) that support for a second special prosecutor is growing. Here in FL alone, Congressmen Matt Gaetz and Ron DeSantis have been among the more vocal voices in favor of appointing a second prosecutor, which could both compromise Mueller's position by exposing his possible impartiality. This can happen twofold; number one, his role in Uranium One, in which he allegedly allowed Clinton off the hook. Or two, people like Andrew McCabe let slip before Congress that they were indeed "concerned" (to use a diplomatic term) about Trump's fitness for office. We've seen this play out on a small scale level recently. A second special prosecutor - ostensibly directed at Clinton but in reality going after Mueller - could bring this Russia probe to a very disappointing close by this spring.

Of course there are hurdles in the way. Trump might have to find a way to get rid of Sessions, and firing him isn't an option at present. I have a feeling that if/when Tillerson departs, they'll move Sessions to the State Department as a figurehead William Rogers-lite figure while Haley plays the role of Kissinger 2.0. That opens the top position at the Justice Department, which Trump will probably try and fill with an outsider, probably a relatively unknown but well tested New York lawyer. Rachel Brand, the Solicitor General, is also an option. But Trump always manages to find a way to slip by.

This is Law 3 of the 48 Laws of Power: operate in the cloak of darkness. Trump, in reshuffling his cabinet, will do whatever it takes to distract. Distraction is his modus operandi. He sends out tweets out of the blue, such as the one we saw this morning about Pakistan, that stir minor controversies across the globe. Or he moves the US Embassy to Jerusalem at random. Or he calls Collin Kaepernick "a son of a bitch." The attack dog media freaks out, CNN has multiple panels consisting of Ana Navaro shouting hysterically, and all the while, Trump laughs all the way to the bank. My younger brother, who is totally apolitical, thinks that Trump is a combination of a madman and troll. It is worth noting that people like my brother also do not vote. In other words, Trump washes away the chaff but never the crop.

Personally, I think Trump won't even need to fire Mueller. I think he'll force his hand and be exonerated. Flynn can be won back over with the promise of a pardon (all they have on him is lying to the FBI - the most notable person I can think of guilty of the same offense is Martha Stewart), while the other small fry players like Papadawhatever, Carter Page, and so on will likely take the fall. After all, a lot of them did have meetings with Russians.

Another factor to consider, guilty or not guilty, is the fact that Trump does not leave a paper trail. He is computer illiterate. He even dictates his tweets. Whatever investigators may find in the Trump campaign's electronic communications, it is likely that there will be little to work with in regards of tying Trump to the matter. At the worst, they might be able to bag Kushner. I actually have this harebrained theory that Kushner might have been at the center of any "collusion" in order to obtain loans from Russian banks, steering unwitting dopes like Carter Page into Putin's orbit as a return. We do know that he has worked to establish back channels with Russian officials, which is actually business as usual for the most part. Yet that still doesn't explain how Kushner is so deeply connected to Russians. So it is a possibility.

Now, I'm not going to predict the long term future because I'm not nearly as intelligent as you are nor have all of my prior predictions been exactly true. It is very possible that if, say, Trump were to be reelected in 2020 that he'd be forced from office due to a yet unknown scandal over his business dealings in NYC. If such revelations surfaced (and I'm not saying they will or will not), it is very possible that he could be forced to resign in 2021/2022. I definitely agree that McConnell and Ryan don't feel any loyalty to the President - they might even fear him. But I don't think Russiagate in particular makes Trump's position precarious enough to collapse his administration. Not this time around, at least.

Anywho, this timeline is immaculate. Regardless if I'm wrong or right about this, it has been an entertaining and informative (and largely accurate) read. Keep up the great work! Sorry for the rambling, relatively off topic post. I'd love to hear your thoughts further, if you have the time and energy of course!

[Captain Chaos]

Another factor to consider, guilty or not guilty, is the fact that Trump does not leave a paper trail. He is computer illiterate. He even dictates his tweets. Whatever investigators may find in the Trump campaign's electronic communications, it is likely that there will be little to work with in regards of tying Trump to the matter.

Did Trump dictate the "covfefe" tweet?

[The_Doctor]

Another factor to consider, guilty or not guilty, is the fact that Trump does not leave a paper trail. He is computer illiterate. He even dictates his tweets. Whatever investigators may find in the Trump campaign's electronic communications, it is likely that there will be little to work with in regards of tying Trump to the matter.

Did Trump dictate the "covfefe" tweet?

He's not wrong. Trump does dictate tweets to aides and advisors.

I'll respond to him later, when I've done a little more reading and research but he does lay out an interesting case about Trump's trajectory (I disagree but it's something I want to respond to to debate about where Trump goes).

[The_Doctor]

Sanchez, my reply: First, thank you for the kind words. I sent you a PM about an unrelated matter which I might turn into an article here.

I think as far as the Laws of Powers we are on the same side. I said a year or so ago on November 30, 2016 in an article about Trump and the media:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we agree on Trump utilizing the Laws of Powers to manipulate and to control the direction of news, which is an important and essential power he’s used well. The only criticism I can levy here is that Trump has often used this power in a fashion that reflects more instinct than organized planning.  I agree distraction is his modus operandi, but I contend his distraction has been far less successful than you believe.

This part of the Trump Presidency has been largely borne out, I believe. I’m not sure he has done a good job of distracting from bad stories but his 37% is more that he’s failed to present a narrative that most Americans can get behind. I think his media mastery only goes so far (and this is important to say why he doesn’t remain in office).

As far as the scandal itself goes, I think we disagree on the veracity of what’s come out. I respectfully say that what’s come out seems damaging, more than I anticipated. For example George Papadawhatever was claimed by the NYT to have met with an Australian embassy figure and disclosed the Russian hacking of Hillary’s emails just recently. That seems to be confirmed by the consternation of the Australian government in the Hill this morning.  The amount of information about meetings with the Russian government is considerable; you and I are on the same page on the information that's come out even if we disagree on the relevance and importance. Now, I grant it’s hard to prove directly Trump’s involvement (Kushner’s involvement, as you theorized, could be a possible reason).

I don’t want to debate too much about the details and derail the thread into an average Atlas general chat thread. I disagree with a number of things you’ve said and if you’d like I can detail them, if you think that would be useful in our debate to resolve Trump’s leaving.  

This is how I see the scandal however.

I think the scandal should be viewed in the eyes of the GOP majority. Traditionally, the GOP (or Southern Democratic - GOP) majority has been pretty solid throughout this era. It’s taken unusual events to put the Democrats in power since they lost it in 1994 (2006 is the only time in 24 years to date and honestly the grand conservative alliance has been more or less in power since the 1980s except maybe 1986 to 1994).

A normal Republican President would be leading a Republican Congress to reduced but still viable majorities in the House and probably an expanded GOP Senate majority. The House is filled with safe seats (just realize that Clinton won 24 seats that are held by Republicans and that’s the exact number to win a majority of 1 seat). The Senate map is heavily favorable to the GOP. The economy is going well and most Americans are doing well. 2018 should be an incumbent protection scheme, not with 40 GOP retirements.

Therefore, I think we should view the scandal that emerges through McConnell’s and Ryan’s eyes. Will they keep Trump on board if damaging information comes out or will they pitch him for Pence? I think that’s the real question.  And in my eyes, as the article said, Trump’s scandals provide an outlet for these “disloyal” leaders to oust him for a more stable President. I however believe if Trump can stabilize his ratings and demonstrate his viability in preserving the GOP majorities, he can absolutely survive 2018. I think that is the real question of 2018, not if Trump’s guilty or innocent. It will be an inherently political question judged by the GOP majority.

Here’s a couple of historical bipartisan examples that validate me, I think. Take Nixon’s 1974 impeachment. Congressional Democrats were probably motivated by their party’s increasingly anti-war liberal base who despised Nixon. Taking him out was probably vastly easier than say, challenging Lyndon Johnson’s electoral conduct in 1948 or 1960 (where objective proof later emerged of him rigging the elections in Texas). In 1987, the Democratic Congress decided not to challenge Ronald Reagan because of how popular he was, over Iran-contra. In 1998, the entire Democratic Caucus stood by a sexual predator because of his 66% approval rating. My point is that Congress often acts on impeachment and removal as a political question rather than a constitutional one. (1868’s firebrand GOP impeachment of Andrew Johnson is one good example, too). I feel that the 115th Congress will act similarly on Trump. That’s why I referenced the 37% approval rating and how vulnerable Congressional Republicans were.

[ShadowRocket]

With all due respect to TD, I have a hard time seeing Congressional Republicans dumping Trump prior to the Midterms barring something like Trump firing Mueller or indictments being handed down for Kushner and/or Don Jr. with Trump subsequently pardoning them.

I feel like a Trump impeachment would come down to Mueller laying down the case for it, along with the Republicans paying for their complicity with Trump at the ballot box. The original 2019 prediction just strikes me as being the likelier one in that case, but I'm probably way off the mark.

[Boss_Rahm]

I've been a long time lurker here, and I finally registered so I could join the conversation on this phenomenal timeline. Well done TD!

I'd like to sketch out a scenario in which the realignment happens in 2028. Basically, I don't see a realignment happening by 2020, but I do see a more conventional Democrat defeating Trump (who survives his first term despite Mueller's investigation). Here's how it goes:

2018: Democrats gain a 10-vote majority in the House, and Republicans retain control of a 50-50 Senate.

2020: Cory Booker narrowly defeats Trump. Democrats gain a few more seats in the House, and have a 51-49 majority in the Senate.

2021: With unified control of Congress, Booker initially tries to govern from the left on environmental and social issues. But moderate Democrats in the Senate stifle his agenda. President Booker's only major accomplishment is repealing some of Trump's tax cuts.

2022: The GOP takes back the House, and gains 2 Senate seats for a 51-49 majority.

2024: A crisis hits, similarly to how TD describes it. Voters blame Booker, and elect Mike Pence as President. Republicans expand their House majority to 250 seats. They also gain 10 seats in the Senate, bringing their total up to 61.

2025: Republicans respond to the crisis with sweeping tax cuts, which prove to be ineffective. The white working class becomes dissatisfied with Republican economic policy, and shifts towards the Democrats.

2026: In a pre-realignment wave, Democrats gain 70 House seats and 10 Senate seats.

2028: The realignment happens. Pence loses in an Electoral College landslide, and Democrats win 300 House seats. They also pick up 13 Senate seats, for a total of 62 seats in the upper chamber.

[The_Doctor]

Boss_Rahm (I'm surprised you aren't from Chicago...)

The greatest problem with a 2028 realignment in my view is a couple of things. One, the foreshadowing Presidency has already passed (Obama's). Usually, when we are between the foreshadowing and realigning White Houses, we tend to not have a minority party president. The majority coalition in waiting is already fully formed and fleshed out, just needs an addition.

For example between 1848 and 1860, the Whig-Republican coalition was already largely set. The downballot numbers proved it. By 1924, the LaFollette - Democratic bloc was adding up to 46% of the vote. The Obama coalition has proved to win over 50% of the vote twice. The Democrats downballot have demonstrated the ability to be a majoritarian coalition.

So, Booker's win and the crisis hitting - or a second stunted foreshadowing - feels weird to me. Like, his coalition is clearly there but the second foreshadowing Presidency fails? Historically, at the very end, there's a burst of support for the majority as they die out. (1852-1860, 1976-1980, 1920-1932).

The crisis always hits the majority coalition, never the minority coalition. In fact majorities change because of the majority coalition's screwing up the crisis. They often start out ordinary but mushroom into extraodinary crises.

Originally this was set to be a Walker-Portman timeline that ended in 2028. But Trump's popular vote loss ended that.

What I'm puzzled about at this point is given the weakness of the GOP majority, is  whether we're headed to a 2020 or 2024 realignment. Or a staggered Lincoln-esq realignment where Cordray realigns winning 45% of the vote and minimal Congressional gains but needs a second term to cement power.

[The_Doctor]

The problem with a Lincoln realignment is that the Democrats will need a ton of strength to muscle through a radical agenda to jumpstart the tech boom and post-neoliberal economic alignment. So I don't know.

[Boss_Rahm]

I am from Chicago originally, though I currently vote in PA.

If a crisis were to hit before the end of Trump's term, I could absolutely see a 2020 realignment. But if not, we'd be in an awkward position. If the status quo holds, Trump would be an underdog to win reelection in 2020, but his base is still large enough to avoid a landslide. That's why I could see a realignment taking a couple more cycles to sort out, in spite of the historical pattern.