Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[jojoju1998]

President Michael R. Pence Takes Oath of Office

January 2021 - (Washington, D.C.) On a cold day in January 2021, Michael Richard Pence was sworn in as the 46th President of the United States while Nikki Randhatta Haley was reaffirmed the nation’s 49th Vice President. With Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress, comparable to 2005, and no crisis on the horizon, the GOP looked poised to stay in power.

The country had voted Republican for the White House by 49-47% and for the House, 50-48%.  Bitter Trump loyalists expected their man to be standing on the inaugural podium taking his oath for a second time, but there Pence stood, the embodiment of the nexus of the conservative Tea Party and Republican establishment.  Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell reprised their roles of 2016 while Mrs McCarthy and Mrs McConnell escorted the Second Gentleman and First Lady of the United States. At noon, the President took the oath that made him President in his own right.

A conservative Midwestern sensibility had taken ahold of the nation; a kind of transported genteel Vermont laissez faire that hearkened to Cal and Grace Coolidge’s America. Pence himself may well have been the second coming of Silent Cal, the man who called his wife “Mother.” America’s political leadership seemed frozen in the 1920s, a calm conservatism that seemed to collect the nation’s consciousness and soothe the country after the rambunctious 2000s and 2010s. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) mirrored Nicholas Longworth (R-Ohio) and Charles R. Curtis (R-Kansas) mirrored Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky).  Gone was the heady change of Obama’s era and gone was the angry nationalist conservatism of Donald Trump (although both stayed there, lurking underneath). The national prayers carried the air of Sunday morning sermons in them, and much like in 1924, New England - Midwestern squeaky clean parlors replaced the rambunctious blue collar Rust Belt - Queens order.

The President did not deliver bromides or fulminate. That wasn’t his style, dating to the 2000s. He had never been a negative campaigner. He delivered a conservative call to expand domestic liberty, to keep America out of troubled overseas shores, and to defeat radical Islam and to defend American interests (against China, against Russia, and to stand up for liberty). The President argued quietly that the country reassert a laissez faire government that operated simply and with an eye to fiscal discipline (thus implicitly defending the draconian budget cuts of the Trump and Pence eras). It was clear the President saw himself a Coolidgean figure; a figure that would restore the national calm and do what Calvin could not: lead a conservative era that was rooted in limited government and a generally conservative social morality. He very much wished to inaugurate the successful Coolidge era that would lead the country to expanded prosperity and peace.

The Republican Congress wanted to take up deregulation, and to limit the scope of government further. RyanCare dying in 2017 had doomed the GOP’s dreams of sweeping entitlement reforms but they hoped for an immigration bill, hoped for tax reform that was deeper than 2017, and maybe, finally, true free trade reform. Ryan and McConnell wanted to entrench the era.

Left unsaid was that given the chance to redo things, Republicans hoped to make up for the W. and Trump presidencies. They wanted to show America that capable leadership existed in the Republican Party. They wanted to assure the country that the tropes about failed GOP leadership was imaginary. This was the great hope of Pence, Ryan, and McConnell.

On the podium was the disgraced ex-President, Donald J. Trump. Having been in exile since 2019, this marked Trump’s first major public outing since his resignation as President. The former President and former First Lady spoke little, and the day belonged to the Pences. The ex-Trump aides watching from outside Washington were understandably bitter; most of all, Steve Bannon, who had dreamed of a Jacksonian Republican majority that would rule for a generation. Disappointed alt-right figures had hoped for the sea change that two terms of President Trump and a prolonged nationalism that would assert Euro-centrism in the United States political map. But it was not to be. Reaganite conservatism had reascended, with a touch of Trump populism to accompany it.

The country watched, and settled in for Pence’s brand of conservatism. Little did they know the gathering storm …

You seem to predict everything right basically. Trump's Coalition as the last Gasp of the Reagan Coalition. Trump actually building a wall, and renegotiating NAFTA. I also always saw Mike Pence as a Boring Dad Figure too, so you predicted that right.

How do you do it ? I mean, Do you have a Degree in Political Science or History ? Because....

[jojoju1998]

It's going to get worse isn't ? I mean... China, and All of the Pension Plans going haywire. What Next, Student Loans defaulting ? Or you could have Russia declaring war right on the US.

[jojoju1998]

Also, How is Tom McClintock doing ? He's the U.S. Representative for California's 4th congressional district.

[jojoju1998]

Also, How is Tom McClintock doing ? He's the U.S. Representative for California's 4th congressional district.

Is his district safe Republican or did it move to Hillary?

The District moved to Hillary in 2016, but barely. McClintock won reelection in a landslide.

[jojoju1998]

It's happening isn't ? America's going to get whacked in the face. And we're going to be in a Big Coma.

[jojoju1998]

So far my timeline isn't doing so bad against whats actually happening. This is interesting.

I'll be pretty happy if I nail 65-70% of events, which is what I'm aiming for.

If you predict the entire thing right, I am giving you all of my Money......

[jojoju1998]

I was wondering if you can do a article on Asian Voters, or each of the Minority Groups.


Also I was wondering about Mitt Romney, John Mccain.......



I find it funny that Paul Ryan was succeeded by Tim Ryan..... They are both Ryans.

[jojoju1998]

8:45 PM EST

Bill: "With Arkansas now called for Democratic Governor Richard Cordray, we have another 6 electoral votes in the bag for him. That brings him to 195. Here's the list of undecided states and where we stand on them. West Virginia is also undecided but we'll have results for that state at 9:00."

KENTUCKY - 84% of precincts reporting

Cordray/Castro (Democratic): 847,259 - 50.50%
Pence/Haley (Republican): 806,615 - 48.08%
Others (Independent): 23,932 - 1.43%

Totals: 1,677,807 | Margin: 2.42%

SOUTH CAROLINA - 64% of precincts reporting

Cordray/Castro (Democratic): 680,448 - 49.28%
Pence/Haley (Republican): 670,847 - 48.59%
Others (Independent): 29,436 - 2.13%

Totals: 1,677,807 | Margin: 2.42%

Can you fix the Vote Totals ? It doesn't seem right.....

[jojoju1998]

President Cordray......

We should nickname the new Coalition since Roosevelt and Reagan had one.


The Cordray Coalition !

[jojoju1998]

Pete Buttgieg just dropped out of the DNC Race. He is a Democratic Mayor who is Gay, in the Red State of Indiana. He could run for Indiana Governor......

[jojoju1998]

TD, could you please go into the contrasts and comparisons between Nixon and Reagan and who they relate to Obama and Cordray?

Nixon is often referred to as "the last liberal President". He seemed to have had a pronounced distain for the movement conservatives. He only valued the hard right for their consistent party-line voting, branding them kooks and ignoring them aside from election season. He even said he thought that Reagan was a very weird guy and didn't get along with him.

Nixon called himself a Keynesian, founded the EPA, instituted wage and price controls in response to inflation, pushed Title IX and continued the Great Society initiatives of LBJ. He engaged in detente with Russia and China.  At heart he was a political animal driven by ambition.

Reagan's rise as leader of the Conservative Movement came as a repudiation of the policies of the Rockefeller Republicans, but also the Nixonians in large part. He was an unabashed believer in supply-side economics. Instead of price controls, he supported Volcker's scorched-earth method of stamping out inflation even as it triggered a nasty recession. He cut many of the regulations and social programs under his purview, and castigated the ones he couldn't dismantle.

In sharp contrast with Nixon, Reagan called Russia the Evil Empire. He hounded Gorbachev both with his arms buildup / proxy wars and his incendiary rhetoric. He was a true believer in Conservatism, steadfast in his convictions that he was the good guy fighting against nefarious forces.

How did Nixon foreshadow Reagan? And how would this relate to Obama foreshadowing Cordray? Sorry if I'm overlooking something obvious, I'm just trying to see the connection here. I can definitely see the connection between Woodrow Wilson and FDR though.

I think..... that Nixon's rhetoric was really about " Law and Order " appealing to those Southern Conservative Democrats... but he operated in a Liberal Fashion..... because back in the 70s.... The Democrats were still for the most part Social Conservative. It was not until Reagan that the thing shifted.

[jojoju1998]

I have a question. I noticed that most of the realignments usually involve the South in a Prominent Fashion.

The Abraham Lincoln 1860 Realignment had the South Break away after Lincoln's Election thus starting the Civil War.

FDR's 1932 Coalition basically was the Southern Democrats but then was expanded to include the North in the New Deal.

Nixon and Reagan's emphasis on Law and Order that really attracted the South.


Maybe I am not making sense here but why is it always the South that starts the next realignment ? In my View ?

[jojoju1998]

Though I agree with this timeline...... There is one thing that still bugs me.... alot. Social Issues. I feel like you are asserting that with the New Coalition, Social Issues will die out.  You also point out that Technology and Science will explode under this Coalition. You see...... as we continue to learn more about the Human Body..... our Opinion Changes.

This article by Slate shows what I am talking about..... and this was from 2012. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/consciousness_science_and_ethics_abortion_animal_rights_and_vegetative_state_debates_.html

Some Random Scientist in 2035, could discover something that will totally change our perspective on Abortion, Gay Marriage, and so on and so forth.

Politics Wise : Since this New Coalition is so focused on Economic Issues...... I think we might have a period in time similar to the late 60s where the Culture breaks and we have dramatic resolutions to complicated social issues. Civil Rights for the 60s. Abortion for the 2050s. I would think that this would help the Republicans. And then a new social issue takes place like Artificial Intel.

Am I making sense ?

[jojoju1998]

Could this be a good Timeline for after the Cordray Era ?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=269411.0

[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.

[jojoju1998]

The Republican Party’s inability to govern after 2006 spoke to the economic fundamentals. What bound the great Republican coalitions together was the unspoken belief that neoliberal economics helped all within it. As long as the good times rolled on, the GOP could build majorities. But propelled by weak economic times, Appalachia and poor whites took the Bannonite camp’s side in the internal warfare that roiled Republican politics from 2011 to 2037. But the fact no crisis had happened kept the establishment strong enough to not cede power to the Bannon wing. Two failed Presidencies in a row (Trump’s and Pence’s) spoke to this fundamental weakness.

The election of 2024, with Ohio Gov. Richard Adams Cordray (who squeaked to a 51-48% victory over Republican DeWine and stomped to a re-election 61-36% victory in 2022) prevailing, spoke to how devastated the middle class was (wide swaths of Appalachia and the poorest Southern regions swung heavily Democratic) spoke to this.

The crisis of 2021 was the first real non-US/European crisis that was global in nature and long lasting. China’s massive panic and the spreading conflagration engulfed the world  

When President Richard Adams “Rich” Cordray took power in 2025, he unveiled a number of unusual initiatives that spoke to the crisis. Instead of a traditional bailout package, President Cordray pushed single payer and universal college initiatives, as well as a radical student debt loan restructuring package. The President understood that relieving these economic pressures on the American middle class would allow them to rebound much faster than a traditional tax cut. Republicans lambasted the moves, arguing Cordray was enacting his agenda at the expense of economic recovery, missing the point that relieving the pressures on the middle and working class would power economic growth. Cordray had been educated and guided by his time at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 2011 to 2017, and as Ohio Governor.

In Europe and Asia, world leaders followed Cordray’s lead and restructured their economies to give additional purchasing power to the middle and working class, understanding that economic growth was impossible otherwise. It was a sea change from neoliberal economics but not a return to welfare state economics. Indeed, this new economics focused on delivering essential services to the middle and working class to boost economic growth. With automation becoming a huge issue in the 2030s and 2040s, it was essential for many governments to create a sustainable economic base that was able to create value and build wealth assets. Those nations that were left behind (the most autocratic nations, in other words) suffered and stagnated mightily.

President Cordray also controversially adopted the policy of “helicopter money,” popularized by Ben Bernanke and adopted by President George W. Bush in 2008. He sent out a $1,000 rebate to everyone making income of below $50,000 in an attempt to clean out the balance of the weak middle class - and would do it for four years in a row (Cordray carefully structured the program to exclude those who were obviously rich and would manipulate their income and the program mostly worked). Republicans howled that it would lead to inflation (in line with their inability to shift to the new economic paradigm) and complain the program was being abused. But the President knew that he was infusing the middle and working class with enough income to rebound from the economic crisis. Because the middle and lower classes were so weak, inflation rates never rose significantly enough to be a threat because spending was limited to these people and they propelled the economy with their spending. It was the dry run for an UBI in fact - an issue revisited under the confirming Democratic Presidency headed by a fellow Midwesterner a generation later.

The world - as it had done in 1945 and 1981 - shifted again and the populist revolts quieted down as governments began to focus on delivering economic growth to the broad electorate.

Written with thanks to TT’s work on helicopter money

Now that I think about it after being off Election atlas Forum for so long, and reading this timeline over and over again, I think a version of this can happen. I mean, let's take a look at what has happened the last two months.

HELICOPTER MONEY : The Helicopter Money part especially is presicent. Biden's Massive Stimulus Package includes direct payments to individuals making below 100k or something like that. Sounds very familiar to TD's Timeline where Cordray pushed for Helicopter money. We even have in the works, Direct Child Payments, and even more oddly, Mitt Romney is for it. 

SINGLE PAYER : Biden of course is not for Single Payer. But he does support a Public Option, and if Democrats are able to pass a strong Public Option in the next year or so, it could become Medicare Defacto overtime. ( Fingers crossed though. ).

COLLEGE DEBT : This is where I think Biden will be pushed by progressives rather than him taking the initiative. The Progressives really really want to have student loan debt forgivness. Biden doesn't seem eager to pursue but he is, he is, easily moldable. Let's see what happens.

[jojoju1998]

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.

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.

Amid all the doom and gloom from posters on here about how our TL resembles reagante's more than this one, I would like to resurrect this discussion point for those who aren't interested in dooming.

Biden is not our guy. If he were, the Republican coalition would be in shambles, and it obviously isn't. In all likelihood, Biden's agenda will be stifled by the Democrats lack of a filibuster-proof majority in the senate and moderate democratic senators' reluctance to embrace some of the more progressive policies he's proposing. After Republicans wins both chambers of congress in 2022, his agenda will be stifled in full, leaving him with nothing but empty platitudes and a limited slate of accomplishments (the COVID relief bill and maybe an infrastructure package) from his first 2 years.

This doesn't mean the cycle is broken. Instead, it means Biden fits into our category of "failed" presidents preceding the realignment. His limited slate of accomplishments and the overwhelming disadvantage Democrats face in the electoral college will prove fatal for him (or Harris) in the next election, when the electorate will almost surely be as polarized, if not more polarized, than it was in the preceding election. A Republican victory in 2024 can then be interpreted as a final "snapping back to the mean" before a crisis so catastrophic occurs that the reigning Republican coalition is left in shambles.

Will Biden fit the traditional definition of a "failed" president? Maybe not. Maybe you can think of him as analogous to Calvin Coolidge, who himself was sandwiched between a scandalous president (Harding) and a tragic one (Hoover). Biden may preside over a strong economy as Coolidge did, although the state of the economy would be owed to the seemingly unstoppable stock market as opposed to policies enacted during his tenure. What makes Biden a "failed" president then isn't his failure to deal with the impending crisis (that would be mostly blamed on his republican successor), but rather his failure to enact the changes needed to stop the impending crisis and being unfortunate enough to be sandwiched between Trump and whoever succeeds him.

Who the realigning President could be is still unknown, although Fetterman is an interesting choice, and I know he's a favorite on this forum. I suppose only time will tell whether we really are stuck in a nation-ending nightmare or whether TD's cyclical hypothesis is true.

Hmm......

[jojoju1998]

Quick note on the Democratic battle - Warren takes the place of Sherrod Brown and Biden takes the place of Cuomo. If you'll notice, Warren is the firebrand who is incapable of forming a General election coalition and has the foresight to see the future Democratic majority but not the Rooseveltian-Reagan chops to take it there (much like Sherrod Brown, I guess) and Biden is the aging establishment choice. I think Buttigieg would be a possible realignment choice but at this point, he's too young and inexperienced in forming a major coalition. (Roosevelt and Reagan were former Governors; Lincoln had significant experience in the Illinois state House and the Whig & GOP by the time he was President, Jefferson was part of the Founding Fathers).

I was thinking that Buttigieg could work as an alternative choice as the realigning President as well. Presuming that he loses in the primary this time around, maybe he'll have the experience necessary by 2024 depending on how he spends the next couple of years.

I actually have Mayor Pete in my mind as the confirmation president for some reason or at least close to the characteristics of the confirmation Democratic White House of the 2040s.

I'm not sold he's the realigning President because honestly he's too young and inexperienced to have the job of crafting a decades long new coalition that ushers in a radical period of change. That sort of stuff requires an experienced hand.

(I also believe this is principally why Pence wins the 2020 election)

For the record in related news impeachment of Trump has crossed a critical 50% threshold. I think the odds of Trump taking a deal and resigning is pretty good at this point.

So I think we all should brace for President Michael R. Pence.

Tim Walz or Gretchen Whitmer 2028.

They're both from the Midwest, experienced politicians, and under their tenures, Minnesota and Michigan have passed massive progressive legislation.