Name the next three U.S. Presidents

[DS0816]

There's no point to this! But what the hell…

No. 44: Barack Obama (D-Illinois)
No. 45: Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri)
No. 46: Aaron Schock (R-Illinois)

[DS0816]

2017-2025 Scott Walker
2025-2029 Carly Fiorina
2029-2033 Kamala Harris

In a realignment period trending against their party, which took effect with Barack Obama's first-term election from 2008,  the Republicans aren't going to string together three consecutive presidential victories.

[DS0816]

Hillary Clinton (2017-2025)
John Kasich (2025-2033)
George P. Bush (2033-2037)

Same response from me as I had made to the previous poster's list.

[DS0816]

2017-2025 Scott Walker
2025-2029 Carly Fiorina
2029-2033 Kamala Harris

In a realignment period trending against their party, which took effect with Barack Obama's first-term election from 2008,  the Republicans aren't going to string together three consecutive presidential victories.

Many of us still feel that we are in the Reagan realigning period and that the GOP will continue to be the majority going forward.

I know.

And that's truly sad.

[DS0816]

45. Hillary Clinton (2017 - 2025) (Not sure if she'll win a second term)
46. A Republican (2025 - 2029)
47. A Democrat (Julian Castro?) (2029 - 2037)

No way that there will be a Democratic president for 24 of 28 years

The GOP party is far from done, but unless they duplicate what Cameron did in UK, after three straight labor party wins, the US will continue to elect dems, with a Hilary win nxt Nov.

I think the GOP is 8-12 years away doing what Cameron did in the UK. They are still a Deep South Party in the idealogical sense. I do think the Republicans can still make it interesting next year though. I really think Hillary has some flaws as a candidate that the GOP can really exploit. However, with Trump sucking up all the oxygen in the media right now....

The Deep South is the base for the Republican Party.

Take a look at old electoral maps, dating back to the second half of the 19th century. States voting diametrically opposite each other are the Deep South neighbors Alabama and Mississippi, on one side, and the northeastern Vermont, on the other political side.

Ulysses Grant carried all three states with his re-election in 1872. The three didn't carry the same again until 100 years later for the 49-state re-election of Richard Nixon in 1972. Both Grant and Nixon won their re-elections having carried more than 80 percent of available states. And in between—that would be the presidential elections of 1876 to 1968—resulted in Alabama/Mississippi on one side and Vermont on the other political side as they would not all carry the same, not even once, with any of the 24 election cycles which saw Woodrow Wilson (1912), Herbert Hoover (1928), Franklin Roosevelt (his first two wins from 1932 and 1936), Dwight Eisenhower (1952 and 1956), and Lyndon Johnson (1964) also carry 80 percent or more of available states with their landslide victories.

Nixon was right: the [Deep] South is the [future; and, of course, present] Republican Party.

[DS0816]

2017-2025 Scott Walker
2025-2029 Carly Fiorina
2029-2033 Kamala Harris

In a realignment period trending against their party, which took effect with Barack Obama's first-term election from 2008,  the Republicans aren't going to string together three consecutive presidential victories.

I disagree with the premise.

You're allowed to feel that you "disagree." But, go back to the previous realignments of 1800–1824 (Democratic–Republican), 1828–1856 (Democratic), 1860–1892 (Republican), 1896–1928 (Republican), 1932–1964 (Democratic), and 1968–2004 (Republican) and cite an example of the out party having won three consecutive election cycles.

[DS0816]

2017-2025 Scott Walker
2025-2029 Carly Fiorina
2029-2033 Kamala Harris

In a realignment period trending against their party, which took effect with Barack Obama's first-term election from 2008,  the Republicans aren't going to string together three consecutive presidential victories.

I disagree with the premise.

You're allowed to feel that you "disagree." But, go back to the previous realignments of 1800–1824 (Democratic–Republican), 1828–1856 (Democratic), 1860–1892 (Republican), 1896–1928 (Republican), 1932–1964 (Democratic), and 1968–2004 (Republican) and cite an example of the out party having won three consecutive election cycles.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Of course if you go back retroactively, periods in which the roulette wheel chooses the red several times in a row are not going to have three blacks in a row. That has no statistical bearing on the future though. Unless you can provide some inherent reason why there should be merit to such 40 (36? 28?) year cyclic behavior, I shall continue to regard it as as valid as astrology.

Realignments are not “fallacies.”

I will let you do your own research—assuming you’re capable—which should be a help to you.

[DS0816]

2017-2025 Scott Walker
2025-2029 Carly Fiorina
2029-2033 Kamala Harris

In a realignment period trending against their party, which took effect with Barack Obama's first-term election from 2008,  the Republicans aren't going to string together three consecutive presidential victories.

I disagree with the premise.

You're allowed to feel that you "disagree." But, go back to the previous realignments of 1800–1824 (Democratic–Republican), 1828–1856 (Democratic), 1860–1892 (Republican), 1896–1928 (Republican), 1932–1964 (Democratic), and 1968–2004 (Republican) and cite an example of the out party having won three consecutive election cycles.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Of course if you go back retroactively, periods in which the roulette wheel chooses the red several times in a row are not going to have three blacks in a row. That has no statistical bearing on the future though. Unless you can provide some inherent reason why there should be merit to such 40 (36? 28?) year cyclic behavior, I shall continue to regard it as as valid as astrology.

Realignments are not “fallacies.”

I will let you do your own research—assuming you’re capable—which should be a help to you.

What is even more amusing is that your entire theory contradicts itself. 537 more votes for Al Gore in Florida would provide a counterexample where Democrats won three consecutive elections in a Republican "realignment." Are we supposed to believe that such an insignificant difference is attributable to historicist hogwash? Similarly, are we to attribute Nixon's whisker loss in 1960 not to a poor debate performance or high turnout at the cemeteries, but to destiny?

Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, your alignment periods are of inconsistent length. The first is 28 years, the second is 32 years, then three of 36 years, followed by 40 years. Your realignment intervals should at least be consistent if you want a testable theory. Otherwise, couldn't one just as easily define the realignment periods as being 1968-1988 (Republican) and 1992-2012 (Democratic)? Both of those 24 year periods would be only 4 years short of your shortest realignment.

Are you telling us that John Kennedy wasn't the 35th president of the United States?

Are you telling us that George W. Bush wasn't the 43rd president of the United States?