Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

This is definitely one of the greatest alternate (future?) history timeline I've read. And I'm proud of writing my first post on this forum to praise you!

A question, though: you wrote that because WWCs are a core part of the Dem coalition, immigration laws remain super-restrictive until the 2040s. Considering that minorities (including Hispanics and Asians) are the other big part of the Dem bloc, how are race and immigrant relations in this timeline?

[The_Doctor]

I'm tempted to write supplemental articles to flesh out some of the concepts expressed in this timeline. Or should I leave well alone?

Technocratic Timmy by the way has an excellent thread. Not that I understand everything it (but the gist of it I do get and it's correct): Link.

[The_Doctor]

TD what would the voter demographics by age be like in 2024?

Not too sure, but roughly the millenials have grown to something like 45% of the electorate up from some 35% today. Overall, voter demographics by age are the same as they are today, because, remember, old people are still growing as a share of the electorate as we live longer. How they vote is changing, as the Reaganite baby boomers start dying off.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for commenting. And welcome to Atlasia!

I drew on the 1930s Democratic Party and how they handled race relations in this era; ditto the Industrial Republicans. The Industrial Era Republicans had blacks and Northern whites in their coalition; but remember, these whites, in the 20th century, were pretty racist. So the GOP did a balancing act where they'd put one step forward on civil rights (TR would invite Booker T. Washington to the White House, which caused an uproar; ditto the GOP embracing anti-lynching laws in name) but never too far that they'd anger their white voters (think 1924 immigration restriction, they never acted against lynching laws with the fervor of the Lincoln Republicans).

The Roosevelt Democrats behaved very similarly. FDR would never touch civil rights because of Southern whites being a Democratic constituency. But he also had blacks in the Democratic coalition. So by 1948, this starts tearing the Democrats apart when Truman desegregates the armed forces and commits to civil rights. By 1964, the Southern whites walk out of the Democratic Party and join the GOP. It takes another generation to finalize but by 2010, they are voting solidly Republican at every level.

So let me tie these two strands together. The Democrats of 2030 will treat both parts of their coalition carefully, to keep them in line. Minorities will be given a lot of economic support to get up to speed in terms of economic equality with whites. Poorer whites will be given the same economic support to compete in the new economy. The immigration laws are so restrictive because poor whites fear the competition for the lowest paid jobs and they need the economic support that restricted immigration offers; e.g, less competition.

This time, the tensions will be economic, not cultural. The Democratic coalition will be big, unwieldy, and oftentimes, very messy. Democratic Presidents and leaders in this era will navigate race very carefully and with an eye to maintaining their majority coalition.  

Hopefully that answers your question.

[Blackacre]

It also sounds to me like the Republican elected in 2036 will be the one to open up immigration; the cosmopolitan, business types who would peel off from Cordray are very pro-immigration, as are of course minority Democrats. It would be similar to Eisenhower being the one behind the interstate highways, or Clinton being the one behind welfare reform: just as only Nixon could go to China, only the 49th President could open up immigration and come out politically unscathed. Assuming (s)he gets two terms, it could happen in the second term and still qualify as waiting until the 2040s

[The_Doctor]

In regards to race and ethnicity, I'd also add that the White population could very well stay the majority going into the 2040's/2050's depending on if the children of Asian/White and Hispanic/White couples start indentifying themselves as White down the line. The interracial/interethnic marriage rates are fairly high among Whites and Asians/Hispanics and I believe that they're increasing.

PS, If anybody who enjoyed this timeline is interested, I wrote a somewhat lengthy post in the "Election Trends" tab about how macroeconomics led to the Reagan realignment and how they will also lead to another realignment. I basically tried to analyze past macroeconomic trends and their influence on political realignments and how the current trends could very well position us into the realignment that this timeline describes.

I linked to your post earlier this morning.

How did you get your economic theories from reading my timeline? I ask because I didn't delve into economics that much and I wish I had. You explained a lot of things I wish I had more.

[The_Doctor]

(Timmy, I'll respond to this tomorrow after watching the video; your post in the other thread was very insightful).

A friend and I were debating this and I wanted to share what he said with you so you can have a kind of alternate viewpoint to inform this discussion. We agree on the large points of the realignment, and this has been a discussion between us since Bush 43's second term in 2004 (actually he introduced me to this concept, which has been a obsession for a decade or so politically so...).

With the realignment kind of now in view, our main agreement has been on the following

1) The Democratic majority will arrive in the 2020s absolutely
2) It will be a debt based crisis as the GOP fails to address it thus fueling the rise of the left.
3) The Democrats will be inspired by the Bernie Sanders left and abandon the Hillary/Obama contingent who focused on pragmatism in the age of Reagan.

Our debate is purely on the details.

1) He raises the concern that he thinks that the private sector has some $80 trillion in debt and this is a bubble that will pop. I have the GOP screwing up on a state bailout. He believes the private sector debt crisis will be a driver of the new Democratic majority.
2) He also believes that a recession will cause a Democratic Presidency by 2020 but that president is going to be a one termer and limited as the GOP nominates and elects a final true believer in 2024 (aka the Pence of the story) who would face the debt crisis using Reagan-era tools of tax cuts and trying to stave off disaster
3) Ergo the realignment is in 2028.

We also differ on the amount of economic pain the country is undergoing. He feels it needs to be a little more painful for the realignment to occur.

So some food to chew on. I do think this is the inevitable trajectory of the United States in 2021, 2025, or 2029 and that by the end of the 2020s, the Democrats will be ensconced as the country's majority for a generation (or two).

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Finally got to reading this. I loved it!

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

In regards to race and ethnicity, I'd also add that the White population could very well stay the majority going into the 2040's/2050's depending on if the children of Asian/White and Hispanic/White couples start identifying themselves as White down the line. The interracial/interethnic marriage rates are fairly high among Whites and Asians/Hispanics and I believe that they're increasing.

From personal experience, most of my multiracial friends identify with both sides of their identities - not always equally, but they'd never describe themselves as only "white" (or any one race); they more often identify as "multiracial." Though I don't know if identifying as "white" is more common in other parts of the country.

It would also depend on if the Dems encourage multiracials and minorities to assimilate into being "white" (if the WWC base presses them to), or if they encourage multiculturalism as they do now.

[The Govanah Jake]

Just read through the whole thing and i just want to say its really good!

[The_Doctor]

TD,

First, do you have the Scott walker timeline you wrote?

And second, you mentioned that you usually get events right but people wrong, and Trumps first 100 days you wrote about is very accurate in both those regards! So if you had to keep this timeline the same but recast it who would be who? Obviously Pence would stay as the nominee in 2020.

1. Sadly, I deleted it, since there were two TL's with the same title. However, I do have the stories. I'll put them up on Google Docs or put them on Word Press, shortly, so that people can read them. It was a silly mistake but I have the stories saved.

2. I had the Walker Cabinet planned out, I'll dig it up later. I must say that if this was Walker a ton of this wouldn't have happened (Walker most likely would have executed the ban more smoothly, stuck with high risk areas and so on - if he did it at all).

a. Pence would not have been the nominee in 2020 because Walker wouldn't have most likely lost the popular vote by 2% and wasn't such an obvious risk for removal/impeachment. I had planned 2 terms of Scott Walker, followed by a Portman victory in 2024, and then a realignment in 2028 for this reason. (I did not factor into my thinking incidentally that Walker's narrow 20,000 vote popular vote win in my timeline would have meant that Portman would have lost in 2024; but I guess, Walker would have won by 3-4% or something, with a highly disciplined campaign).

[Blackacre]

Walker x2 then Portman x1 would have been an eerie parallel to Harding/Coolidge/Hoover, had it happened in real life. Keeping this in mind, it puts your comments about Pence wanting to be a Coolidgian figure and the 1928/1932 parallels in 2020 and 2024 into a somewhat new light, as those seem to be the remnants of the original version's obvious parallels.

It also changes Obama from a Nixonian figure (a president pushing the boundaries of the majority's rules and a foreshadow of things to come) to a Wilsonian one. (a brief blip in a majority stranglehold that turns out to not really be a foreshadowing figure at all, which makes sense considering Cordray's majority is not an extension of Obama's coalition the way Reagan's majority was a realisation of Nixon's southern strategy)

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was the original intent. I was going to have a 1920s political America and as you've seen, we did end up using the late 1920s and early 1930s as a template to transition from one political coalition to the other. I always figured the last president of the era would be a Coolidgean/Reaganite figure (ergo, Portman, who has a long and storied history in the GOP).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I think both Wilson and Nixon were foreshadowing presidents. If you read one of my first articles in this thread, it casts Wilson and Nixon as similar positions. Wilson foreshadowed the Roosevelt progressive majority 12 years later and Nixon did the same for Reagan 6 years later.

But you're right, it did change Obama from a Nixonian to Wilsonian figure. Ideologically, he is very much the forerunner of Cordray, in part, an incomplete Cordray and a much weaker coalition. One intent was to showcase that Obama could not succeed in securing his legacy in substantial numbers because he lacked the support of white working class voters that Cordray does have. That is the point of the Bernie Bros - they add the working class whites to the Democratic coalition and secure the kind of political strength Cordray has.

[The_Doctor]

For people like Technocratic Timmy, here's an interesting report embedded in this tweet (PDF). Might be worth reading in context of this timeline.

[BuckeyeNut]

You have crafted a superb timeline, but I think you have Cordray all wrong.

[The_Doctor]

You have crafted a superb timeline, but I think you have Cordray all wrong.

Thank you for the kind words. Out of curiosity, how so on Cordray?

[BuckeyeNut]

You have crafted a superb timeline, but I think you have Cordray all wrong.

Thank you for the kind words. Out of curiosity, how so on Cordray?

The Ohio Democrats he shares infrastructure with back home in Columbus/Franklin County are ... part of a wing that doesn't seem to currently have a national group. So it's a little hard to explain. Suffice it to say he's generally more allied with conservative Democrats back home and not liberals/populists. Which isn't to say he hasn't done a good job as Director over at the CFPB, but extrapolating that outwards and upwards, I don't think he's fit to be the uniter this timeline suggests.

[The_Doctor]

You have crafted a superb timeline, but I think you have Cordray all wrong.

Thank you for the kind words. Out of curiosity, how so on Cordray?

The Ohio Democrats he shares infrastructure with back home in Columbus/Franklin County are ... part of a wing that doesn't seem to currently have a national group. So it's a little hard to explain. Suffice it to say he's generally more allied with conservative Democrats back home and not liberals/populists. Which isn't to say he hasn't done a good job as Director over at the CFPB, but extrapolating that outwards and upwards, I don't think he's fit to be the uniter this timeline suggests.

I've sort of read about that. I don't know if it will be Cordray exactly but he fits the kinda profile of the likely next Democratic President (in my mind anyway) so I went with it, if that makes sense?

[The_Doctor]

Realigning Presidents tend to be experienced politicians associated with the fervent base of the new majority coalition. Think Reagan, FDR, Jefferson, and to an extent, Lincoln (he was a Whig politician for many years but I wouldn't say he was a truly national name until 1858). They tend to be 50s - 60s, established politicos who have spent decades in the political field before becoming President (true of every realigning President). Creating realigning coalitions that set the terms of political debate for the next several generations is not usually left to a young politico but to people who know how to set the state of ship IMO.

Curiously enough, all of the realigning Presidents except Jefferson suffered major losses before becoming President. There's a sort of "being on the outs" that seem to animate the careers of these realigning Presidencies. Ex., Jefferson's loss to Adams in 1796, Lincoln's loss in 1858 against Stephen Douglas (and an earlier loss for a very local office), FDR's 1918 failed bid for NY Senate and 1920 loss for Vice President, and Reagan's two failed Presidential bids. All of them kind of were important developments in the careers that allowed them to later utilize the loss to win later on. The losses might have animated the realigning Presidents to presidential greatness, who knows? It's a little weird, so ignore this if you want.

I feel these three areas are the biggest determinants/characteristics of a realigning President. Association with the party's base, having suffered a major defeat, and having political experience sufficient to lead a realignment, which is a major event in politics. I'm spitballing but that's my feel.

I would say that Feingold would fit the bill in 2020 honestly (he fits all these criteria) or an established Democrat who has been on the national stage (or is someone we know already who would be a potential President down the line). Sherrod Brown would also fit mostly. There are a number of national Democrats who would probably hit all these boxes.

[The_Doctor]

I'll draw up a House map of the 2024 Democratic coalition based on current lines (roughly) so you get an idea where the new Democratic majority is located. This TL is finished; but I like writing supplemental articles and things time to time to fill out our understanding of this world.

[Blackacre]

Feingold absolutely would have fit if he won his senate race in 2016. One loss against Ron Johnson qualifies as the loss in your checklist, but two either puts him out of the national spotlight entirely or forces him to wait until 2018 to make a comeback, at which point it doesn't look in good form to immediately run for President right after getting a new office. (it might not have been in 1860 when freshly victorious Senator Stephen Douglas ran for President, but it sure is now)

Sherrod Brown also works, (his loss was for Ohio SoS in 1990) as do a handful of other politicians. For a 2020 realignment, Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken are potential targets. Franken doesn't have the loss but he does have a near-loss against Coleman that animated him to be a fantastic US Senator. Warren doesn't have an electoral loss but she still has a political one: getting blocked as head of the CFPB. Though her case is a little... eh.... also neither of them have the decades in politics component that Brown does. (also Biden has a personal loss instead of a political one, and otherwise qualifies)

For a 2024 realignment, yeah Cordray works because of his 2010 loss to Mandel, but I'm not sure who else has the loss component. Jason Kander could do it if he wins the Governor's race in 2020, though he might be too young. O'Malley could maybe also work, but that's a massive stretch. Franken might accrue the experience to qualify by then.

Ironically, Obama has the loss, (lost a congressional election before he became a Senator) and given his charisma and political talents, there is probably a universe where he becomes President in 2020 or 2024 instead of 2008, becoming a Reaganite figure instead of a Nixonian or Wilsonian one. It's probably in one of the "HRC wins in 2008" universes and it's only a matter of time before that TL gets written

I'll draw up a House map of the 2024 Democratic coalition based on current lines (roughly) so you get an idea where the new Democratic majority is located. This TL is finished; but I like writing supplemental articles and things time to time to fill out our understanding of this world.

Sweet. Supplemental articles are the best! Also while the plot of this TL is completed, because the story focuses so much on historical trends and big ideas and major coalition and realignments and the like, I feel like the TL won't truly be over until all discussion of it has been exhausted. The plot may be done, but it lives on nonetheless

[The_Doctor]

Spenstar, actually, most realigning Presidents had two losses. Feingold qualified under his second loss.  Jefferson had one; Cordray would have three, including primaries. It's a statistical quirk and commonality.

And yeah, that's the intent of this TL at this point, to continue the endless discussion of where the country is going. I think the issues presented are really difficult and interesting and I'd like to go on and on about them.

What I would like to achieve is a robust discussion and consensus (maybe) of the conditions leading up to realignment, why they happen, and how they will happen. Obviously the reasons are consequential, since they will impact global history for the next 30-40 years. The trends we're examining are not merely American, but also UK, Europe, Indian, and elsewhere.

[Blackacre]

Spenstar, actually, most realigning Presidents had two losses. Feingold qualified under his second loss.  Jefferson had one; Cordray would have three, including primaries. It's a statistical quirk and commonality.

Interestimg. Even so, the fact that Feingold just had a loss would preclude him having a realignment in 2020; if he was the realigning figure he'd have to make a major comeback like win the Gubernatorial race in 2018, and even then, bevause starting your job by running for president looks pretty bad, hed have to do it in 2024. (What was Reagan's second loss, btw?)

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

What was Reagan's second loss, btw?

First loss was 1968 presidential campaign, second was 1976 presidential campaign, I believe.

[BuckeyeNut]

You have crafted a superb timeline, but I think you have Cordray all wrong.

Thank you for the kind words. Out of curiosity, how so on Cordray?

The Ohio Democrats he shares infrastructure with back home in Columbus/Franklin County are ... part of a wing that doesn't seem to currently have a national group. So it's a little hard to explain. Suffice it to say he's generally more allied with conservative Democrats back home and not liberals/populists. Which isn't to say he hasn't done a good job as Director over at the CFPB, but extrapolating that outwards and upwards, I don't think he's fit to be the uniter this timeline suggests.

I've sort of read about that. I don't know if it will be Cordray exactly but he fits the kinda profile of the likely next Democratic President (in my mind anyway) so I went with it, if that makes sense?

Sure. The mold you've envisioned makes sense, I just think the man chosen doesn't fit.