Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Presidential Election Trends => Topic started by: Chinggis on April 16, 2017, 10:58:06 AM



Title: 2016=1928?
Post by: Chinggis on April 16, 2017, 10:58:06 AM
The more I think about it, the more I notice certain parallels between the 1928 and 2016 elections. Bear with me here for a bit...

* BOTH YEARS, the Democratic Party nominated experienced New York politicos who rejected radical reform in lieu of incrementalism (Al Smith/Hillary Clinton).

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton won unprecedented support and money from usually Republican Wall Street. Smith and Clinton both favored the corporate '"establishment" wing of the Democratic Party and lost support from the "populist" and "progressive" elements (Smith failed to thrill Bryan voters; Hillary failed to thrill Bernie voters)

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton failed to stake out bold policy positions on the soaring inequalities in their eras. Smith refused to endorse a progressive farm policy; Clinton refused to endorse singe-payer healthcare. Their essential conservatism cost them both dearly among a certain kind of Democrat.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton ran as unapologetic champions of The City in an era of cultural upheaval. Smith and Clinton both embraced cultural liberalism and won record support in the nation's big metropolitan areas for it, especially among immigrants and yuppies. They both got massacred in rural areas and small towns across the nation for the same reason.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton were perceived as corrupt by a large segment of the population, due to their extensive business and political connections. Tammany Hall and the Clinton Foundation served as weights around their respective necks, contributing to their record losses throughout rural and small-town America. An examination of the returns from both elections reveals an underlying truth- throughout "Middle America," it was often socially unacceptable to vote for Al(coholic) Smith or Crooked Hillary.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton brought in new voters from odd places to their party- Smith got some usually Republican Midwestern farmers, Clinton got some usually Republican Midwestern professionals. Both lost more than they gained since so many Democrats jumped ship (white southerners and Bryan-voting progressives from Smith, working-class whites and progressives from Clinton).

* BOTH YEARS, the Republican Party nominated a wealthy businessman without experience in the military or elected office (Herbert Hoover/Donald Trump).

* Hoover and Trump both benefited from racist/nativist themes. Both men were strongly supported by groups embracing those themes, whether the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s or the "alt-right" in the 2010s. Both tacitly condoned such activity.

* Both elections resulted in total Republican control of the federal government (and most state governments across the country).

Does that mean Trump is the next Hoover? Hard to say. Anyone see other parallels or is this stretching?


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Person Man on April 16, 2017, 01:13:59 PM
The more I think about it, the more I notice certain parallels between the 1928 and 2016 elections. Bear with me here for a bit...

* BOTH YEARS, the Democratic Party nominated experienced New York politicos who rejected radical reform in lieu of incrementalism (Al Smith/Hillary Clinton).

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton won unprecedented support and money from usually Republican Wall Street. Smith and Clinton both favored the corporate '"establishment" wing of the Democratic Party and lost support from the "populist" and "progressive" elements (Smith failed to thrill Bryan voters; Hillary failed to thrill Bernie voters)

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton failed to stake out bold policy positions on the soaring inequalities in their eras. Smith refused to endorse a progressive farm policy; Clinton refused to endorse singe-payer healthcare. Their essential conservatism cost them both dearly among a certain kind of Democrat.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton ran as unapologetic champions of The City in an era of cultural upheaval. Smith and Clinton both embraced cultural liberalism and won record support in the nation's big metropolitan areas for it, especially among immigrants and yuppies. They both got massacred in rural areas and small towns across the nation for the same reason.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton brought in new voters from odd places to their party- Smith got some usually Republican Midwestern farmers, Clinton got some usually Republican Midwestern professionals. Both lost more than they gained since so many Democrats jumped ship (white southerners and Bryan-voting progressives from Smith, working-class whites and progressives from Clinton).

* BOTH YEARS, the Republican Party nominated a wealthy businessman without experience in the military or elected office (Herbert Hoover/Donald Trump).

* Hoover and Trump both benefited from racist/nativist themes. Both men were strongly supported by groups embracing those themes, whether the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s or the "alt-right" in the 2010s. Both tacitly condoned such activity.

* Both elections resulted in total Republican control of the federal government.

Does that mean Trump is the next Hoover? Hard to say. Anyone see other parallels or is this stretching?

There is also a theme of 'normalcy" barrowed from the 1920 election, where, like Trump, Harding ran against internationalism and progressivism.

Both Hoover and Trump were considered "not really conservative" and at various times had as a policy of replacing regulations and taxation with tariffs. They both have reputations as Prohibitionists, and both come from a point in time where there has been of time of economic inequality, speculation, and instability following a preceding prosperous era.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Virginiá on April 16, 2017, 01:28:49 PM
Does that mean Trump is the next Hoover? Hard to say. Anyone see other parallels or is this stretching?

I can't comment much on the specifics you listed above, but if you mean the "next Hoover" as in the next Republican to bring about an era of Democratic control, I'd have to say no - not in the way that happened with Hoover/FDR. The Great Depression wasn't exactly something history could have predicted in the manner that it occurred. The realigning effect that event had is practically unparalleled, and there is no guarantee anything close to that would happen under Trump.

Otherwise you did point out some decent similarities as far as I can tell. Though, I might also add that he shares some other similarities with other presidents as well (Carter). It really depends on how you want to look at it.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: hopper on April 16, 2017, 02:38:25 PM
Does that mean Trump is the next Hoover? Hard to say. Anyone see other parallels or is this stretching?

I can't comment much on the specifics you listed above, but if you mean the "next Hoover" as in the next Republican to bring about an era of Democratic control, I'd have to say no - not in the way that happened with Hoover/FDR. The Great Depression wasn't exactly something history could have predicted in the manner that it occurred. The realigning effect that event had is practically unparalleled, and there is no guarantee anything close to that would happen under Trump.

Otherwise you did point out some decent similarities as far as I can tell. Though, I might also add that he shares some other similarities with other presidents as well (Carter). It really depends on how you want to look at it.
Yeah Trump's relationship with Congress isn't that good(thus far) and neither was Carter's so Trump and Carter have that in common.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: hopper on April 16, 2017, 03:18:15 PM
In just recent times or the modern era just to compare:

I think Hillary in 2016 was like Romney in 2012 in that both candidates didn't connect(a message) if you will to win the Presidential Election.

I do think Trump was like Ross Perot in 1992 running on a populist message but candidate wise he was like Carter in 1976 in that the party establishment didn't like him.



Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Chinggis on April 16, 2017, 03:37:33 PM
I can't comment much on the specifics you listed above, but if you mean the "next Hoover" as in the next Republican to bring about an era of Democratic control, I'd have to say no - not in the way that happened with Hoover/FDR.

Totally agree with you. There are a bunch of compelling reasons why a comprehensive realignment a la the New Deal is unlikely if not impossible today- gerrymandering being just one.

And Trump has accepted the neoliberal economic agenda as all other post-Reagan Republican Presidents have.

ftfy

Yeah Trump's relationship with Congress isn't that good(thus far) and neither was Carter's so Trump and Carter have that in common.

Hoover and Trump both had a terrible working relationship with Congress, even when Republicans were in control. Hoover and Trump both had an awful adversarial relationship with the press from Day 1, and both Hoover and Trump were isolated from dissenting viewpoints by a handful of family and trusted staff.

The Carter parallels are there as well, of course.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Person Man on April 16, 2017, 03:39:37 PM
So we agree that Trump's presidencies has begun like past disasterous but it doesn't neccesarily follow or even predictable that he will be disaster.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Chinggis on April 16, 2017, 03:44:48 PM
So we agree that Trump's presidencies has begun like past disasterous but it doesn't neccesarily follow or even predictable that he will be disaster.

Absolutely. A deeper look at the 1932 election, for example, shows that even Hoover's defeat was far from inevitable. Some historians believe as do I that had the Democrats nominated another fiscal conservative in 1932, Hoover may well have won another term.

Nothing is preordained.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: PoliticalShelter on April 16, 2017, 04:21:53 PM
So we agree that Trump's presidencies has begun like past disasterous but it doesn't neccesarily follow or even predictable that he will be disaster.

Absolutely. A deeper look at the 1932 election, for example, shows that even Hoover's defeat was far from inevitable. Some historians believe as do I that had the Democrats nominated another fiscal conservative in 1932, Hoover may well have won another term.

Nothing is preordained.

This is quite hilarious considering that this was essentially what FDR campgained as in 1932.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: 15 Down, 35 To Go on April 16, 2017, 04:28:51 PM
Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Person Man on April 16, 2017, 04:46:41 PM
Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

Because the last realignment was 47 years ago towards the Republicans and maybe it will be 5 years or maybe 50 years from now, but it will happen as long as the United States doesn't break up or becomes a kingdom  before realignment takes place


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: GlobeSoc on April 16, 2017, 04:52:09 PM
Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.
Reagan - FDR
HW Bush - Truman
Clinton - Eisenhower
W Bush - Kennedy/LBJ
Obama - Nixon/Ford
Trump - Carter


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on April 16, 2017, 05:00:13 PM
Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

Because the last realignment was 47 years ago towards the Republicans and maybe it will be 5 years or maybe 50 years from now, but it will happen as long as the United States doesn't break up or becomes a kingdom  before realignment takes place

I would argue that our last realignment was in 1992 as right now we are neither in dem dominance or GOP domaine







Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Chinggis on April 16, 2017, 05:07:12 PM
So we agree that Trump's presidencies has begun like past disasterous but it doesn't neccesarily follow or even predictable that he will be disaster.

Absolutely. A deeper look at the 1932 election, for example, shows that even Hoover's defeat was far from inevitable. Some historians believe as do I that had the Democrats nominated another fiscal conservative in 1932, Hoover may well have won another term.

Nothing is preordained.

This is quite hilarious considering that this was essentially what FDR campgained as in 1932.

Believe it or not, Roosevelt was the most progressive option even in 1932 and was recognized as such at the time. Other choices for the nomination included a banker, a businessman, and a corporate attorney, along with the conservative Al Smith, the conservative Texan John Nance Garner, and the conservative Maryland governor Albert Ritchey.

Roosevelt promised balanced budgets during the campaign, yes, but what people remembered- what made him stand out- what won him the election- was his promise of a "New Deal" and the acknowledgment that bad things can happen to good people. This message resonated with people who were tired of Hoover saying the real problem was that Americans weren't working hard enough.

In an alternate timeline where the Democrats actually ran a conservative campaign, I could see Hoover squeaking into another term with Socialists, Commies et al. getting over 10 percent of the vote.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Virginiá on April 16, 2017, 05:47:03 PM
In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

No, John Judis didn't quite say that. Since the NJ article is paywalled, here is something from Trende on it:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/11/what_to_make_of_john_judis_republican_advantage_125558.html

Quote
I’ll confess that this was my initial reaction. But upon further reflection, Judis isn’t really arguing for a pro-Republican realignment, at least not in the way he argued for a realignment toward Democrats in the aughts. If you watch his discussion here with The Crystal Ball’s Kyle Kondik, Huffington Post’s Mark Blumenthal, and professor Tom Schaller, he is making two claims.  First, he argues that Republicans have neutralized any emerging Democratic advantage by performing well among working-class whites and middle-class voters.  Second, he says that all other things being equal, Republicans are now more likely to win a trifecta -- control of the House, Senate and presidency -- than the Democrats. This makes it easier for Republicans to advance their agenda, and gives them an advantage.

This second argument doesn’t really rely upon the sorts of things that tripped up the “Emerging Democratic Majority”: long-term, straight-line projections of demographics and cyclical theories of American politics. Instead it looks more at structural factors in the House, Senate and presidency, and how they interact with the political coalitions as they are currently constituted.  Viewed through this lens, I think he might be on to something.

First, I think Judis is right - for now. Part of the idea of a realignment finally bearing fruit in elections is that districts that might look out of reach or leaning away from Democrats become competitive or flip entirely. Without exit polls by district, it's hard to say, but once Millennials reach critical mass, Republicans will lose their grip on many areas.

Second, the last realignment was to Republicans, and so we are already in a Republican era. The reason people keep predicting a shift to Democrats is not because of hackery but because that is what history & the data currently shows. Personally I think it's pretty hackish for a Republican, in the face of all of this info, to actually suggest they are going to have a hold on power for another few decades. There is very little to actually back that idea up, and the "we control so much at state/Congressional level blah blah" doesn't matter one bit. Parties have rapidly lost massive amounts of seats within the span of one or two elections, such as 1932, 1946, 1994 and 2010.

Third, it's not like all of us are collaborating on the same ideas. I have my own opinions on what is going to happen, and it certainly wasn't based on something happening before 2010, even if 2008 at times did seem interesting in that regard. My opinion has been for a while now that once Millennials make up almost half of eligible voters, their political preferences will begin to dominate, and their voting patterns for years now have suggested big trouble for Republicans when that happens.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: mieastwick on April 16, 2017, 06:20:31 PM
In my humble opinion, Clinton is more analogous to Hoover than to Smith. Trump, like Smith, made massive gains among northern Catholics, including in Rhode Island, Luzerne County (PA), most of New York City, Dubuque, northern New York State, and North Dakota. Clinton, like Hoover, made massive gains among the southern elite in Tulsa, Atlanta, Orlando, Nashville, NoVa, Richmond, Birmingham, Charlotte, Bentonville/Fayetteville, and Dallas, as well as had extraordinary performances in SoCal. Likewise, Clinton came from the party in power, like Hoover, and abandoned a traditional party plank to fit in (for Clinton, taking on billionaires, for Hoover, enforcing civil rights). Hoover's boost based on anti-Catholic bigotry is also reminiscent of Clinton running on opposition to Trump's personality. Also, Trump, like Smith, got a lot of LaFolette (Bernie) voters to his side.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: hopper on April 16, 2017, 10:04:44 PM
Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.
Reagan - FDR
HW Bush - Truman
Clinton - Eisenhower
W Bush - Kennedy/LBJ
Obama - Nixon/Ford
[/s]Trump - Carter
Corrected it for you!


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: hopper on April 16, 2017, 10:08:53 PM

And Trump has accepted the neoliberal economic agenda as all other post-Reagan Republican Presidents have.

ftfy

That would be much more accurate :P
I was gonna post what you posted a few hours ago! I don't think Obama continued Reaganomics though.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: hopper on April 16, 2017, 10:50:54 PM
In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

No, John Judis didn't quite say that. Since the NJ article is paywalled, here is something from Trende on it:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/11/what_to_make_of_john_judis_republican_advantage_125558.html

Quote
I’ll confess that this was my initial reaction. But upon further reflection, Judis isn’t really arguing for a pro-Republican realignment, at least not in the way he argued for a realignment toward Democrats in the aughts. If you watch his discussion here with The Crystal Ball’s Kyle Kondik, Huffington Post’s Mark Blumenthal, and professor Tom Schaller, he is making two claims.  First, he argues that Republicans have neutralized any emerging Democratic advantage by performing well among working-class whites and middle-class voters.  Second, he says that all other things being equal, Republicans are now more likely to win a trifecta -- control of the House, Senate and presidency -- than the Democrats. This makes it easier for Republicans to advance their agenda, and gives them an advantage.

This second argument doesn’t really rely upon the sorts of things that tripped up the “Emerging Democratic Majority”: long-term, straight-line projections of demographics and cyclical theories of American politics. Instead it looks more at structural factors in the House, Senate and presidency, and how they interact with the political coalitions as they are currently constituted.  Viewed through this lens, I think he might be on to something.

First, I think Judis is right - for now. Part of the idea of a realignment finally bearing fruit in elections is that districts that might look out of reach or leaning away from Democrats become competitive or flip entirely. Without exit polls by district, it's hard to say, but once Millennials reach critical mass, Republicans will lose their grip on many areas.

Second, the last realignment was to Republicans, and so we are already in a Republican era. The reason people keep predicting a shift to Democrats is not because of hackery but because that is what history & the data currently shows. Personally I think it's pretty hackish for a Republican, in the face of all of this info, to actually suggest they are going to have a hold on power for another few decades. There is very little to actually back that idea up, and the "we control so much at state/Congressional level blah blah" doesn't matter one bit. Parties have rapidly lost massive amounts of seats within the span of one or two elections, such as 1932, 1946, 1994 and 2010.

Third, it's not like all of us are collaborating on the same ideas. I have my own opinions on what is going to happen, and it certainly wasn't based on something happening before 2010, even if 2008 at times did seem interesting in that regard. My opinion has been for a while now that once Millennials make up almost half of eligible voters, their political preferences will begin to dominate, and their voting patterns for years now have suggested big trouble for Republicans when that happens.
In the suburbs your analysis might hold true for now but in rural areas I do think Republicans can still win there in the longer short term despite the Millennials growing influence in electoral politics.

The top trending Dem Congressional Districts were in CA, FL, AZ, TX, VA(NOVA) and GA in 2016.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Virginiá on April 16, 2017, 11:41:06 PM
In the suburbs your analysis might hold true for now but in rural areas I do think Republicans can still win there in the longer short term despite the Millennials growing influence in electoral politics.

The top trending Dem Congressional Districts were in CA, FL, AZ, TX, VA(NOVA) and GA in 2016.

Considering how deep GOP win margins run now in some of these areas, you're probably right. However, a few things:

1. Continuing urbanization of America will further erode rural political power, no?
2. A reduction in the win margins of Republicans in some rural areas due to ascendant Millennials means it is still easier for Democrats to win in these areas than it is now. Even more so if Republican Millennials are more willing to split their tickets, which isn't impossible to think if the GOP runs candidates not palatable to them, though that is mainly a short-term issue if one at all.
3. Millennial Republicans are still more moderate than their older counterparts, so eventually they should help moderate the party overall and thus still benefits Democrats.




Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Shadows on April 17, 2017, 02:07:27 AM
There are remarkable similarities Similar tax rates, big business preventing progressive policies, domination of the financial elite, Stock Market crash & a recession, horribly inequitable growth, real struggle of the working class.

I believe people had the next FDR with Sanders, a once in a 100 year politician. FDR massively increased government & build infrastructure, initially cut military (before WWII began), introduced revolutionary concepts in the country like minimum wage & social security, helped unions get stronger with collective bargaining, created Securities & exchange commission, signed Glass Steagal, ended prohibition of alcohol & taxed it.

Sanders is in many ways paying homage somewhat to FDR's 2nd bill of rights guaranteeing education, healthcare, good jobs etc though he doesn't go as far as FDR & neither does he try to increase taxes that high. Universal Healthcare, Tuition free college, huge infrastructure, Modern Glass Steagal & breaking the banks, ending Citizens United, 15$ minimum wage, marijuana legalization seem core "new" New Deal policies !

()

()

FDR changed economic policies at a time when people didn't believe government had huge responsibility to the people, welfare wasn't a big thing & few believed higher taxes & spending can actually help people. Country after country would follow similar policies leading to the establishment of a New World Order. Reagan & Iron lady in UK did similar re-alignment & went in an opposite direction & the whole world essentially followed suit leading to a new era.

Both had a lot of economic papers, notable speakers supporting them. Keynes, the father of modern Macroneconomics proved statistically about the requirement of government intervention in times of depression & there were many economic papers & TV/Movie/Art supporting such a cause of a bigger government. Around or pre-Reagan, you had people like Milton Freedman, Ayn Rand about cutting government & taxes & welfare, stuff like "Greed is good" etc bringing a different re-alignment. Now you have Stiglitz, Piketty, Krugman, etc as famous economists arguing for a sharp left turn with brilliant economic work & even the IMF trashing Trickle Down. You have an aversion among people about big business & yearning for fundamental change !


Both FDR & Sanders are/were staunch anti-big banks, anti-big money/corporate- FDR's "I welcome the Hatred speech" is legendary - 2 New York born guys too! Remarkably uncanny!


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: The_Doctor on April 17, 2017, 04:14:18 PM
Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

He never said that. He said that we are entering a period where the Republicans may have a temporary advantage but we are not entering a Republican era. He was quite specific and clear on that.

As for the 21st century D predictions, do the math. Figure out that the GOP is going to need to keep winning 3-4% more whites each subsequent election to hold their 51%. Why would minorities swing to the Republicans, when the current GOP era has been geared towards motivating white voters to turn out?


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: hopper on April 22, 2017, 09:45:13 PM
In the suburbs your analysis might hold true for now but in rural areas I do think Republicans can still win there in the longer short term despite the Millennials growing influence in electoral politics.

The top trending Dem Congressional Districts were in CA, FL, AZ, TX, VA(NOVA) and GA in 2016.

Considering how deep GOP win margins run now in some of these areas, you're probably right. However, a few things:

1. Continuing urbanization of America will further erode rural political power, no?
2. A reduction in the win margins of Republicans in some rural areas due to ascendant Millennials means it is still easier for Democrats to win in these areas than it is now. Even more so if Republican Millennials are more willing to split their tickets, which isn't impossible to think if the GOP runs candidates not palatable to them, though that is mainly a short-term issue if one at all.
3. Millennial Republicans are still more moderate than their older counterparts, so eventually they should help moderate the party overall and thus still benefits Democrats.



Lets see one by one:

1.) Continuing urbanization of America will further erode rural political power- Um no not exactly. In 2016 I think overall migration between suburban and urban counties kind of evened out I think. I think overall migration to urban counties was higher from 2010/2011-2015 than in suburban counties. I could always be wrong though on that. Still the suburbs is where the Dem gained ground in 2016 and that is a caution to Republicans for the future. I mean for example Republicans aren't even competitive in Bergen County, NJ at the Presidential Level which is in the NYC Metropolitan Area that has to start to change in my opinion.

2A.)A reduction in the win margins in some rural areas due to ascendant Millennials it is still easier for Democrats to win in these area's than it is now-I think in some rural areas in the South mainly as more Millennials enter the electorate those areas could probably trend Dem and maybe even be competitive in the long term for Democrats. The opposite is currently happening in the Midwest in states like MI, PA, and WI where the rural areas are trending Republican so it might be a lost cause for the Dems to even compete in those respective states rural areas.

2B.)Even more so if Republican Millennials are more will to spilt their tickets which isn't impossible if the GOP candidates not palatable to them, though that is mainly a short term if one at all.-True. That's a scenario when "The Greatest Generation" I think voted for Reagan at the Presidential Level but still voted Dem at the Congressional Level because the Dem Presidential Candidates weren't worth voting for in their eyes.

3.) Millennial Republicans are still more moderate than their older counterparts, so they eventually they should help moderate the party overall and this still benefits the Dems- Millennial Republicans are more moderate on immigration and gay marriage than their older counterparts but on fiscal issues they are in-line with the current parties platform I think.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: hopper on April 22, 2017, 09:54:53 PM
Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

He never said that. He said that we are entering a period where the Republicans may have a temporary advantage but we are not entering a Republican era. He was quite specific and clear on that.

As for the 21st century D predictions, do the math. Figure out that the GOP is going to need to keep winning 3-4% more whites each subsequent election to hold their 51%. Why would minorities swing to the Republicans, when the current GOP era has been geared towards motivating white voters to turn out?
Each election is different though with different issues and candidates. I don't really play the demographic game in my head every election. You take every election result and see what you can improve on as a party after that respective election. Right now I see the Republican Party trying to find itself like the Dems were trying to do in the Carter Era and the Dems are basically where the Republicans were after Ford lost to Carter in the 1976 Presidential Election.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Virginiá on April 22, 2017, 11:18:09 PM
1.) Continuing urbanization of America will further erode rural political power- Um no not exactly. In 2016 I think overall migration between suburban and urban counties kind of evened out I think. I think overall migration to urban counties was higher from 2010/2011-2015 than in suburban counties. I could always be wrong though on that. Still the suburbs is where the Dem gained ground in 2016 and that is a caution to Republicans for the future. I mean for example Republicans aren't even competitive in Bergen County, NJ at the Presidential Level which is in the NYC Metropolitan Area that has to start to change in my opinion.

Yes, that's true. I actually posted an article on it last month: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261282.0

What I meant was that people are continuing to move to more populated areas, whether they be urban cores, the suburbs around them or even a little further out. The area(s) consistently losing out still are rural areas:

Quote
Worst off were rural areas. Counties outside of metropolitan areas, where 14 percent of Americans live, shrank slightly (-0.04 percent) in 2016, the sixth-straight year of population decline. Nonmetro areas in the Northeast and Midwest had larger losses. Nonmetro America has the slowest job and wage growth, as well.

Not to say all types of 'burbs are good for Democrats - definitely not, but areas where Democrats are really getting blown out are not doing so well in terms of population growth.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Person Man on April 23, 2017, 08:28:39 AM
Basically if both rural areas and big cities are losing people to the planned communitities and lifestyle centers on the edge of town, it should be a wash in terms of the vote? I guess then the question is whether more of these placed will be built or if the current places keep growing. If the former, look at Tampa, Jacksonville, Anaheim, and Overland Park...or even Orlando. Else, look at places like Cocoa Beach, Colorado Springs, or any Mesa/Gilbert.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Shadows on April 25, 2017, 03:48:38 AM
The 1930's realignment didn't happen because of demographics, neither did the 80's for that matter. If there is a massive re-alignment & big Dem wins consistently for a while, it will be on a new bold economic message which will have its share of detractors in Dem's own party (FDR vs Conservative Dems, Reagan vs George "Voodoo Trickle Down" Bush & many others).

A major re-alignment & wins will be with a transformation inspiring president on a bold economic plan !


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Deblano on April 25, 2017, 09:39:48 AM
I see 2016 more as 1976 rather than 1928.

Right now we are in a period of malaise and disillusionment with Reagan-era policies (much like how 1976 saw disillusionment with New Deal-era policies), and there may be a progressive realignment within the next 4 to 8 years IMO.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: Chinggis on April 25, 2017, 06:39:14 PM
The 1930's realignment didn't happen because of demographics, neither did the 80's for that matter. If there is a massive re-alignment & big Dem wins consistently for a while, it will be on a new bold economic message which will have its share of detractors in Dem's own party (FDR vs Conservative Dems, Reagan vs George "Voodoo Trickle Down" Bush & many others).

A major re-alignment & wins will be with a transformation inspiring president on a bold economic plan !

Absolutely agree with this. Had FDR governed in line with Hoover's recommendations, for example, it's highly likely the Democrats would have been thrown out of office and consigned to minority status for another generation.

Realignments don't make themselves and nothing is for certain. We need a transformational President who isn't afraid of bold reform, starting with not putting bankers in charge of the economy.


Title: Re: 2016=1928?
Post by: pbrower2a on May 01, 2017, 11:56:40 AM
These are the electoral maps that I wish that President Trump contemplate. Red suggests the failure of Al Smith in the 1928 election. Red and white suggest the failure of Herbert Hoover to get re-elected in 1932:


(
)

red -- Smith 1928, FDR 1932
white -- Hoover 1928, FDR 1932
blue -- Hoover both years

(Ignore shades)
 

From the landslide that President Trump to which he thought he was entitled because he is so brilliant and wonderful (winning everything but 'unpatriotic' parts of America like DeeCee, Greater Hollywood, some pathetic islands in the Pacific Ocean that the Kenyan fraudulently claimed to be born in, and maybe Ethan Allen's treacherous state and the one that first betrayed George III)  ... no, I am not showing that fantasy map to the consequences of gross failure of economic stewardship.  The landslide of Hoover in 1928 to the landslide of FDR in 1932 will likely show the biggest shift in popular shift from one President to another and it is likely to stick for a very long time as the largest such shift.     

This could be more relevant if one thinks that the official map is valid. Trump won with a margin of electoral votes more like that of Jimmy Carter.  But Carter would end up with problems that he could not solve, and for which Ronald Reagan offered solutions; also, the states were shifting in their partisan allegiance, but to the detriment of Jimmy Carter. Maybe not the solutions that many Americans would not have liked at the time, but the 1984 election suggested that Reagan did a lot of things right, like lowering many Americans' expectations. Oh, you have a college degree and you hate your job in retail or fast food, but your low pay even worse? There is a solution -- take another such job to supplement your meager earnings, and always remember to show that moronic "Delighted to serve you!" smile! People taking second jobs that they hated as much as their ill-paid first jobs solved lots of economic problems.   


(
)

red -- Carter in 1976 and 1980
white -- Carter 1976, Reagan 1980
blue -- Ford in 1976, Reagan in 1980

(Ignore shades).

Just a reminder: it's the next election that matters. It's not that I expect President Trump to be caught with an economic meltdown as bad as that of 1929-1932 or with a diplomatic disaster as severe as the Iranian hostage crisis.  I'm not saying that the President will lose fifteen states that he won in 2016, and for obvious reasons he can't lose 33 that he won in 2016. But two will be enough if one of them is Florida and one of them is Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin and three will be enough if one of them is Pennsylvania and the other two are any pair of Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.

It will be more than three years before les jeux sont faits. Until the election of 2020 is over, that will be a long time. After the election of 2020 that will seem a blip in history.