The Skowronek Theory of Presidential Cycles

[HisGrace]

I think there are problems with both of these. For yours, why is Clinton Truman when Reagan/Bush are FDR? Reagan/Bush/Clinton as FDR/Truman/Eisenhower is actually a pretty good analogy, and I've long thought of Clinton as the Democratic Eisenhower. For the one in the link, I don't see what is particularly "disjunctive" about Carter as compared to other Dems at the time.

[HisGrace]

I think there are problems with both of these. For yours, why is Clinton Truman when Reagan/Bush are FDR? Reagan/Bush/Clinton as FDR/Truman/Eisenhower is actually a pretty good analogy, and I've long thought of Clinton as the Democratic Eisenhower. For the one in the link, I don't see what is particularly "disjunctive" about Carter as compared to other Dems at the time.

Mostly that he ran as an outsider who didn't have the stink of Watergate anywhere near him.

Obama and Clinton ran as fresh faced outsiders too, though. There've been "who said it" games picking from speeches from the 76/92/08 campaigns and they're pretty much indistinguishable at times. I don't see him as at all analogous to Trump in terms of being a departure.

[HisGrace]

I know there were some other replies like this. But history just isn't cyclical like this. There are some general truths, enormously popular presidents like FDR/Reagan are going to be able to get someone elected on their coattails, and then for the other party to get back in they're going to need a moderate candidate who co-opts some of the other party's platform like Eisenhower/Clinton. But that's about it. Saying that Obama is somehow the equivalent of Nixon, W is somehow the equivalent of JFK, or that Trump is the equivalent of Carter is just really reaching to try and make the cycle idea "work".