Which presidential cyclical theory do you like better?

[pbrower2a]

The only predictable cycle that makes any sense to me is the roughly eighty-year cycle that corresponds closely to the extinction of childhood memories of those born roughly eighty years earlier. A prime example of such is the speculative bubbles of the 1920s and the Double-Zero Decade with the economic meltdowns that ensued.  Both corresponded to a conservative Administration or series of administrations that concurred with the idea that the noblest way of life was to be a greedy b@stard who takes advantage of any potential for economic gain and exploits such an opportunity to its fullest. Between the 1920s and the Double-Zero decade such met resistance by older people in power who remembered the Roaring Twenties as 'dancing on a volcano soon to erupt' and the Great Depression as the aftermath of the volcanic eruption after the fact, that is. 

Also -- during analogous times one sees a tendency toward weak, conservative leadership typically derided for years afterward - Pierce/Fillmore/Buchanan... Harding/Coolidge/Hoover... George W. Bush. Dubya essentially telescopes the twelve years of three bad residencies into eight years of his awful Presidency.

The economic collapse leads to a Crisis era (and, in case anyone wishes to consult the history of the late 1850s, the Panic of 1857 also soured public life badly). 

I can't see Obama quite in the league with Lincoln or FDR, though.