Will Donald Trump be the Jimmy Carter of the GOP?

[Blackacre]

The parallels are there, and have been stated earlier in the thread. Clinton's primary challenge, her baggage. Carter's hijacking of his party, picking a member of the establishment as his veep, his lack of governing experience. The fact that the 1976 election seemed like a pause in existing trends. (2016 might be seen as a pause in the trend of the electorate getting more diverse, or not, who knows)

We also see some parallels in why Carter failed. Carter didn't get along too well with his Congress. (Trump might, his behaviour in the campaign suggests that he won't) He ran a terrible white house. (Trump ran terrible businesses) Carter was blamed for economic problems that preceded him, were made worse under him and that weren't his fault. (the same meh economy that got Trump in power will be his undoing, especially if he gets his way on Trade and if Ryan gets his on the budget)

We'll know if the parallels hold as his presidency takes shape. But the potential is there. In the moment it's hard to say how 2016 will be viewed in the overall historical narrative. We didn't know in 1976 that it would be remembered as a blip interrupting a political era. I'm sure we didn't know in 1828 that Jackson would permanently redefine the Presidency and a generation of politics.

So maybe Trump is Carter and 2016 is a blip. Or maybe Trump is Jackson and 2016 is a a true realignment. Maybe it's a combination of the two or something else entirely. I have a feeling we at Atlas will get an inkling of what the answer is by this time next year.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

FDR and Reagan changed a generation and more importantly, they locked in the support of the youth in their presidencies, people who grow up and perpetuate that brand of politics/policy. Trump got 37% of the 18-29 vote, same as Romney. He lost the 18-44 vote by double digits. He was resoundingly rejected by the future of America and forced on us by the past.

Probably, because USA was 90% white? Among Whites Trump was doing ~about the same, if not better Reagan.

Among Whites:
18-29     T+5
30-44     T+18
45-64     T+29
65+        T+19

But it is pretty much irrelevant anyway. If he'll turn out to be a good president, he'll win all this group by decent double digits. If not, than yeah...

And Obama lost white Millennials in 2012 last I recall as well. Regions are not at all uniform. White youth in some states drag that number down quite a bit. You'll also notice that despite winning white youth, he still lost the 18-29 group overall 55% - 37%, with none of Hillary's decreased margin from 2012 going to Trump.

But, also, pointing out that it was whites Reagan won really is irrelevant. The next generations of young people now are heavily diverse. It's not enough to just win over white young voters (unless maybe you win them by 20-30 points or something?). Also not sure what Reagan white young voter margins you are talking about - 1980 vs 1984 is a substantial difference. Trump's would only apply to 1980, which the 18-29 overall vote was almost tied, in which case T+5 among white 18-29 might make for a ok comparison.

And so again my point is that if Trump were truly the next FDR/Reagan [insert loud cackles here], then he wouldn't have been repudiated by a very large majority of America's future generation(s). Trump is basically just a loud f**k you from America's elders, which is great and all, but represents little more than that in terms of long-term generational legacies.

Yes, I compared with 1980 (which is more logical).

It was more like f**k from Whites (Trump performed slightly better than Reagan 1980).


But anyway, my point was that he'll be judged after what he'll have accomplished as president, not how toxic campaign he had to win presidency. Most of his drawbacks came from his toxic personality/strategy, not the issues he chose to lift up.

Even if he'll be a mediocre president or just get lucky with economy as Bill Clinton, his numbers will likely be much better than they are now. His middle-class orientation will help him with minorities.

[Person Man]

FDR and Reagan changed a generation and more importantly, they locked in the support of the youth in their presidencies, people who grow up and perpetuate that brand of politics/policy. Trump got 37% of the 18-29 vote, same as Romney. He lost the 18-44 vote by double digits. He was resoundingly rejected by the future of America and forced on us by the past.

Probably, because USA was 90% white? Among Whites Trump was doing ~about the same, if not better Reagan.

Among Whites:
18-29     T+5
30-44     T+18
45-64     T+29
65+        T+19

But it is pretty much irrelevant anyway. If he'll turn out to be a good president, he'll win all this group by decent double digits. If not, than yeah...

And Obama lost white Millennials in 2012 last I recall as well. Regions are not at all uniform. White youth in some states drag that number down quite a bit. You'll also notice that despite winning white youth, he still lost the 18-29 group overall 55% - 37%, with none of Hillary's decreased margin from 2012 going to Trump.

But, also, pointing out that it was whites Reagan won really is irrelevant. The next generations of young people now are heavily diverse. It's not enough to just win over white young voters (unless maybe you win them by 20-30 points or something?). Also not sure what Reagan white young voter margins you are talking about - 1980 vs 1984 is a substantial difference. Trump's would only apply to 1980, which the 18-29 overall vote was almost tied, in which case T+5 among white 18-29 might make for a ok comparison.

And so again my point is that if Trump were truly the next FDR/Reagan [insert loud cackles here], then he wouldn't have been repudiated by a very large majority of America's future generation(s). Trump is basically just a loud f**k you from America's elders, which is great and all, but represents little more than that in terms of long-term generational legacies.

Yes, I compared with 1980 (which is more logical).

It was more like f**k from Whites (Trump performed slightly better than Reagan 1980).


But anyway, my point was that he'll be judged after what he'll have accomplished as president, not how toxic campaign he had to win presidency. Most of his drawbacks came from his toxic personality/strategy, not the issues he chose to lift up.

Even if he'll be a mediocre president or just get lucky with economy as Bill Clinton, his numbers will likely be much better than they are now. His middle-class orientation will help him with minorities.

It helped a little with W, but not that much and it ended up with the First Black President being elected because of him.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It helped a little with W, but not that much and it ended up with the First Black President being elected because of him.

W = GWB? Lol, you are racist if you think Obama was elected because of him