1992-? Mirror Image of 1952-1980

[hopper]

Well, this certainly seems plausible, and in fact, I've pondered this comparison myself.

Presidential politics runs in cycles.

From 1932 to 1968, the New Deal coalition put Dems in the White House, but by 1952 the Republicans were able to capitalize of Democrat fatigue while moderating their candidate, and Eisenhower won and presided over a period of economic prosperity. This imroved the GOP's standing and distanced the party''s image from Hoover, laying the groundwork for a Republican resurgence in 1968.

1992 does present a very similar mirror image. Republicans dominate the White House in the 70s and 80s, with the exception of Carter's four years, which many historians see as an aberration brought on by a fleeting Republican backlash after Watergate, but the system remained in place. After countless losses, the Democrats finally capitalized on Republican fatigue and moderated their candidate when they ran Bill Clinton, who positioned himself as a "new Democrat."

Eisenhower and Clinton share striking similarities. Their presidencies represent dealignments in an era strongly associated with the other political party. They governed as moderates, championing the more popular positions of both parties. They presided over an era of peace and economic prosperity. Annd of course, created a new image for their party. Eisenhower removed the stink of Hoover and Clinton removed the stink of Carter. Clinton then laid the groundwork for a resurgence in his party.

The 1960 and 2000 elections were shockingly similar as well. The VP from the previous popular administration (Nixon and Gore) runs but has headwinds from the party system in place. Nixon can't win the south and neither can Gore. The victors come into office and subsequently ruin their parties popularity. Johnson destroys the party with Vietnam (and I'm convinced Kennedy would have done the same in his second term) and Bush destroys his with two wars and an economic collapse. 1968 and 2008 usher in a new era of party dominance. Democrats couldn't unite on anything after Johnson and it looks like the GOP is still splintered after Bush, although not as badly.

If the pattern continues, expect to see more Democratic presidents than Republican ones in the next 20 years. And with America increasingly diversifying and the GOP increasingly appealing to an extreme right wing and aging demographic, it's looking likely.

The GOP can change up though and be more moderate though to win elections. That is what the Dems will have to worry about. If the GOP just keeps their political platform as is they will be in trouble. I was reading a study on the American Electorate by Ruy Texiera last week. Texiera sugested the Republicans should just blow up their existing base "now" and trade it in for a new base.

[hopper]

Well, you're right on a lot of that.

The movers and shakers in the GOP know they have to change. They represent a shrinking coalition and they're losing elections that should be a cake walk because they can't get a lot of the voters they need. If Republicans did just 10 points better on average with Hispanics, for instance, they would do so much better in the SW and maybe even have a shot in California from time to time.

The problem is that building or rebuilding a winning coalition takes a lot of time. After the New Deal Coalition broke apart, the Democrats had to slowly rebuild and rebrand their party, and it resulted in some spectacular defeats. Only 20 years later, in 1992, did the party's new coalition of new minorities, young people, women, New Englanders and moderate suburbanites on both coasts, finally deliver the Democrats a substantial victory.

(for the record, I realize many Reagan Democrats returned to the fold in '92, and a lot of white Southerners voted for him too, but Carter had that as well in '76 and it proved a weak coalition. The new Democrats Clinton brought into the fold transformed the party.)

The Republicans could take a wide turn and try to appeal to a completely new coalition of voters- probably those who feel alienated from both parties, like libertarians for instance, but that would in turn alienate the voters that they actually have in the bag now. The GOP will have to slowly move away from their neocon philosophy as a lot of their older supporters   *eh hem*    die off and get replaced by younger voters who are more accepting of diversity, gay marriage and the like.

Yeah the 1972 and 1984 Predidential Elections were spectacular defeats for the Dems winning 1 state and DC both times. Even the 1980 and 1988 Presidential Elections were drubbings.

I think the GOP has a great chance to compete for Asian ethinic voters with the Dems if they go moderate on social issues. They still need a huge chunk of the Hispanic Vote with that said. They need to listen to the Hispanic Community with great interest because they are going to need their votes in the future. Listening to Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush could be a good start or re-start with the Hispanic Community. They did try to build a Hispanic Base with George W. Bush but it went up in smoke after the 2006 immigration debate.

Yeah I do agree if the GOP abandon their base now that would be a huge problem so basically they can't do what Ruy Texiera said.

[hopper]

^ By Asains, do you mean Arabs, Indians, or Yellows?

Yeah you could say Indians. I was thinking more in the lines of Filipino's, Chinese, and Japanese type of people. Arabs I consider "Middle Eastern".