Is Donald Trump the next Jimmy Carter?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry I don't see it. He didn't win a majority of Republicans in *any* Southern state. He doesn't seem particularly strong against Hillary anywhere - and that includes the West where both are weaker, but there are just way more Republicans.

His weakness with Hispanics is particularly troubling for the South. Romney who had terrible matchups in the south was still the stronger president.

[Virginiá]

Dems wont be in power that long

My prediction is this is how the election is like

Clinton = Nixon
Bush = Carter
Obama = Ronald Reagan
Clinton= HW Bush

That's not exactly a given right now. If Republicans cannot fix their non-white voter issue and fail to substantially increase their share of the white vote, then they could find themselves locked out of the White House indefinitely due to the fact that non-white voters are getting very close to being unanimously Democratic at this point, and their share of the electorate is growing very rapidly at roughly 2% - 2.5% every 4 years. The numbers don't add for Republicans right now. You could say they could expand their share of the white vote, which is probable but limited in efficacy. White Millennials are much more liberal/open to Democrats and Republicans might find themselves unable to make significant inroads with them if they don't change substantially. They went 45% for Obama in 2012... So for Republicans to greatly expand their share of the overall white vote, they would need to drive that number down to 30%~ to begin a long-term advantage. I don't know how they do that at this point. By 2020, Millennials will make up almost half the eligible voters in America, and it grows fast from there. This could be only the beginning of the GOP's problems in presidential races.

Don't get me wrong, personally I think that kind of extended stay is more unlikely than not, but minorities have been consistently Democratic even when white voters swung back and forth between the parties, so saying a recession or scandal could break them isn't exactly backed up by history.

I just want to say, though, that for Republicans to begin reliably winning presidential races again they have to make significant inroads with minorities - Something they have been really bad at, and in fact are still continuing to damage their chances with even now (Trump). Whites only strategy is never going to work.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Dems wont be in power that long

My prediction is this is how the election is like

Clinton = Nixon
Bush = Carter
Obama = Ronald Reagan
Clinton= HW Bush

That's not exactly a given right now. If Republicans cannot fix their non-white voter issue and fail to substantially increase their share of the white vote, then they could find themselves locked out of the White House indefinitely due to the fact that non-white voters are getting very close to being unanimously Democratic at this point, and their share of the electorate is growing very rapidly at roughly 2% - 2.5% every 4 years. The numbers don't add for Republicans right now. You could say they could expand their share of the white vote, which is probable but limited in efficacy. White Millennials are much more liberal/open to Democrats and Republicans might find themselves unable to make significant inroads with them if they don't change substantially. They went 45% for Obama in 2012... So for Republicans to greatly expand their share of the overall white vote, they would need to drive that number down to 30%~ to begin a long-term advantage. I don't know how they do that at this point. By 2020, Millennials will make up almost half the eligible voters in America, and it grows fast from there. This could be only the beginning of the GOP's problems in presidential races.

Don't get me wrong, personally I think that kind of extended stay is more unlikely than not, but minorities have been consistently Democratic even when white voters swung back and forth between the parties, so saying a recession or scandal could break them isn't exactly backed up by history.

I just want to say, though, that for Republicans to begin reliably winning presidential races again they have to make significant inroads with minorities - Something they have been really bad at, and in fact are still continuing to damage their chances with even now (Trump). Whites only strategy is never going to work.

Dems seemed in a worse position after 1988 so we never know

[mgop]

well jimmy is the last normal president. after 36 years of idiots and wall street puppets i hope america is ready for trump, who will be even better than carter.

[RightBehind]

One similarity does not make someone the next anything. You may not like Carter's policies, but as a person, he's one of the most honest, decent and moral men to ever hold the office. His contributions to society since leaving office have gone unmatched.

Nothing like that describes Trump. If Carter is the greatest human being to ever hold the office, I think Trump just might be the opposite.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Why do people keep trying to come up with these stupid cycles? Time is linear the last time I checked?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump is the next Jimmy Carter in the sense that, like Carter, Trump is not much of an ideologue, and is the furthest distance from the ideological center of his party than any Presidential nominee since the 1976 version of Jimmy Carter.

Like Trump, Carter was NOT driven to the nomination by the ideological base of his party.  Those folks never warmed to him; they backed him strongly in 1976 because they wanted to reverse the effects of the McGovern debacle and they saw Carter as a candidate that (A) was liberal enough, (B) was anti-George Wallace, but conservative enough for Southern Democrats to endorse, and (C) was at least casting his lot with the National Democratic party.  Once in office, Carter governed as more or less a liberal, but he was never liberal enough in style to win over the party's base.  Had he done so; had he convinced the Democratic Party's liberals that he would go to the mat for them more often, that might have been enough for Ted Kennedy to have not challenged Carter for renomination. 

Trump is in this position.  He has conservatives seeing him as better than Clinton, but if they see the GOP Congress, the most obstructionist Congress of my lifetime, as "caving in to Obama", I can't see how, barring changes of heart, they will be happy with what Trump does as President.  I can't see them viewing Trump's pragmatism as a good thing; they're ideologues, not pragmatists.  Perhaps he will learn from Carter's mistakes, and recognize that successful Presidents must govern in ways that reflect the folks that voted for them.  On the other hand, the folks in the South that voted for Carter were, at least many of them, of a very different mind than the folks in New York that voted for him.

[Clark Kent]

No. Carter is a good man.

[Sir Mohamed]

No, Carter is a man dignity and honesty. The Trumpster is the exact opposite. And, more important, he will not be president.

[Virginiá]

He didn't mean Carter is like Trump personally, but some of their political attributes and the current situations are somewhat similar.

[Laeta]

Bump

[Angrie]

Like I said, if Trump wins, he could be seen as a last hurrah of the southern strategy, similar to Carter as a last hurrah of the New Deal strategy.

Uh, if Trump wins, it will pretty much mean the end of the Southern strategy, sock.

Well, now that Trump has in fact won, I think a good way to describe it would be to be the nationalization of the southern strategy. The country as a whole is now the south.

[Nyvin]

I really don't think so.   It looks like urban areas treated this election like a normal election, while the rural/small town areas treated it like a desperate last line in the sand showdown.

In 1976 it was the solid south coming back to vote against Northern Republican Ford and for Georgia native Carter.   

This urban/rural conflict in our country seems much more longer lasting and durable than what we saw in 1976, it probably last for a while.

[hopper]

I really don't think so.   It looks like urban areas treated this election like a normal election, while the rural/small town areas treated it like a desperate last line in the sand showdown.

In 1976 it was the solid south coming back to vote against Northern Republican Ford and for Georgia native Carter.   

This urban/rural conflict in our country seems much more longer lasting and durable than what we saw in 1976, it probably last for a while.

So what did Suburban Counties treat the 2016 Presidential Election as?

[hopper]

Like I said, if Trump wins, he could be seen as a last hurrah of the southern strategy, similar to Carter as a last hurrah of the New Deal strategy.

Uh, if Trump wins, it will pretty much mean the end of the Southern strategy, sock.

Well, now that Trump has in fact won, I think a good way to describe it would be to be the nationalization of the southern strategy. The country as a whole is now the south.

No.