Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[The_Doctor]

Populist versus Business coalitions: An American History

In Roman times, the Republic was based on two coalitions. The Optimates and the Populares fought for control over the Republic. The patriciate was the Senators and the knights; while the plebians constituted the lower class. The two sides waged an unending battle for control though the plebeians slowly gained power. The American Republic, as we’ll see, followed much the same fault lines. The American Republic has been largely two warring coalitions; one of the populists and the business interests. Democrats Jefferson and Roosevelt belonged to the populists while Republicans Lincoln and Reagan were aligned with the business interests. Occasionally the lines blurred (notably under successful minority coalition White Houses) but in general, the fault lines since 1800 has been between the ruling elites and the populist working classes. Understanding the demarcation is better than seeing the traditional left and right; while connecting Thomas Jefferson (D-Virginia) to Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and Abraham Lincoln (R-Illinois) to George W. Bush (R-Texas).

When President Thomas Jefferson’s populist agrarian coalition defeated John Adams’ mercantilist manufacturing Federalists, it was the first populist victory. An odd way for us to think of Jefferson, who is viewed as a right wing libertarian two hundred years later who hated government. But, Jefferson carried 115 counties and independent cities to John Adams’ 40 - of the 155 making independent results. He also carried the then-frontiers states of Kentucky and Tennessee. Even though Jefferson won New York City (and the state, thanks to Burr), there’s little indication that Jefferson was in favor of the manufacturing interests that Alexander Hamilton so favored (and would reemerge in Lincoln’s Republican Party 60 years later). Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic - Republican coalition was based on frontiersmen, the South, and farmers - which favored expansion and slavery (though not all of them). Preserving slavery, Manifest Destiny and farming interests was the purpose of this coalition from 1800 to 1860. These people did not want the heavy hand of government and they wanted the removal of Indians - plus an expansionary policy westward. They wanted to maintain the agrarian society that served them so well, despite the protests of New York’s financial class. They got their way until 1860.  A generation after Jefferson, Andrew Jackson killed the national bank of the United States and stood by the slavery interests while opposing tariffs. Both the realigning and confirmation presidencies were squarely in favor of populist agrarian Southern interests.

Sixty years later, Abraham Lincoln (R-Illinois) cemented Alexander Hamilton’s vision of a United States dedicated to manufacturing.  Lincoln dispatched the agrarian populist Democrats and marginalized the Democratic Party for 72 years. Lincoln swept New England, the Midwest, and the Pacific Coast. The North and Midwest backed the emerging Industrial Revolution while the South did not. As a result, Republican Lincoln signed tariffs, and as Wikipedia noted, “the Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864 granted federal support for the construction of the United States' First Transcontinental Railroad, which was completed in 1869.” They were enacted with Republican support. He also signed the National Banking Act which created the US Banking System and pushed a national currency (Lincoln sits on the $5 and the penny).  Remember, President Andrew Jackson waged a fight to kill the Second Bank of the United States because of his political base. Lincoln also sold off a ton of land in the West to farmers, possibly a Republican strategy to pick up the votes of the frontiersmen who had backed Jefferson and Jackson. And yes, slavery. Slavery undercut northern manufacturing by providing cheap Southern labor. Take Lincoln’s economic policies together and they were of major benefit to industrial interests in the North. Far from being a populist darling, Lincoln was squarely in favor of the business interests that ruled the Republican Party.

In 1896 the populist William Jennings Bryan and mercantilist William McKinley squared off for the White House. The gold standard issue stood as the dividing line; and Republican McKinley stabilized the Lincoln coalition after years of close elections. The pro-business GOP majority soared to heights not seen before or since during the turn of the 20th century and enacted tax cuts, tariffs, and all kinds of pro-business legislation. The only hiccup was the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911.  Otherwise, Republican presidents busted unions, cut taxes, and raised tariffs to protect the Industrial Revolution.

The election of 1932 reversed the polarity again. The Roaring 1920s and the generation of GOP policies had led to the Great Depression, thus upending the system and putting the populists in the driver's’ seat.  Enter the New Deal and the Great Society (originally envisioned by John F. “Jack” Kennedy).  Roosevelt instituted Social Security, regulatory protections, and child labor laws, among other things. The overhaul lasted all the way to 1980.

In 1960, moderate Republican Richard Nixon and liberal Democrat John F. Kennedy squared off for the Presidency. Jack Kennedy’s victory - and later, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, paved the way for the second half of the great Democratic era, centered on civil rights and social issues like poverty.  These issues were at the heart of the working class (at least, a lot of them) rather than the moneyed elites.

Ronald Reagan’s Republican victory in 1980 led to the supply siders and the return of the nation’s economic elite at the political primacy.  Reagan cut taxes, slashed regulations, and opened up industries to competition as well as signed every free trade deal possible (NAFTA was a Reagan brainchild). George W. Bush was this on steroids, with the 2000 election being a confirmation election. The populists were dispatched again as the 1980s saw corporate consolidation and the majority coalition serving business interests.

Now, as Rich Cordray (possibly) becomes the populist Democratic standard bearer of 2024, the pendulum is swinging back to the Democratic Party.  More importantly, with the Sanders wing of the Party gaining power over the neoliberals who were holding the reins with Bill Clinton and somewhat, with Barack Obama, the populists are gaining power again in the emerging Democratic majority. As seen by the populist revolts in both parties, the establishment business interests are losing power and favor with the electorate. Unlike 1932, this may not be a sudden shift but a gradual shift (at least, up to the crisis).  

The coalitions seemed rooted in popularity based on how essential the reforms were. Republican Lincoln pushed the Union into an industrial revolution which engendered huge prosperity and technological advancement. Democrat F. Roosevelt’s New Deal redistributed the advances of the Industrial Revolution to the working class and created even more economic prosperity that way. Nobody remembers Lincoln as a pro-business GOP President but he was that; nobody remembers Jefferson as a populist Democratic White House but he operated as such.

Ultimately, more than race, more than social issues, or anything else, the two coalitions can be defined as the populists versus the business class, and their struggle is as old as the Republic itself.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Incredible

[The_Doctor]

Two more articles: [1] BTM: 2017 Recap and [2] A Populist Minority Republican Coalition and that should be it. That's really all I have to say for 2017 and 2018 except Pence becoming President (which is covered in the BTM 2017 recap).

Also, Sanchez, your input in helping writing about the populist GOP of 2036 would be helpful as I conclude Bannon's war on the establishment will now be somewhat successful in fashioning a GOP coalition that is more populist in nature.

Also I'm updating the table of contents.

[Deblano]

Speaking of future realigning presidents, there was one thing I was thinking about.

As we both agree on, the last political realignment took place around the 1980s, with the election of Ronald Reagan who would be remembered among the GOP as a bold, firebrand conservative. While Reagan certainly energized the conservative movement, a lot of people note that Reagan did some remarkably "un-conservative" things during his Administration. That line of thought goes something like the following below:

"People claim that Ronald Reagan was some hardcore conservative, but he is the same man who despised nukes, increased taxes in the late 80s, passed amnesty, enacted gun control, and exploded the debt."

Since Richard Cordray in this timeline is the "progressive realingner", in a similar vein that Reagan was the "conservative realigner", could we see the progressive realigner do some major, rather centrist/conservative actions that weaken his/her image of being a bold, hardcore progressive? If so, what could some of those "not so progressive" actions be ?

[King Lear]

^
President Cordray has to tow the line between the emerging Obama coalition and the WWC voters who were brought into the Democratic Party fold as a result of the 2021-2023 crisis. (Note: every realignment has a surprising segment of the former majority shift to the new majority that was never expected to shift. Even if it’s not WWC voters, there will be some segment of the Reagan-Bush-Trump-Pence coalition that’ll shift Dem that nobody will expect to happen)

This is another aspect of TDs theory I really have trouble rapping my head around, I personally don't see any evidence that any part of the republican base of older (40+), affluent (50k+), Christian (evangelical Protestant, Catholic, and Mormon), White people is getting ready to bolt and join the Democratic Party, including the so called "White working class" that are really not working class at all because the vast majority of them make more then the national average of 50k a year and due to this inconvenient fact none of them vote on economic concerns instead they vote primarily on their racial, religious, and sexual bigotry (opposition to abortion, gay marriage, immigration, gun control). If their is another realignment in the near future I don't believe it will be due to part of the republican base bolting to the democrats but instead due to the democratic base of younger, nonwhite, nonchristian, voters demographically replacing the republican base of older, white, christian, voters.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Every single realignment in American history has had a segment of the former majority shift to the new majority. That’s partly why it’s called a realignment. The idea that no former Federal republicans will vote for the new realigning Democratic majority is pretty silly.

Ah, but what if it's not the WWC that's the segment that shifts? Already, we're seeing upscale suburbanites trend from Republican to Democrat. Many had been staunchly R before, so they would count as part of the "former majority." Or perhaps upscale white Republicans don't shift but upscale Hispanic and Asian Republicans do (e.g. if the Republicans go full and explicitly Bannonite), ensuring that both groups go from 70-30 D to being as D as Blacks?

These are both alternative possibilities for the realignment, don't you think?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Every single realignment in American history has had a segment of the former majority shift to the new majority. That’s partly why it’s called a realignment. The idea that no former Federal republicans will vote for the new realigning Democratic majority is pretty silly.

Ah, but what if it's not the WWC that's the segment that shifts? Already, we're seeing upscale suburbanites trend from Republican to Democrat. Many had been staunchly R before, so they would count as part of the "former majority." Or perhaps upscale white Republicans don't shift but upscale Hispanic and Asian Republicans do (e.g. if the Republicans go full and explicitly Bannonite), ensuring that both groups go from 70-30 D to being as D as Blacks?

These are both alternative possibilities for the realignment, don't you think?

Yes these are alternative possibilities (not Latinos and Asians voting as D as blacks since that would make the GOP’s path to 270 damn near impossible in 2036 ). We won’t know who these groups are until they shift post crisis in 2024 (or 2020).

Romney-Clinton voters were primarily Swing voters and not ardent Republicans until Trump. 9 Romney-Clinton counties voted Obama in 2008 and many McCain-Romney counties that voted for Clinton last year were pretty close in 2008 (my home of Orange County only went for McCain by 3-4 points for example).

White working class voters do seem to have the most to lose in a crisis and are more easily incorporated into a populist Democratic Party than upscale republicans. Perhaps it’s my own bias here, but having lived in Huntington Beach and having connections to even more upscale republican Newport Beach, I just can’t see it. I could see them voting for a Cory Booker Third Way-ist Dem Party but a more populist economic centered Cordray one? Not happening unless they stop thinking money is the end all be all to life. I wouldn’t bet two pennies on them doing that.

That's why I suggested the Latino and Asian-centric realignment. Just like whites, many Asians also see money and success as the end all and be all (as I brutally experienced this Christmas ), and I suspect that it's the same for many upscale Latinos too. However, unlike with whites a fully Bannonist Republican Party will not be very friendly to them. While the WWC will lose more than upscale minorities in a strictly economic crisis (which working-class minorities getting doubly screwed), a racial crisis will target minorities regardless of economic status.

Which brings up another point: not all crises have to be strictly economic. They can have racial or other cultural dimensions to them as well. The Civil War - the Crisis - was about slavery, after all.

[Deblano]

Every single realignment in American history has had a segment of the former majority shift to the new majority. That’s partly why it’s called a realignment. The idea that no former Federal republicans will vote for the new realigning Democratic majority is pretty silly.

Ah, but what if it's not the WWC that's the segment that shifts? Already, we're seeing upscale suburbanites trend from Republican to Democrat. Many had been staunchly R before, so they would count as part of the "former majority." Or perhaps upscale white Republicans don't shift but upscale Hispanic and Asian Republicans do (e.g. if the Republicans go full and explicitly Bannonite), ensuring that both groups go from 70-30 D to being as D as Blacks?

These are both alternative possibilities for the realignment, don't you think?

Yes these are alternative possibilities (not Latinos and Asians voting as D as blacks since that would make the GOP’s path to 270 damn near impossible in 2036 ). We won’t know who these groups are until they shift post crisis in 2024 (or 2020).

Romney-Clinton voters were primarily Swing voters and not ardent Republicans until Trump. 9 Romney-Clinton counties voted Obama in 2008 and many McCain-Romney counties that voted for Clinton last year were pretty close in 2008 (my home of Orange County only went for McCain by 3-4 points for example).

White working class voters do seem to have the most to lose in a crisis and are more easily incorporated into a populist Democratic Party than upscale republicans. Perhaps it’s my own bias here, but having lived in Huntington Beach and having connections to even more upscale republican Newport Beach, I just can’t see it. I could see them voting for a Cory Booker Third Way-ist Dem Party but a more populist economic centered Cordray one? Not happening unless they stop thinking money is the end all be all to life. I wouldn’t bet two pennies on them doing that.

That's why I suggested the Latino and Asian-centric realignment. Just like whites, many Asians also see money and success as the end all and be all (as I brutally experienced this Christmas ), and I suspect that it's the same for many upscale Latinos too. However, unlike with whites a fully Bannonist Republican Party will not be very friendly to them. While the WWC will lose more than upscale minorities in a strictly economic crisis (which working-class minorities getting doubly screwed), a racial crisis will target minorities regardless of economic status.

Which brings up another point: not all crises have to be strictly economic. They can have racial or other cultural dimensions to them as well. The Civil War - the Crisis - was about slavery, after all.

I'm also banking on a possible foreign policy crisis.

After all, last realignment had the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Funny you mentioned your Christmas experience. I’ve worked in Little Saigon for 2 years now at a counter where maybe 90% of our customers are Vietnamese (I’m the stockperson for them) and Jesus are the Vietnamese very money and white-centric (not too much fondness for latinos either). I think these voters are just waiting to jump onboard for a non-southern strategy GOP.

Why wait when you can already vote Trump like my relatives/family friends do!

That said, I think that Asians and Latinos may move in opposite directions. As post-first-gen Asians make up a larger share of the demographic, they'll become more Democratic, having been exposed to America's ugly racial inequalities and going beyond mere "survival-mode"-based monetary acquisition. However, Latinos become more Republican as they identify less with the label, intermarry with whites, and acquire wealth.

My guess; it may be wrong, so what do you think?

[King Lear]

Every single realignment in American history has had a segment of the former majority shift to the new majority. That’s partly why it’s called a realignment. The idea that no former Federal republicans will vote for the new realigning Democratic majority is pretty silly.

Ah, but what if it's not the WWC that's the segment that shifts? Already, we're seeing upscale suburbanites trend from Republican to Democrat. Many had been staunchly R before, so they would count as part of the "former majority." Or perhaps upscale white Republicans don't shift but upscale Hispanic and Asian Republicans do (e.g. if the Republicans go full and explicitly Bannonite), ensuring that both groups go from 70-30 D to being as D as Blacks?

These are both alternative possibilities for the realignment, don't you think?

Yes these are alternative possibilities (not Latinos and Asians voting as D as blacks since that would make the GOP’s path to 270 damn near impossible in 2036 ). We won’t know who these groups are until they shift post crisis in 2024 (or 2020).

Romney-Clinton voters were primarily Swing voters and not ardent Republicans until Trump. 9 Romney-Clinton counties voted Obama in 2008 and many McCain-Romney counties that voted for Clinton last year were pretty close in 2008 (my home of Orange County only went for McCain by 3-4 points for example).

White working class voters do seem to have the most to lose in a crisis and are more easily incorporated into a populist Democratic Party than upscale republicans. Perhaps it’s my own bias here, but having lived in Huntington Beach and having connections to even more upscale republican Newport Beach, I just can’t see it. I could see them voting for a Cory Booker Third Way-ist Dem Party but a more populist economic centered Cordray one? Not happening unless they stop thinking money is the end all be all to life and I wouldn’t bet two pennies on them doing that.

Btw the Bannonite concessions are on economics and not social issues.

As someone who also lives in Orange County, I can tell you the transformation of Orange county’s partisan preferences is all because of the demographic shifts that have transformed the county in the last 30 years (the massive increase in the Hispanic and Asian population), it has nothing to do with the old, rich, white population of Newport Beach turning from bigoted republicans to progressive democrats (believe me theirs nothing but trump signs on that side of the 73 toll road). If the county had the same racial makeup it did 30 years ago it definitely wouldn’t have voted for Hillary Clinton by 9 points last year, and on the other point I don’t see the “White working class” going Democratic anytime soon because number one these people are not working class the vast majority own their own homes and make more than the national average of 50k and number two due to the previous fact these voters don’t vote on economic issues they vote on social issues so if democrats don’t start embracing racial, religious, and sexual bigotry (they won’t and shouldn’t) they’ll never win these voters again. The next political realignment is going to be based on the demographics shifting and causing the country to get less White and less Christian along with young white liberals replacing their old, white conservative parents (this process will probably take 20-30 years to unfold).

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don’t think it will be an ideological realignment though like 1932 and 1980 were , and IMO it will be more similar to 1896 which was a party realignment or 1860 which was a realignment what led to a 36 year era of polarization (which in this case 2004 would be the realigning election )


From 1896-1932: 16/36 we had presidents who were progressive on economic issues in the White House

[The_Doctor]

Let me tackle a few things on my phone.

First I want to disagree here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First I think that we underestimate the strength of the economic crisis here. The crisis will fall on those who are in debt the most and are weakest in the economy not the best off. Who was the angriest in 2008 and 2016? Working class minorities (who rebelled against Hillary) and working class whites (who revolted against the Republican establishment). The Sanders left is full of people who are angry about the economic ideology that rules the United States.

Why would Fairfax voters be moved towards the Democratic Party in the long run? What's their economic motivation? (Ignore that Fairfax is close to federal jobs for a second and focus on the income side; I'm using them as a representation). When Bob McDonnell ran in 2009 he almost won North Virginia. These people are making $200,000+ and are professionals who are comfortably off. They aren't outraged on economic grounds but social grounds. If the Republican Party was socially liberal a lot of these voters would be voting Republican.  

The Democratic Party kind of threatens their long term well being because the Sanders wing wants to raise their taxes, target their stock trades via taxation, and even universal college can pose a threat by adding to the workforce skilled workers who might bring down their wages. I just don't get why these voters would align with the Democratic Party over the long run.

Working class voters however have a ton to like in the Cordray - Sanders Democratic Party ranging from universal health care and college education to higher taxes to deal with income inequality. Bernie’s platform is geared towards these people not the Fairfax set.

Also upscale Asians (like my family) are far more economically conservative but socially liberal. Their biggest complaint is the Republican Party’s evangelical influences rather than the tax side. The Republican tax bill probably helps my family. But they won't vote Republican for social reasons. So if the party moderates on these issues they could vote Republican.  Also there are very few upscale Latinos who have very weak household assets.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually look a bit closer. Slavery was a threat to the North in terms of cheap labor versus paid factory labor. But more broadly the political class from 1800 to 1860 were geared towards the agrarian pro-slavery free trade Southern philosophy rather than the Midwestern and Northern political leaders. Look at the Republican Speakers after 1860 and where they're from compared to Democratic Speakers 1800-1860.

The Civil War didn't merely wipe out slavery. It also replaced a Southern friendly political majority with a Northern - Midwestern political majority that embraced the Industrial Revolution. This is why the Republican Party became so anti-union and explains the party's shift in the 1870s to 1890s.

All crises tend to be rooted in economics and replacing inefficient majorities that no longer speak to the national economic focus. In this case the pro-free trade low tax Southern and Midwestern political class shut out the coastal areas with carry and support from Appalachian areas.  Now we're moving to a whole new economy where this political class no longer really makes sense. That's the whole point of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They're honestly usually the icing on an already baked cake. Jimmy Carter was already going down for stagflation while World War II cemented the Democratic majority. In the Civil War they didn't really figure prominently. There probably may be a crisis that cripples President Pence but it won't be center stage I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That's completely asinine. Presidents McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover all were squarely on the side of business interests. Even the Republican President Roosevelt took tons of corporate donations. All of these Presidents with the possible exception of Roosevelt backed tariffs, the gold standard, and union busting. 1896 to 1932 is generally considered the most pro-business era in United States history.

The Republican Congresses were completely on the side of business interests basically. Lochner was handed down by a conservative Supreme Court in 1905. About the only liberal stuff happened was probably a bunch of stuff in Teddy’s time (and he was actually far more pro business than his rhetoric) and Taft's breakup of Standard Oil. And of course the foreshadowing Democratic presidency of Woodrow Wilson.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Every single realignment in American history has had a segment of the former majority shift to the new majority. That’s partly why it’s called a realignment. The idea that no former Federal republicans will vote for the new realigning Democratic majority is pretty silly.

Ah, but what if it's not the WWC that's the segment that shifts? Already, we're seeing upscale suburbanites trend from Republican to Democrat. Many had been staunchly R before, so they would count as part of the "former majority." Or perhaps upscale white Republicans don't shift but upscale Hispanic and Asian Republicans do (e.g. if the Republicans go full and explicitly Bannonite), ensuring that both groups go from 70-30 D to being as D as Blacks?

These are both alternative possibilities for the realignment, don't you think?

Romney-Clinton voters were primarily Swing voters and not ardent Republicans until Trump. 9 11 Romney-Clinton counties voted Obama in 2008.

FTFY

There were 17 Romney-Clinton counties in the Country.

11 of them voted for Obama in 2008.

6 of them voted for McCain in 2008.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is these people don't form a majority bigger than the Republican one. In fact because they're so clustered in the cities and coastal areas they don't add up to a significant enough bloc to destroy the old majority. This is exactly why Hillary lost. She ran up the score with this bloc and so did the Democrats. The problem was Trump and the Republicans dominated the wide swath of states and rural areas from central Pennsylvania to Phoenix.

You need significant buy in from the white working class folks who voted Democratic in 2006 and 2008. It's not an accident they ended up rejecting Obama's 2009 agenda and voted Trump. They're inherently Republican and need to join the Democratic Party in 2024 for the Democrats to achieve their economic agenda.

Finally polarization has been a major force since around 1996. It has to be broken ergo the election of 2020 or 2024.

[The_Doctor]

Regarding Trump serving a full two term history tells us a few things.

1. Popular vote losers tend to not go on to win a second term. The exception - George W. Bush - led in polling against Al Gore during the campaign. In fact his team was preparing for a popular vote win and to be behind in Florida, not the inverse.  In comparison Trump never once had a serious shot at leading Hillary Clinton in the polling averages. Also W. lost by half a point not 2% and 3 million votes.

2. Trump actually underperforms the fundamentals of where a generic Republican would be comparatively. Fundamentals favored the out party with a weak (income wise) recovery. Trump lost the popular vote where a more disciplined and seasoned Republican candidate would've won. Just look at Trump's approval ratings. (And as a funny note, as an anecdote, Pence is above water in Iowa but Trump is below water).

3. Since no crisis looms on the horizon I feel that 2020 leans to the incumbent majoritarian Republican Party. But Trump in the White House hobbles the party. That's why I think machinations will be made to install Pence. Not really remembered is that 1924 was salvaged by Coolidge replacing Harding. Note that Republican leaders have a couple of tools at their disposal, most notably the Mueller probe.

Pence is probably the best Republican to unite the warring factions under a culturally evangelical President (winning Trumpians) who is also heavily conservative on the economic side (winning rich Romney voters) and is a hawk on Russia etc (winning #nevertrumpers)
        
I can see a 2020 realigning election if Trump is the President. But given how successful the foreshadowing Obama White House was on creating a stable economy I don't see it until 2024.

Also, strangely enough the second, third, and fourth realigning elections all saw a string of one term presidencies before the realigning White House. (So, that's Ford and Carter; Harding, Coolidge and Hoover; Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan). Note that Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama were all two term presidents suggesting strong stability.

Instability in the political arena probably is a strong sign of a collapse of an old order. Funnily enough McKinley's 1896 51-46 win and strengthened Republican Congresses replenished the weakened Lincoln coalition after the White Houses of Hayes, Garfield-Arthur, Cleveland, and Harrison.

[Mike Thick]

Worth noting that the Democratic wave of 1974 (which hasn’t been replicated in scope by either party since) came only two years before Ford nearly won re-election, and only six years before Reagan’s new realigning coalition came along.

[junior chįmp]

Worth noting that the Democratic wave of 1974 (which hasn’t been replicated in scope by either party since) came only two years before Ford nearly won re-election, and only six years before Reagan’s new realigning coalition came along.

In 1974, 43 House incumbents retired, which was one of the highest numbers in decades (1952 had 40 retirements) After 1974, the number of retirements kept increasing for both the House and the Senate:

House:
1974-43
1976-47
1978-49
1980-34

Senate:
1974-7
1976-8
1978-10
1980-5

Basically throngs of old school New Deal era politicians of both parties started retiring (plus the ones that were defeated). This slowly hollowed out both parties in preparation for the coming realignment.

When Boomers took over Congress in the Republican Revolution of 1994, you see the same pattern in the amount of retirements:

House:
1990-27
1992-68
1994-48
1996-49

Senate:
1990-4
1992-9
1994-9
1996-13

The amount of House retirements since 1996 has never gone above 40 (at least according to the data going up till 2012)

[GlobeSoc]

Worth noting that the Democratic wave of 1974 (which hasn’t been replicated in scope by either party since) came only two years before Ford nearly won re-election, and only six years before Reagan’s new realigning coalition came along.

In 1974, 43 House incumbents retired, which was one of the highest numbers in decades (1952 had 40 retirements) After 1974, the number of retirements kept increasing for both the House and the Senate:

House:
1974-43
1976-47
1978-49
1980-34

Senate:
1974-7
1976-8
1978-10
1980-5

Basically throngs of old school New Deal era politicians of both parties started retiring (plus the ones that were defeated). This slowly hollowed out both parties in preparation for the coming realignment.

When Boomers took over Congress in the Republican Revolution of 1994, you see the same pattern in the amount of retirements:

House:
1990-27
1992-68
1994-48
1996-49

Senate:
1990-4
1992-9
1994-9
1996-13

The amount of House retirements since 1996 has never gone above 40 (at least according to the data going up till 2012)

In unrelated news, the next retirement from the house of representatives this cycle will be its 40th.

[junior chįmp]

Worth noting that the Democratic wave of 1974 (which hasn’t been replicated in scope by either party since) came only two years before Ford nearly won re-election, and only six years before Reagan’s new realigning coalition came along.

In 1974, 43 House incumbents retired, which was one of the highest numbers in decades (1952 had 40 retirements) After 1974, the number of retirements kept increasing for both the House and the Senate:

House:
1974-43
1976-47
1978-49
1980-34

Senate:
1974-7
1976-8
1978-10
1980-5

Basically throngs of old school New Deal era politicians of both parties started retiring (plus the ones that were defeated). This slowly hollowed out both parties in preparation for the coming realignment.

When Boomers took over Congress in the Republican Revolution of 1994, you see the same pattern in the amount of retirements:

House:
1990-27
1992-68
1994-48
1996-49

Senate:
1990-4
1992-9
1994-9
1996-13

The amount of House retirements since 1996 has never gone above 40 (at least according to the data going up till 2012)

In unrelated news, the next retirement from the house of representatives this cycle will be its 40th.

Hence my saying: "Realignment imminent"

[The_Doctor]

I'm skeptical of a wave in 2018 without a realigning election in 2020 because the foreshadowing and realigning down-ballot gains are usually similar. E.g., I don't expect a Democratic wave in 2018 with a Republican victory in 2020 because it's impossible for the Democratic Party to gain 6-8 seats in 2024 in the Senate to mirror past realignments.

[Virginiá]

I'm skeptical of a wave in 2018 without a realigning election in 2020 because the foreshadowing and realigning down-ballot gains are usually similar. E.g., I don't expect a Democratic wave in 2018 with a Republican victory in 2020 because it's impossible for the Democratic Party to gain 6-8 seats in 2024 in the Senate to mirror past realignments.

What if it happens anyway and the result is that Democrats don't get to pick up a slew of seats due to unfavorable timing? The realignment should predict that the support, vote-wise, is technically there to make a sweep, but if by chance the map just doesn't permit it, then it doesn't mean the realignment didn't happen.

[King Lear]

I'm skeptical of a wave in 2018 without a realigning election in 2020 because the foreshadowing and realigning down-ballot gains are usually similar. E.g., I don't expect a Democratic wave in 2018 with a Republican victory in 2020 because it's impossible for the Democratic Party to gain 6-8 seats in 2024 in the Senate to mirror past realignments.

How do you know that democrats won't flip the house and senate next year but in 2020 trump wins a narrow 270-268 victory in the electoral college (holding all his 2016 states minus Michigan and Pennsylvania) leading to another democratic wave in 2022 strengthening their majorities in the house and senate followed by the realignment happening in 2024.

[Virginiá]

The problem is these people don't form a majority bigger than the Republican one. In fact because they're so clustered in the cities and coastal areas they don't add up to a significant enough bloc to destroy the old majority. This is exactly why Hillary lost. She ran up the score with this bloc and so did the Democrats. The problem was Trump and the Republicans dominated the wide swath of states and rural areas from central Pennsylvania to Phoenix.

But the old majority is currently resting on the backs of an aging base. <ages 44 is basically 60-40 Democratic right now (and <34 is more like 65D-35R). If you fast-forward 15 - 20 years and figure that the youngest people then are at best just as Democratic as they are now, or at worst, maybe breaking even, you have a solidly Democratic electorate due to those voters ages 55+ being significantly reduced. The math alone suggests this voter base should be more powerful than the Republican Party's is right now, assuming there isn't too much erosion as they age.

Fundamentally I agree with you that the Democratic Party needs to chip off a bloc of voters from Republicans to complete it, but I struggle to imagine a future where Millennials and at least part of genz do not naturally cause a huge shift in the political system regardless. I mean, it's not like they aren't spreading out into the suburbs themselves. If they didn't, the 'burbs would turn into ghost towns due to no population replacement

[junior chįmp]

I'm skeptical of a wave in 2018 without a realigning election in 2020 because the foreshadowing and realigning down-ballot gains are usually similar. E.g., I don't expect a Democratic wave in 2018 with a Republican victory in 2020 because it's impossible for the Democratic Party to gain 6-8 seats in 2024 in the Senate to mirror past realignments.

The Democrats lost the House of Representatives in a Republican wave in the midterms of 1858 which of course precluded Lincoln's realigning election in 1860. The Democrats lost 35 seats out of 238, which would be similar to Democrats winning 60 to 70 seats in 2018 (of course this is no guarantee).

[The_Doctor]

This should cover everyone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, Merry Christmas and you need to PM me more.

To your point, I think you are saying, what if the Democrats win 2018 resoundingly, the GOP wins 2020, and then the 2024 elections happen. That would be a weird situation where Cordray wins by 15 points but the Democrats win, something like 2 seats in the Senate. It could conceivably happen but it would be yet another oddity. As you know, the foreshadowing and realigning downballot elections tend to mirror each other and I don’t know of a historical pattern where the White House changes parties by a large margin without major gains in the Senate. 

So, I err - unless otherwise advised - that the Senate Democrats pick up 6-8 seats in 2024. But for that to be plausible under today’s map, if they hold everything they would really just pick up 4. (Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee). So in my thinking, the Senate GOP under Pence picks up a handful of seats.

We’ll see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fundamentally I see it this way. I think the Democratic Party reaches 53% of the electorate by 2028, maybe 55% by themselves. But geographic realities narrows that majority without the white working class shift political allegiance. Per our discussion this summer (I think it was us), we saw that young whites in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan all voted for Trump better than the national average did. I  can’t cite exact data but Trump won whites in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by overwhelming margins. Given whites making up 86% of Wisconsin voters, Trump almost certainly won the 18-29 white  vote in all three states. Ergo, you need a bloc of whites to splinter off and join the Democratic Party. In Iowa, where whites made up 90% of the vote, Trump won the white 18-29 by 48-42%.

One thing to realize is that President Cordray cannot capably govern without a sizable portion of whites behind him in the Democratic Party. The 33-35% of whites today in the Party guarantee that the Democrats will always be 48-49% of the two party vote but he needs 40-45% of the white vote to secure comfortable enough majorities to govern.

This is why the bloc splintering off from the GOP is so essential.