2016=1928?

[Chinggis]

The more I think about it, the more I notice certain parallels between the 1928 and 2016 elections. Bear with me here for a bit...

* BOTH YEARS, the Democratic Party nominated experienced New York politicos who rejected radical reform in lieu of incrementalism (Al Smith/Hillary Clinton).

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton won unprecedented support and money from usually Republican Wall Street. Smith and Clinton both favored the corporate '"establishment" wing of the Democratic Party and lost support from the "populist" and "progressive" elements (Smith failed to thrill Bryan voters; Hillary failed to thrill Bernie voters)

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton failed to stake out bold policy positions on the soaring inequalities in their eras. Smith refused to endorse a progressive farm policy; Clinton refused to endorse singe-payer healthcare. Their essential conservatism cost them both dearly among a certain kind of Democrat.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton ran as unapologetic champions of The City in an era of cultural upheaval. Smith and Clinton both embraced cultural liberalism and won record support in the nation's big metropolitan areas for it, especially among immigrants and yuppies. They both got massacred in rural areas and small towns across the nation for the same reason.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton were perceived as corrupt by a large segment of the population, due to their extensive business and political connections. Tammany Hall and the Clinton Foundation served as weights around their respective necks, contributing to their record losses throughout rural and small-town America. An examination of the returns from both elections reveals an underlying truth- throughout "Middle America," it was often socially unacceptable to vote for Al(coholic) Smith or Crooked Hillary.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton brought in new voters from odd places to their party- Smith got some usually Republican Midwestern farmers, Clinton got some usually Republican Midwestern professionals. Both lost more than they gained since so many Democrats jumped ship (white southerners and Bryan-voting progressives from Smith, working-class whites and progressives from Clinton).

* BOTH YEARS, the Republican Party nominated a wealthy businessman without experience in the military or elected office (Herbert Hoover/Donald Trump).

* Hoover and Trump both benefited from racist/nativist themes. Both men were strongly supported by groups embracing those themes, whether the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s or the "alt-right" in the 2010s. Both tacitly condoned such activity.

* Both elections resulted in total Republican control of the federal government (and most state governments across the country).

Does that mean Trump is the next Hoover? Hard to say. Anyone see other parallels or is this stretching?

[Chinggis]

I can't comment much on the specifics you listed above, but if you mean the "next Hoover" as in the next Republican to bring about an era of Democratic control, I'd have to say no - not in the way that happened with Hoover/FDR.

Totally agree with you. There are a bunch of compelling reasons why a comprehensive realignment a la the New Deal is unlikely if not impossible today- gerrymandering being just one.

And Trump has accepted the neoliberal economic agenda as all other post-Reagan Republican Presidents have.

ftfy

Yeah Trump's relationship with Congress isn't that good(thus far) and neither was Carter's so Trump and Carter have that in common.

Hoover and Trump both had a terrible working relationship with Congress, even when Republicans were in control. Hoover and Trump both had an awful adversarial relationship with the press from Day 1, and both Hoover and Trump were isolated from dissenting viewpoints by a handful of family and trusted staff.

The Carter parallels are there as well, of course.

[Chinggis]

So we agree that Trump's presidencies has begun like past disasterous but it doesn't neccesarily follow or even predictable that he will be disaster.

Absolutely. A deeper look at the 1932 election, for example, shows that even Hoover's defeat was far from inevitable. Some historians believe as do I that had the Democrats nominated another fiscal conservative in 1932, Hoover may well have won another term.

Nothing is preordained.

[Chinggis]

So we agree that Trump's presidencies has begun like past disasterous but it doesn't neccesarily follow or even predictable that he will be disaster.

Absolutely. A deeper look at the 1932 election, for example, shows that even Hoover's defeat was far from inevitable. Some historians believe as do I that had the Democrats nominated another fiscal conservative in 1932, Hoover may well have won another term.

Nothing is preordained.

This is quite hilarious considering that this was essentially what FDR campgained as in 1932.

Believe it or not, Roosevelt was the most progressive option even in 1932 and was recognized as such at the time. Other choices for the nomination included a banker, a businessman, and a corporate attorney, along with the conservative Al Smith, the conservative Texan John Nance Garner, and the conservative Maryland governor Albert Ritchey.

Roosevelt promised balanced budgets during the campaign, yes, but what people remembered- what made him stand out- what won him the election- was his promise of a "New Deal" and the acknowledgment that bad things can happen to good people. This message resonated with people who were tired of Hoover saying the real problem was that Americans weren't working hard enough.

In an alternate timeline where the Democrats actually ran a conservative campaign, I could see Hoover squeaking into another term with Socialists, Commies et al. getting over 10 percent of the vote.

[Chinggis]

The 1930's realignment didn't happen because of demographics, neither did the 80's for that matter. If there is a massive re-alignment & big Dem wins consistently for a while, it will be on a new bold economic message which will have its share of detractors in Dem's own party (FDR vs Conservative Dems, Reagan vs George "Voodoo Trickle Down" Bush & many others).

A major re-alignment & wins will be with a transformation inspiring president on a bold economic plan !

Absolutely agree with this. Had FDR governed in line with Hoover's recommendations, for example, it's highly likely the Democrats would have been thrown out of office and consigned to minority status for another generation.

Realignments don't make themselves and nothing is for certain. We need a transformational President who isn't afraid of bold reform, starting with not putting bankers in charge of the economy.