2016=1928? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2024, 04:55:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  2016=1928? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2016=1928?  (Read 3516 times)
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,689
United States


« on: April 16, 2017, 01:13:59 PM »

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 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.

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

There is also a theme of 'normalcy" barrowed from the 1920 election, where, like Trump, Harding ran against internationalism and progressivism.

Both Hoover and Trump were considered "not really conservative" and at various times had as a policy of replacing regulations and taxation with tariffs. They both have reputations as Prohibitionists, and both come from a point in time where there has been of time of economic inequality, speculation, and instability following a preceding prosperous era.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,689
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2017, 03:39:37 PM »

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.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,689
United States


« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2017, 04:46:41 PM »

Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

Because the last realignment was 47 years ago towards the Republicans and maybe it will be 5 years or maybe 50 years from now, but it will happen as long as the United States doesn't break up or becomes a kingdom  before realignment takes place
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,689
United States


« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2017, 08:28:39 AM »

Basically if both rural areas and big cities are losing people to the planned communitities and lifestyle centers on the edge of town, it should be a wash in terms of the vote? I guess then the question is whether more of these placed will be built or if the current places keep growing. If the former, look at Tampa, Jacksonville, Anaheim, and Overland Park...or even Orlando. Else, look at places like Cocoa Beach, Colorado Springs, or any Mesa/Gilbert.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 12 queries.