2016=1928?

[hopper]

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

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. The Great Depression wasn't exactly something history could have predicted in the manner that it occurred. The realigning effect that event had is practically unparalleled, and there is no guarantee anything close to that would happen under Trump.

Otherwise you did point out some decent similarities as far as I can tell. Though, I might also add that he shares some other similarities with other presidents as well (Carter). It really depends on how you want to look at it.

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.

[hopper]

In just recent times or the modern era just to compare:

I think Hillary in 2016 was like Romney in 2012 in that both candidates didn't connect(a message) if you will to win the Presidential Election.

I do think Trump was like Ross Perot in 1992 running on a populist message but candidate wise he was like Carter in 1976 in that the party establishment didn't like him.

[hopper]

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.

Reagan - FDR
HW Bush - Truman
Clinton - Eisenhower
W Bush - Kennedy/LBJ
Obama - Nixon/Ford
[/s]Trump - Carter

Corrected it for you!

[hopper]

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

ftfy

That would be much more accurate

I was gonna post what you posted a few hours ago! I don't think Obama continued Reaganomics though.

[hopper]

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.

No, John Judis didn't quite say that. Since the NJ article is paywalled, here is something from Trende on it:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/11/what_to_make_of_john_judis_republican_advantage_125558.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, I think Judis is right - for now. Part of the idea of a realignment finally bearing fruit in elections is that districts that might look out of reach or leaning away from Democrats become competitive or flip entirely. Without exit polls by district, it's hard to say, but once Millennials reach critical mass, Republicans will lose their grip on many areas.

Second, the last realignment was to Republicans, and so we are already in a Republican era. The reason people keep predicting a shift to Democrats is not because of hackery but because that is what history & the data currently shows. Personally I think it's pretty hackish for a Republican, in the face of all of this info, to actually suggest they are going to have a hold on power for another few decades. There is very little to actually back that idea up, and the "we control so much at state/Congressional level blah blah" doesn't matter one bit. Parties have rapidly lost massive amounts of seats within the span of one or two elections, such as 1932, 1946, 1994 and 2010.

Third, it's not like all of us are collaborating on the same ideas. I have my own opinions on what is going to happen, and it certainly wasn't based on something happening before 2010, even if 2008 at times did seem interesting in that regard. My opinion has been for a while now that once Millennials make up almost half of eligible voters, their political preferences will begin to dominate, and their voting patterns for years now have suggested big trouble for Republicans when that happens.

In the suburbs your analysis might hold true for now but in rural areas I do think Republicans can still win there in the longer short term despite the Millennials growing influence in electoral politics.

The top trending Dem Congressional Districts were in CA, FL, AZ, TX, VA(NOVA) and GA in 2016.

[hopper]

In the suburbs your analysis might hold true for now but in rural areas I do think Republicans can still win there in the longer short term despite the Millennials growing influence in electoral politics.

The top trending Dem Congressional Districts were in CA, FL, AZ, TX, VA(NOVA) and GA in 2016.

Considering how deep GOP win margins run now in some of these areas, you're probably right. However, a few things:

1. Continuing urbanization of America will further erode rural political power, no?
2. A reduction in the win margins of Republicans in some rural areas due to ascendant Millennials means it is still easier for Democrats to win in these areas than it is now. Even more so if Republican Millennials are more willing to split their tickets, which isn't impossible to think if the GOP runs candidates not palatable to them, though that is mainly a short-term issue if one at all.
3. Millennial Republicans are still more moderate than their older counterparts, so eventually they should help moderate the party overall and thus still benefits Democrats.

Lets see one by one:

1.) Continuing urbanization of America will further erode rural political power- Um no not exactly. In 2016 I think overall migration between suburban and urban counties kind of evened out I think. I think overall migration to urban counties was higher from 2010/2011-2015 than in suburban counties. I could always be wrong though on that. Still the suburbs is where the Dem gained ground in 2016 and that is a caution to Republicans for the future. I mean for example Republicans aren't even competitive in Bergen County, NJ at the Presidential Level which is in the NYC Metropolitan Area that has to start to change in my opinion.

2A.)A reduction in the win margins in some rural areas due to ascendant Millennials it is still easier for Democrats to win in these area's than it is now-I think in some rural areas in the South mainly as more Millennials enter the electorate those areas could probably trend Dem and maybe even be competitive in the long term for Democrats. The opposite is currently happening in the Midwest in states like MI, PA, and WI where the rural areas are trending Republican so it might be a lost cause for the Dems to even compete in those respective states rural areas.

2B.)Even more so if Republican Millennials are more will to spilt their tickets which isn't impossible if the GOP candidates not palatable to them, though that is mainly a short term if one at all.-True. That's a scenario when "The Greatest Generation" I think voted for Reagan at the Presidential Level but still voted Dem at the Congressional Level because the Dem Presidential Candidates weren't worth voting for in their eyes.

3.) Millennial Republicans are still more moderate than their older counterparts, so they eventually they should help moderate the party overall and this still benefits the Dems- Millennial Republicans are more moderate on immigration and gay marriage than their older counterparts but on fiscal issues they are in-line with the current parties platform I think.

[hopper]

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.

He never said that. He said that we are entering a period where the Republicans may have a temporary advantage but we are not entering a Republican era. He was quite specific and clear on that.

As for the 21st century D predictions, do the math. Figure out that the GOP is going to need to keep winning 3-4% more whites each subsequent election to hold their 51%. Why would minorities swing to the Republicans, when the current GOP era has been geared towards motivating white voters to turn out?

Each election is different though with different issues and candidates. I don't really play the demographic game in my head every election. You take every election result and see what you can improve on as a party after that respective election. Right now I see the Republican Party trying to find itself like the Dems were trying to do in the Carter Era and the Dems are basically where the Republicans were after Ford lost to Carter in the 1976 Presidential Election.