Would you agree with this list of political eras and realignments

[OSR stands with Israel]

2008 being only a 7 point win for Obama and the GOP winning every close election since 1976 strongly suggests that we are still in the tail end of the Reagan era IMO.  I expect there will be an obvious transition, with a Dem version of 1894 happening in either 2018 or 2022. 

From that chart someone attached, it's interesting how consistently Democrats have done better in the House than anywhere else since the Civil War.

2008 was only a 7 point victory cause obama was facing McCain who is one of the most liked republicans in the country . If he faced someone like Giuliani it would have been an 9-10 point obama victory and if he faced dubya it would be a 14-15 point obama victory

[Technocracy Timmy]

2008 being only a 7 point win for Obama and the GOP winning every close election since 1976 strongly suggests that we are still in the tail end of the Reagan era IMO.  I expect there will be an obvious transition, with a Dem version of 1894 happening in either 2018 or 2022.  

From that chart someone attached, it's interesting how consistently Democrats have done better in the House than anywhere else since the Civil War.

2008 was only a 7 point victory cause obama was facing McCain who is one of the most liked republicans in the country . If he faced someone like Giuliani it would have been an 9-10 point obama victory and if he faced dubya it would be a 14-15 point obama victory

If Obama had faced somebody younger who hadn't been in Washington for decades (perhaps Romney) then 2008 could've been closer.

Anyhow, the fact that McCain and Obama were running neck and neck right before the financial crisis hit even though Bush's approval rating was in the toilet really goes to show how strong the Republican Party is in this era. Sweeping congress in 2010 just two years after Bush left office reinforces that.

Obama also didn't improve on his 2008 margin in his reelection his whereas most Presidents do better in their reelection bids (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, JFK (had he lived and faced Goldwater in 64'), Eisenhower, FDR, etc.)

[OSR stands with Israel]

2008 being only a 7 point win for Obama and the GOP winning every close election since 1976 strongly suggests that we are still in the tail end of the Reagan era IMO.  I expect there will be an obvious transition, with a Dem version of 1894 happening in either 2018 or 2022.  

From that chart someone attached, it's interesting how consistently Democrats have done better in the House than anywhere else since the Civil War.

2008 was only a 7 point victory cause obama was facing McCain who is one of the most liked republicans in the country . If he faced someone like Giuliani it would have been an 9-10 point obama victory and if he faced dubya it would be a 14-15 point obama victory

If Obama had faced somebody younger who hadn't been in Washington for decades (perhaps Romney) then 2008 could've been closer.

Anyhow, the fact that McCain and Obama were running neck and neck right before the financial crisis hit even though Bush's approval rating was in the toilet really goes to show how strong the Republican Party is in this era. Sweeping congress in 2010 just two years after Bush left office reinforces that.

Obama also didn't improve on his 2008 margin in his reelection his whereas most Presidents do better in their reelection bids (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, JFK (had he lived and faced Goldwater in 64'), Eisenhower, FDR, etc.)

Reagan in 1980 likely also doesn't beat Kennedy by more then 7-8 points .

Also just like obama Reagan lost Huge in the 1982 midterms

[Technocracy Timmy]

2008 being only a 7 point win for Obama and the GOP winning every close election since 1976 strongly suggests that we are still in the tail end of the Reagan era IMO.  I expect there will be an obvious transition, with a Dem version of 1894 happening in either 2018 or 2022.  

From that chart someone attached, it's interesting how consistently Democrats have done better in the House than anywhere else since the Civil War.

2008 was only a 7 point victory cause obama was facing McCain who is one of the most liked republicans in the country . If he faced someone like Giuliani it would have been an 9-10 point obama victory and if he faced dubya it would be a 14-15 point obama victory

If Obama had faced somebody younger who hadn't been in Washington for decades (perhaps Romney) then 2008 could've been closer.

Anyhow, the fact that McCain and Obama were running neck and neck right before the financial crisis hit even though Bush's approval rating was in the toilet really goes to show how strong the Republican Party is in this era. Sweeping congress in 2010 just two years after Bush left office reinforces that.

Obama also didn't improve on his 2008 margin in his reelection his whereas most Presidents do better in their reelection bids (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, JFK (had he lived and faced Goldwater in 64'), Eisenhower, FDR, etc.)

Reagan in 1980 likely also doesn't beat Kennedy by more then 7-8 points .

Also just like obama Reagan lost Huge in the 1982 midterms

There's a big difference between 2010 and 1982 though. Democrats in the 80's drifted from their New Deal roots, moderated, and worked with Reagan and helped get much of his agenda passed which allowed him to win in a landslide in 1984. Republicans in 2010 refused to work with Obama at every turn, stuck to their decades long Reagan ideology and proceeded to cut Obama's 2012 margin almost in half while sweeping to a federal trifecta by 2016.

Democrats won in the 80's by adapting to Reagan's ideology thus cementing Reagan as a realigning President who ushered in a new era (along with Bush's victory in 88'). Republicans won in the 2010's by repudiating Obama's ideology and winning a federal trifecta when he left office, thus reaffirming that the Reagan era was still alive in the short run.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I labelled 2004 as a liberal era, notwithstanding 2004, 2010 and 2016, 2020 will be a Democratic lead country again and a Democratic president will get into office again on the Obama coalition.

[The_Doctor]

Given this spiel a ton of times. Realignments are discussed here in Wikipedia. Essentially in my opinion they are a specific election that sets off a new ideological era distinct from both the old ideology and the old party. Their cause are changing economic and social conditions that denote the realignment. They create a new majority coalition that is generally stable and the same throughout the alignments. You can tell when the realignment has occurred when one dominant ideology replaces another and the old ideology is subordinated to the new one.

So:

1800 - 1860: the Founders - New Frontier Era. The election of Thomas Jefferson sparks the agrarian - frontiersman Revolution that is rooted in the South holding preeminent political power. The Jeffersonians are limited government folk who are interested in settling the West and pushing the United States westwards while preserving an agrarian economy. By 1824 this Founding epoch ended with John Adams and King Caucus. The election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 sparked the second round of the same ideology. Jackson doubles down on Jefferson's ideology killing the National Bank and paying off the national Debt. There's a reason the Democratic Party holds Jefferson-Jackson events. The era is notable for Manifest Destiny and the South's iron grip on American politics (Jefferson was from Virginia; Jackson from Tennessee).

1860 - 1932: The Civil War - Industrial Age. Abraham Lincoln is elected to the Presidency and the GOP assumes their first Congressional majorities, rooted in the Midwest and Northeast. They're a collection of pro business abolitionists who believe in the power of machines over farms and don't like the South's slavery stances. By 1865 they win the Civil War and dominate American politics straight to 1932. Democratic Congresses are few and far between in the era. They're all about making Standard Oil and the railroads great again and transforming the American economy from farms to factories. The election of 1896 pits a pro business genteel Ohio governor against a fiery populist Nebraskan; the Ohio Republican wins and business interests (temporarily capped from 1901-1909, 1913-1918) rule for a generation as seen in the Roaring 1920s. This remains the most pro business and most Republican era in American history.

1932 - 1980: the New Deal - New Frontier. The long Democratic drought ends with the election of New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt and begins a long period of liberal hegemony. The unfettered Lochner era has come to an end and regulated capitalism is in. The welfare state becomes prominent and as income inequality is reduced and the economic boom after World War II ends the longest and most powerful economic expansion begins from 1946-1974. (With a couple of minor recessions). The Democrats flag under Ike but the second half opens with Jack Kennedy leading the social crusaders on a moral cause. Civil rights, the New Frontier is enacted. The Democratic majority's base stretches from lower New England to the Rust Belt. FDR was New York and JFK Massachusetts and the ideology stemmed from the Northeast urban liberals and Midwestern unions.

1980 - 2020/2024: Cold War - War on Terror + globalization Republicans. The election of Ronald Reagan signifies the triumph of the service economy over the old factory order. Sunbelt Republicans ally with Dixie GOPers to put Reagan as President. In Congress a coalition of conservatives rule with Southern Democrats functionally acting as Republicans. Reagan triumphs in the Cold War and neoliberal economics sweeps the globe as the Soviet Union crumbles. The election of 2000 sends another Sunbelter to the White House named George W. Bush. Unlike 1980 the Republican Party had unified control for the first time since 1954. Bush rams through tax cuts and deregulation and free markets - and a national security state on steroids. The GOP's heart lays from the foothills of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia to the deserts of Phoenix and rolls across the lower Midwest and the Plains States and the Rockies. A southern coalition that runs to the Interior states and the Sunbelt.

2020 - 2024 and beyond: the Artificial Intelligence Age. After the Trump and Pence eras, the election of a Midwestern Democratic progressive brings to to a close the Reagan-Bush neoliberal epoch and starts the United States on the road to being in the Artificial Intelligence age. Socially liberal and rooted from Ilinois and then the fast growing minority majority states of Georgia, Arizona and Texas the Democrats will push through reforms that change the American economy to fit the robotics age and the new economic order.

[The_Doctor]

Basically realignments come down to the economic order and the needs of the American electorate. Jefferson-Jackson worked to forge a (white) cultural identity and expanded the country westwards while preserving the agrarian economy. Lincoln-McKinley's GOP were factory dominated and determined to create a pro-business order that emphasized the rapidly changing technology that upended American society. The New Deal and New Frontier recognized that unfettered capitalism and racism were no longer effective for the country. Reagan's Revolution pushed the service economy and the Internet age to the forefront and provided for rapid technological growth. They also solidified the gains of the 60s and 70s and allowed them to mature.

The Republican business eras are usually where rapid growth and massive wealth is made along with huge technological strides made. I suspect that the business philosophies of the Republican coalition both times paved the way for that stuff. The Democratic eras seem to be about solidifying gains and building in a sustainable manner the growth. The upcoming era however might see even more rapid technological upheaval though.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Given this spiel a ton of times. Realignments are discussed here in Wikipedia. Essentially in my opinion they are a specific election that sets off a new ideological era distinct from both the old ideology and the old party. Their cause are changing economic and social conditions that denote the realignment. They create a new majority coalition that is generally stable and the same throughout the alignments. You can tell when the realignment has occurred when one dominant ideology replaces another and the old ideology is subordinated to the new one.

So:

1800 - 1860: the Founders - New Frontier Era. The election of Thomas Jefferson sparks the agrarian - frontiersman Revolution that is rooted in the South holding preeminent political power. The Jeffersonians are limited government folk who are interested in settling the West and pushing the United States westwards while preserving an agrarian economy. By 1824 this Founding epoch ended with John Adams and King Caucus. The election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 sparked the second round of the same ideology. Jackson doubles down on Jefferson's ideology killing the National Bank and paying off the national Debt. There's a reason the Democratic Party holds Jefferson-Jackson events. The era is notable for Manifest Destiny and the South's iron grip on American politics (Jefferson was from Virginia; Jackson from Tennessee).

1860 - 1932: The Civil War - Industrial Age. Abraham Lincoln is elected to the Presidency and the GOP assumes their first Congressional majorities, rooted in the Midwest and Northeast. They're a collection of pro business abolitionists who believe in the power of machines over farms and don't like the South's slavery stances. By 1865 they win the Civil War and dominate American politics straight to 1932. Democratic Congresses are few and far between in the era. They're all about making Standard Oil and the railroads great again and transforming the American economy from farms to factories. The election of 1896 pits a pro business genteel Ohio governor against a fiery populist Nebraskan; the Ohio Republican wins and business interests (temporarily capped from 1901-1909, 1913-1918) rule for a generation as seen in the Roaring 1920s. This remains the most pro business and most Republican era in American history.

1932 - 1980: the New Deal - New Frontier. The long Democratic drought ends with the election of New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt and begins a long period of liberal hegemony. The unfettered Lochner era has come to an end and regulated capitalism is in. The welfare state becomes prominent and as income inequality is reduced and the economic boom after World War II ends the longest and most powerful economic expansion begins from 1946-1974. (With a couple of minor recessions). The Democrats flag under Ike but the second half opens with Jack Kennedy leading the social crusaders on a moral cause. Civil rights, the New Frontier is enacted. The Democratic majority's base stretches from lower New England to the Rust Belt. FDR was New York and JFK Massachusetts and the ideology stemmed from the Northeast urban liberals and Midwestern unions.

1980 - 2020/2024: Cold War - War on Terror + globalization Republicans. The election of Ronald Reagan signifies the triumph of the service economy over the old factory order. Sunbelt Republicans ally with Dixie GOPers to put Reagan as President. In Congress a coalition of conservatives rule with Southern Democrats functionally acting as Republicans. Reagan triumphs in the Cold War and neoliberal economics sweeps the globe as the Soviet Union crumbles. The election of 2000 sends another Sunbelter to the White House named George W. Bush. Unlike 1980 the Republican Party had unified control for the first time since 1954. Bush rams through tax cuts and deregulation and free markets - and a national security state on steroids. The GOP's heart lays from the foothills of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia to the deserts of Phoenix and rolls across the lower Midwest and the Plains States and the Rockies. A southern coalition that runs to the Interior states and the Sunbelt.

2020 - 2024 and beyond: the Artificial Intelligence Age. After the Trump and Pence eras, the election of a Midwestern Democratic progressive brings to to a close the Reagan-Bush neoliberal epoch and starts the United States on the road to being in the Artificial Intelligence age. Socially liberal and rooted from Ilinois and then the fast growing minority majority states of Georgia, Arizona and Texas the Democrats will push through reforms that change the American economy to fit the robotics age and the new economic order.

except 1860 and 1896 were different realignments . 1860 began a period of massive polarization, and both parties were basically  even for that 36 year period when it came to policy except from 1864-1872 and much of those policies they pushed through during those 8 years got undermined in the late 1870s anyway. It wasnt until 1894 did the  GOP started dominating the democrats.  I want to ask you this question, from 1872-1894 how much GOP agenda get passed , and for the ones was it something they really disagreed with the democrats on(as both parties supported Laissez faire economics ).


Also 1896-1932 was not much of an era where one ideology dominated the other. Progressives controlled the white house for 16 of those 32 years while conservative held the white house for the other 16 years. Teddy Roosevelt policies were closer to Woodrow Wilson for example then it was to Harding and Coolidge.



Thats why these are my dates for the different realignments:


1826- Democratic-Republican party splits

1856- The Northern opposition parties to the dominant Democratic party coalesce around the newly created Republican party , leading to a very close race and an era where nearly all elections with exceptions from 1864-1872 were close

1894- Republicans gains 100 seats in the house and gain a clear majority in house for first time since the 1860s while the Democratic party enters a period of internal civil war.

1930 or 1932- The Great Depression which causes huge amounts of people to leave the GOP at once, and join the dems. If you dont believe this compare the election of 1928 to 1932 both at presidential level and congressional level.

1968- Vietnam War , the south bolts the democratic party with Wallace 3rd party candidacy, 1968 democratic riots cause the New Deal Coalition to come crumbling down allowing Nixon to sweep to victory ushering in a new conservative age as without the south the democrats are unable to win elections in this period.

2004- Bush's controversial victory in 2000,  Bush ramming his agenda through congress, and the polarizing Iraq War causes the 48% of the people who hate bush with a passion to unite behind the Democrats  but at the same time 48% love bush for exactly those reasons and they all unite behind the Republicans . This leads to the very polarizing 2004 election where Bush and Kerry just campaign on appealing to their base and neither try to even appeal to the other side. 

[Technocracy Timmy]

I really don't see how 2004-onwards is an era of polarization when a Democratic President who left office almost twice as popular as Bush got treated the same at the ballot box. Politics is all about coalition building, and from 2004-onwards, the GOP has proven that they have a far, far more durable coalition that actually shows up to vote. That's why they always win close elections. That's why opinion polls can show a country that's inching more and more to the left on various issues but the republicans are in the most dominant position they've been in since the 1920's.

The Obama coalition is the only coalition thus far that has cracked the Reagan coalition. But that is not a Democratic coalition as we saw in 2016: it's Obama's coalition. And it's only his until proven otherwise.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I really don't see how 2004-onwards is an era of polarization when a Democratic President who left office almost twice as popular as Bush got treated the same at the ballot box. Politics is all about coalition building, and from 2004-onwards, the GOP has proven that they have a far, far more durable coalition that actually shows up to vote. That's why they always win close elections. That's why opinion polls can show a country that's inching more and more to the left on various issues but the republicans are in the most dominant position they've been in since the 1920's.

The Obama coalition is the only coalition thus far that has cracked the Reagan coalition. But that is not a Democratic coalition as we saw in 2016: it's Obama's coalition. And it's only his until proven otherwise.

Yah no

Dems had 59  seats in Senate after Bush GOP only has 52 now, and dems had 257 seats in the house while gop only has 241.


2010 should have been much much worse then it was if you look at how bad the conditions in the country was that year, its actually a success for the democrats  that 2010 was not worse then 1994 and they didnt lose 80+ seats in the house.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I really don't see how 2004-onwards is an era of polarization when a Democratic President who left office almost twice as popular as Bush got treated the same at the ballot box. Politics is all about coalition building, and from 2004-onwards, the GOP has proven that they have a far, far more durable coalition that actually shows up to vote. That's why they always win close elections. That's why opinion polls can show a country that's inching more and more to the left on various issues but the republicans are in the most dominant position they've been in since the 1920's.

The Obama coalition is the only coalition thus far that has cracked the Reagan coalition. But that is not a Democratic coalition as we saw in 2016: it's Obama's coalition. And it's only his until proven otherwise.

Yah no

Dems had 59  seats in Senate after Bush GOP only has 52 now, and dems had 257 seats in the house while gop only has 241.


2010 should have been much much worse then it was if you look at how bad the conditions in the country was that year, its actually a success for the democrats  that 2010 was not worse then 1994 and they didnt lose 80+ seats in the house.

Many of the Democrats that were elected into congress in 2006-2008 were blue dog moderates. The same cannot under any circumstance be said of the GOP elected from 2010-2016. Their moderate wing numbers in in much smaller numbers than the moderate wing of the Democratic Party did back in 2006-2008.

FDR entered office in horrible economic conditions and when the GOP outright refused to work with him by 1934 the GOP were punished for their obstinance while the Democratic Party gained 9 House seats and 9 senate seats! FDR then proceeded to win reelection in a huge landslide.

Obama by comparison got a middle finger from people like McConnell right from the beginning and the GOP have been rewarded handsomely from 2010-2016 in a way that the Republicans of the 30's couldn't even have imagined.

2010 was just as bad as 1994:
2010: Dems lose 63 House seats and 6 senate seats
1994: Dems lose 54 House seats and 8 senate seats

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republicans won every presidential election between 1860 and 1896 except Cleveland's two wins. They held the House for 18 of the 36 years too. If memory serves me right the general policy of high tariffs and anti unionization seems to have prevailed plus sticking with the gold standard. I don't recall free trade happening (a big deal for the Dems). It seems philosophically pretty Republican and even more after 1896. Reformers won the Pendleton Act but that doesn't seem too partisan.

The one major Democratic goal, ending Reconstruction was because of a compromise to make Republican Rutherford Hayes President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That isn't true entirely. Conservatives were generally dominant here except between 1913-1918 and 1901-1909. Even then so TR was far more limited than his liberal successors. Lochner was decided in 1905 and TR's progressive achievements were quite modest in comparison to FDR and even Wilson.

Taxes were cut, an anti union policy held by the federal government, no working hours, no restriction on child labor, etc. TR was no conservative but his presidency wasn't as domestically active as later presidents. No FCC, no Federal Reserve, no income taxes (that came during Wilson), no suffrage for women. And all of that pales compared to the New Deal.

McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made up 20 of this 36 year epoch. If you believe TR was generally a moderate Republican President during this era rather than his later radical Bull Moose posture that goes up to 28.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jackson inherited the party while the losers formed the Whigs, basically. I don't understand the 1856 point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nixon won only a plurality in 1968 but more to the point the South didn't become Republican committed.  1968 ended the New Deal hegemony but nominally left it in place as we transitioned to a new era. Nixon foreshadowed Reagan.

Carter won the South and governed like a liberal. For that matter Nixon did the same more or less, preferring to focus on law and order but agreeing to a liberal Democrats agenda on spending and domestic priorities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush was a continuation of Reagan's ideology. He called himself Reagan's heir in 2000 and campaigned on tax cuts and an updated version of Reaganism in “compassionate conservatism.” W also governed from the same coalition that put RR in power and was fairly similar in many ways to Reagan. Polarization is a bigger deal in the second half of this era but W had a homogenous Republican majority and a decent Reaganite agenda.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republicans won every presidential election between 1860 and 1896 except Cleveland's two wins. They held the House for 18 of the 36 years too. If memory serves me right the general policy of high tariffs and anti unionization seems to have prevailed plus sticking with the gold standard. I don't recall free trade happening (a big deal for the Dems). It seems philosophically pretty Republican and even more after 1896. Reformers won the Pendleton Act but that doesn't seem too partisan.

The one major Democratic goal, ending Reconstruction was because of a compromise to make Republican Rutherford Hayes President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That isn't true entirely. Conservatives were generally dominant here except between 1913-1918 and 1901-1909. Even then so TR was far more limited than his liberal successors. Lochner was decided in 1905 and TR's progressive achievements were quite modest in comparison to FDR and even Wilson.

Taxes were cut, an anti union policy held by the federal government, no working hours, no restriction on child labor, etc. TR was no conservative but his presidency wasn't as domestically active as later presidents. No FCC, no Federal Reserve, no income taxes (that came during Wilson), no suffrage for women. And all of that pales compared to the New Deal.

McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made up 20 of this 36 year epoch. If you believe TR was generally a moderate Republican President during this era rather than his later radical Bull Moose posture that goes up to 28.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jackson inherited the party while the losers formed the Whigs, basically. I don't understand the 1856 point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nixon won only a plurality in 1968 but more to the point the South didn't become Republican committed.  1968 ended the New Deal hegemony but nominally left it in place as we transitioned to a new era. Nixon foreshadowed Reagan.

Carter won the South and governed like a liberal. For that matter Nixon did the same more or less, preferring to focus on law and order but agreeing to a liberal Democrats agenda on spending and domestic priorities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush was a continuation of Reagan's ideology. He called himself Reagan's heir in 2000 and campaigned on tax cuts and an updated version of Reaganism in “compassionate conservatism.” W also governed from the same coalition that put RR in power and was fairly similar in many ways to Reagan. Polarization is a bigger deal in the second half of this era but W had a homogenous Republican majority and a decent Reaganite agenda.

the 1856 point is as that election began a period of great division in this country due to all the northern parties uniting behind the newly formed republican party.


Werent the democratic party of the gilded age pretty anti union then too, and werent they just as laaiz faire as the republicans as well . On the issue of free trade, I believe that America was  a protectionist country from the early 1800s all the way up till the 1940s.


TR during his presidency busted up trusts , created the FDA, and implemented many safety regulations which I believe was considered progressive at the time. He wasnt as progressive as Wilson but he was still a progressive , and if you had McKinley from 1901-1909 you likely dont get much of the above happen. In my opinion 1896 was a party realignment and not an ideological one which  realignments can be.


To Timmy Point:

Yes Dems made gains in 1934 but I believe the unemployment rate was trending down  ,while by 2010 unemployment had trended sharply up .


In 1934 you had Unemployment trending down, and many job programs implemented which people credited for the drop in unemployment.Things were also way worse in 1932 then 2008 so the people hated the GOP a lot more then they did in 2008.

In 2010 you had Unemployment which had gone sharply over up from 2008(people tend to blame the party in office for that no matter how long they had been in office), so Obama stimulus at the time was viewed as a failure due to that . This led to the perception that Obama has done nothing but run up the national debt and cared more about passing obamacare then doing a job program(such as an infrastructure deal).

[Shadows]

I look at it less from partisan results & more from polity.

For example the early 1900's was the era of progressive. Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster was an uber-pro labour candidate & Teddy Roosevelt IMO left much of the policies regarding labour which FDR borrowed in his 1s term. Same with Wilson who was pretty left & even a socialist Debs got 6% of the vote. Taft also started in the mould of Teddy but then digressed but he was still fairly liberal by today's standards & considering that time.

But then somewhere in the 20's perhaps it got to the point with huge economic concentration & political power. 1933 onwards with FDR was the re-alignment, 1935 Social Security Act, Industrial Recovery Act 1933 for collective bargaining, Wagner Act 1935, Minimum wage 1938, Massive income tax increases consistently. I think, it is fair to say that New Deal coalition started from 1933.

I personally think it lasted till 1980 but in the mid 1970's onwards, certain cracks & de-regulations begin to occur. But the re-alignment occurred in the 1980's. Even post the New Deal, tax rates continued to be 70% (top marginal rate) till Reagan came slashed it, estate tax, corporate tax, cut welfare, adopted certain social policies (which I consider divisive, you may disagree), increased military spending etc. It was new era since Reagan.

And the post 1980 era has persisted. Polarization started a long time back but has become worse. the African American & Southern Whites were massively polarized during Reagan. I am not sure if this is a new partisan era, but when it comes to the economic system we are in the post Reagan world.

I look at it as -

1932-1980 - New Deal Coalition
1980 - 2016 - Post Reagan world

When it comes to re-alignment, it happened since 1980 IMO but the seeds were already being sown like the seed for a progressive re-alignment is being sown now. But the re-alignment will happen with a transformational President.

@ Virginia - Re-alignments generally are about economic, social, racial policy oriented & not necessarily uber partisan. They don't necessarily have to happen after 10-20-30 years but certain economic & social conditions cause it along with transformative Presidents.

Many of them including FDR & even Reagan go beyond partisan lines & try to establish a direct connection with the people (although they may very extreme ideologies for many people). It doesn't necessarily happen because the other party is very bad (read Anti-Trump resistance).

But people stood for something, wanted to change the system, were united for a bigger cause (read  policies) & the re-alignment Presidents got massive stuff done to change the system, moved people in left/right direction & created a new coalition.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Unemployment rose and GDP declined in 1933 but unemployment fell and GDP rose in 1934. Democrats went into 1934 midterms with mixed (albeit slightly good) economic improvements. But 1936 was when the electoral benefits of the New Deal actually kicked in. 1934 was more of a continuing backlash against the GOP for doing little during the depression itself.

Bush didn't just leave office being blamed for the financial crisis, he also had the worst foreign policy debacle since Vietnam hanging on him. Hoover never had anything that amounted to that by comparison. So even if the GOP didn't take the blame for the crisis in 2008 the way the GOP in 1932 did for the Depression, they did get blamed harshly for a horribly executed war which the GOP in 1932 never dealt with.

All in all, 2004-2017 has been a fairly conservative era. Obama's most signature accomplishment, ACA, was basically a triangulated move straight from Bill Clinton's playbook. This was an eerily similar healthcare plan to that of Nixon, Chuck Grassley and Newt Gringrich from the 90's, Bob Dole, Romney in Massachusetts, and even the heritage foundation. At best this healthcare bill was a "centrist" compromise but in reality it had historically been the conservative alternative to healthcare.

The stimulus package wasn't really a liberal hallmark for a couple reasons. 1. Reaganism has never really been defined by defecit reduction anyhow (although Obama did end up cutting the defecit by 2/3s) and 2. Most of this stimulus was just making up for the lost economic revenue from individual states that were forced to balance their state budgets during a recession.

Dodd-Frank was probably the only big ticket liberal item that's come out of the 2004-2017 era. Hell, all of the even remotely progressive policies of Obama will likely be getting rolled back if and when Pence becomes President and the GOP holds onto the house in 2018.

The hallmarks of the Bush administration, Obama being forced to govern much more like a centrist his last six years in office, plus the current GOP trifecta have pretty much evaporated any and all consideration that this decade will be marked with a similar prose that the 1930's or even 1910's were marked with. The Great liberal of 2009-2017 will be remembered for being a figure that was unable to do much to move the needle on progressive legislation, especially for 3/4's of his term.