Future Realignment Possibilities?

[GlobeSoc]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

Yeah andRepublicans are not the only who lies to their base. There are many Democrats who want to move the party to the left just like the Bannon wing in the GOP want to move to the right but it won't happen. Plus the Democrats base is really pro establishment. When was the last time a Democrat incumbent lost the primary not barring a corruption scandal or redistricting?

False equivalence. Bannon is a moderate Republican economically, his extreme conservatism came with his social views. The majority of Berniecrats are economically left-wing and socially moderate to liberal. Also, the Overton window has shifted way too far to the right on economics in this point in time. Pretending that the Democratic base is "pro-establishment" is a load of horse-s**t. Clinton had every single institutional advantage over Sanders, we all knew that she was going to win the primary from the start. The fact that Sanders was even competitive should be a sign about the changing winds. Oh, and at the moment, Sanders is more popular than Clinton amongst Democrats. No, this idea that the Democrats will become even more fiscally conservative is very baseless, especially considering how younger voters broke for Sanders. The main reason Gary Johnson had millennial support was because of the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd.

Yeah, that's a blatant double standard. Writing away Johnson's support as irrelevant and Sanders as a perfect predictor of the future is nothing more than pretending your fantasies are the truth.
In the real world, Sanders had more conservative supporters than Clinton (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.5ad91356e91a)

His "success" (at not leaving even after he lost) was due far more to personality and identity politics than support for his socialism.

The social programs = evil communism meme needs to die, and it is thanks to millennials that it is

[TheLeftwardTide]

-snippity snip-

Sanders supporters tended to be more liberal on social issues, not economic ones. So were Johnson supporters, who often polled in double digits among millenials.
Sanders managed to acquire a reputation as honest and full of integrity. Being as it is not true, I can't imagine it lasting long.

For your first point, can you provide a source? The article you posted doesn't have this point as a central point, do you mind copying the text for me? It doesn't necessarily make sense, considering how Sanders won by large margins in the more fiscally egalitarian, socially conservative states like West Virginia and Oklahoma. He also came really close, outperforming his national margin significantly, in Kentucky and Missouri. It was Clinton who swept fiscally conservative, socially liberal states such as New Jersey. Of course, both Sanders and Clinton swept states that are fiscally and socially left-wing; Sanders winning the Oregon and Washington, Clinton winning Maryland.

Also, about the Johnson voters, there is another point to be brought up too (that I forgot about at first), and that is the fact that even millennial conservatives tend to be less socially conservative than the Republicans. It is more likely than not that Johnson pulled more voters from these two main groups; millennial conservatives, who wanted the fiscal conservatism yet not the social conservatism, and the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd, which was the overlap between Johnson and Sanders.

As for your second point, again, can you provide any evidence? Sanders built his reputation of honesty and integrity because he refuses to take big-money donations, unlike Clinton who does speeches for Goldman Sachs. He made campaign finance reform a central point of his campaign. If he continues to do this, how exactly will this reputation decline? Please, lay it out for me. Sanders didn't get his honest reputation from a shooting star, he built it from scratch. He has held elected office for much longer than Clinton, so it's not because of political career length.

>b-b-but Clinton was ferociously attacked by the GOP

Yeah, so? This is politics, put up or shut up. You have to be able to defend yourself and your reputation from such attacks. If you can't, you're an incompetent politician. This didn't happen to Barack Obama, look at the approval ratings at the end of his presidency. He also had the added disadvantage of being a black guy with the middle name Hussein.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Full disclosure: I would never vote for libertarian dems ever, barring a literal apocalypse if they don't win. I might vote for libertarian GOPhers if I believe they will further the cause of making the republican party realign in that direction

That being said:

YOUNG PEOPLE ARE NOT FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE

NOT EVERY DEMOCRAT IS FROM NOVA

NEITHER CLINTONISM NOR BERNIEISM IS LIBERTARIAN

I agree. I never wanted to imply that Clintonism is libertarian. I consider libertarianism to be a subset of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal"-ism, i.e. you can be "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" but not libertarian at the same time.

[PoliticalShelter]

Anyone who thinks either the GOP or the democrats are going to become libertarian is utterly delusional.

[GlobeSoc]

Anyone who thinks either the GOP or the democrats are going to become libertarian is utterly delusional.

[Cashew]

If Republicans can get their act together

Economic collapse, and if Republicans remain reactionary post realignment

[Cashew]

If Republicans can get their act together

Economic collapse, and if Republicans remain reactionary post realignment

Good map! But why does Illinois vote to the right of PA and MI?

I am anticipating a Republican rebound in California, Illinois, and New York very quickly once it becomes "safe" to do so, e.g. Republicans secularize. While California and new York may come out of that slightly more swingy than current Texas, Cook county's depopulation is more likely to push it over the edge.

Of course the trends can reverse themselves, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Speaking candidly about California however, Republicans may have burned too many bridges, so that may cancel out some of the depolarization post realignment.

[RINO Tom]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

So they're gonna cave on economic issues and become a bunch of Ron Paul types on business, regulation, taxes, and spending and that's how they're gonna win?

Ok well somebody needs to explain this strategy to Schumer with his Better Deal agenda because somehow he's chosen not to take your advice at all. Probably because he talks to actual Democrats.

Copying Trump's dipsh**t positions on Trade isn't the path to a majority.

How can you copy someone's views if you had it before him?? LOL.  Look up the TPA vote by party, dude.

[Kingpoleon]

This is my rough expectations. I think I have too many swing states, it seems a tad too Democratic-leaning, and I'm not sure about CO, MT, AK, HI, and UT.

I'm imagining this as:
2021-2029: Gwen Graham/Ben Jealous


2028: Gov. Robert Kennedy Jr./Sen. Caroline Fayard vs. Gov. Elise Stefanik/Sen. Mia Love

[Del Tachi]

The apogee of the current party system, somewhere between 2040-2060 more than likely. 

[RINO Tom]

I don't have specifics, as I am not a nerd.  However, I expect this to happen generally:

The current rural/"WWC" trends in favor of the GOP will continue until about 2024 or 2028 and hit a wall.  Similarly, I think the Democratic trends in "wealthy/educated suburbs" will continue until about that time, too, but it will be because those places are actually becoming less wealthy, less educated and more diverse and lazy analysts will still just picture them as the places they used to be.  "Democrats make huge gains in Lake County, IL!" will be viewed as Democrats converting wealthy, White Republicans rather than the actual cause of *most* of the shift, which is Lake County becoming much, much more diverse than it used to be; the latter fact won't stop anyone from thinking of it simply as *Lake County* with all of the classic connotations.  Through all of this, the parties' actual policies won't really change from 2016; it will be a battle of perceptions.

After 2028, as more Boomers die off, the GOP will adopt a less culturally conservative (but not less socially conservative, necessarily) tone to court new and necessary voters, becoming pretty much what they were in the 1950s: a sensible alternative to overly idealistic Democratic rule (a party that now is much closer to Bernie Sanders than to Hillary Clinton).  I think many states will be noticeably different, so it's pretty impossible to predict a map.

[Roronoa D. Law]

I don't have specifics, as I am not a nerd.  However, I expect this to happen generally:

The current rural/"WWC" trends in favor of the GOP will continue until about 2024 or 2028 and hit a wall.  Similarly, I think the Democratic trends in "wealthy/educated suburbs" will continue until about that time, too, but it will be because those places are actually becoming less wealthy, less educated and more diverse and lazy analysts will still just picture them as the places they used to be.  "Democrats make huge gains in Lake County, IL!" will be viewed as Democrats converting wealthy, White Republicans rather than the actual cause of *most* of the shift, which is Lake County becoming much, much more diverse than it used to be; the latter fact won't stop anyone from thinking of it simply as *Lake County* with all of the classic connotations.  Through all of this, the parties' actual policies won't really change from 2016; it will be a battle of perceptions.

After 2028, as more Boomers die off, the GOP will adopt a less culturally conservative (but not less socially conservative, necessarily) tone to court new and necessary voters, becoming pretty much what they were in the 1950s: a sensible alternative to overly idealistic Democratic rule (a party that now is much closer to Bernie Sanders than to Hillary Clinton).  I think many states will be noticeably different, so it's pretty impossible to predict a map.

The whole comment about "Lake county isn't what it use to be any more" is the problem with the Republican now. It is also the reason why the Democrats will not become an idealistic party because America has long history of welfare chauvinism it will just end up like McGovern which in the end gave us Clinton. I think your giving the Democrats Party to much credit. By 2028 they would have shut down the Bernie wing if they have lost either 2020 or 2024.

I think many of Sanders ideas will live on to 2028 but free college will just be price controls on public universities tuition. Single payer will become a public option and $15 minimum wage will be comprised with Republicans to $8 maybe $10 in large cities. The farthest left wing legislation they'll have is voting rights.   

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

This is my rough expectations. I think I have too many swing states, it seems a tad too Democratic-leaning, and I'm not sure about CO, MT, AK, HI, and UT.

I'm imagining this as:
2021-2029: Gwen Graham/Ben Jealous


2028: Gov. Robert Kennedy Jr./Sen. Caroline Fayard vs. Gov. Elise Stefanik/Sen. Mia Love

I like how Alabama and Mississippi are blue states but Virginia is a toss-up... that seems a bit odd, unless we expect a re-alignment that looks like 1976.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

-snippity snip-

Sanders supporters tended to be more liberal on social issues, not economic ones. So were Johnson supporters, who often polled in double digits among millenials.
Sanders managed to acquire a reputation as honest and full of integrity. Being as it is not true, I can't imagine it lasting long.

For your first point, can you provide a source? The article you posted doesn't have this point as a central point, do you mind copying the text for me? It doesn't necessarily make sense, considering how Sanders won by large margins in the more fiscally egalitarian, socially conservative states like West Virginia and Oklahoma. He also came really close, outperforming his national margin significantly, in Kentucky and Missouri. It was Clinton who swept fiscally conservative, socially liberal states such as New Jersey. Of course, both Sanders and Clinton swept states that are fiscally and socially left-wing; Sanders winning the Oregon and Washington, Clinton winning Maryland.

Also, about the Johnson voters, there is another point to be brought up too (that I forgot about at first), and that is the fact that even millennial conservatives tend to be less socially conservative than the Republicans. It is more likely than not that Johnson pulled more voters from these two main groups; millennial conservatives, who wanted the fiscal conservatism yet not the social conservatism, and the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd, which was the overlap between Johnson and Sanders.

As for your second point, again, can you provide any evidence? Sanders built his reputation of honesty and integrity because he refuses to take big-money donations, unlike Clinton who does speeches for Goldman Sachs. He made campaign finance reform a central point of his campaign. If he continues to do this, how exactly will this reputation decline? Please, lay it out for me. Sanders didn't get his honest reputation from a shooting star, he built it from scratch. He has held elected office for much longer than Clinton, so it's not because of political career length.

>b-b-but Clinton was ferociously attacked by the GOP

Yeah, so? This is politics, put up or shut up. You have to be able to defend yourself and your reputation from such attacks. If you can't, you're an incompetent politician. This didn't happen to Barack Obama, look at the approval ratings at the end of his presidency. He also had the added disadvantage of being a black guy with the middle name Hussein.

1. You managed to misunderstand the identity politics point.
2. If the generation of the future is libertarian, maybe consider moving towards them.
3. Usually I consider helping your wife commit loan fraud and abandoaning your principles for easy money to be more corrupt than taking money from a (((corporation))), but different strokes for different folks.
4. If someone recieves the most negative news coverage of any candidate, and has both sides attacking them, they might drop in popularity. Who knew?

[GlobeSoc]

Economic data and polling both suggest a social democratic future, not a libertarian one.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Economic data and polling both suggest a social democratic future, not a libertarian one.

What does? Your dreams?

[RINO Tom]

Economic data and polling both suggest a social democratic future, not a libertarian one.

What does? Your dreams?

No, economic data and polling.  Read better.  If you hitched your wagon to the Democratic Party because you wanted to be part of a party that was an "enlightened" party with a technocratic flavor, you're frankly a chump.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

Yeah andRepublicans are not the only who lies to their base. There are many Democrats who want to move the party to the left just like the Bannon wing in the GOP want to move to the right but it won't happen. Plus the Democrats base is really pro establishment. When was the last time a Democrat incumbent lost the primary not barring a corruption scandal or redistricting?

False equivalence. Bannon is a moderate Republican economically, his extreme conservatism came with his social views. The majority of Berniecrats are economically left-wing and socially moderate to liberal. Also, the Overton window has shifted way too far to the right on economics in this point in time. Pretending that the Democratic base is "pro-establishment" is a load of horse-s**t. Clinton had every single institutional advantage over Sanders, we all knew that she was going to win the primary from the start. The fact that Sanders was even competitive should be a sign about the changing winds. Oh, and at the moment, Sanders is more popular than Clinton amongst Democrats. No, this idea that the Democrats will become even more fiscally conservative is very baseless, especially considering how younger voters broke for Sanders. The main reason Gary Johnson had millennial support was because of the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd.

There's also something in here (targeted to Jalawest2) about describing Sanders's policies as "economic liberalism". Economic liberalism is more akin to free-market capitalism than social democracy; it is not a left-wing ideology by any means, and certainly doesn't describe Sanders's policies. If you want to try to make a political argument, at least use the proper terminology. I like the terms "economic egalitarianism" (thanks RINO Tom), "New Deal liberalism", or, in the case of Sanders, simply "social democracy".

Also, the current time period is very similar to that of the late 1970s. Here:

The New Deal Era and The Neoliberal Era

Stage 1: The Root (Maximum number of terms)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democratic)
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
The root politician is immensely popular, winning all of his elections in a landslide. He is considered to have very bold economic ideas that set the standard for the next several decades, along with having a strong base of support among their respective parties.

Stage 2: The Continuation (1 elected term)
Harry S. Truman (Democratic)
George H. W. Bush (Republican)
The continuation is, to its namesake, a continuation of the root's policies. He tends to be more moderate and more friendly with the party establishment than the root. He is mildly popular and tends to win elections in an upset (1948, 1988).

Stage 3: Opposition Realignment (2 terms)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
The opposition realignment is a member from the opposite party who is now confined to the modern political consensus, and so he shifts his party to the center. He is very popular, winning both elections by wide margins, and largely governing in a period of tranquility. However, the majority party makes large gains during his presidency.

Stage 4: The Expansion (2 terms)
John F. Kennedy & Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)
George W. Bush (Republican)
The expansion not only adopts the root's policies, but goes even further, reforming government to fit the root's ideal agenda. Their first election is decided by a very close margin. However, an unpopular war tanks the approval ratings of the expansion, and political unrest begins to rise. People are ready for change, and four years later, the majority party tries to forget that the expansion ever existed.
Oh, and something about LBJ and Dubya both being from Texas.

Stage 5: Faux-Change (2 terms)
Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford (Republican)
Barack Obama (Democratic)
The candidate's first election is largely built on a message of change, a sign of discontent at the political order under the expansion, and they win by a comfortable margin. However, when in office, they try to break out of the current political confines, but are not able to; whether this means Nixon being unable to enact fiscally conservative policies, or Obama unable to enact proper healthcare reform. The majority party makes large gains during this presidency.

Stage 6: Unpopular Outsider (1 term)
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Donald Trump (Republican)
While the unpopular outsider is from the majority party, they (to their namesake) are not part of the political establishment. They win their election by a very narrow margin in a time of turmoil, and their presidency is plagued by a myriad of issues. They are deeply unpopular in both parties, yet more so from the political opposition. Their presidency ends up, in a way, being opposed to the root; look at Carter's deregulation and Trump's protectionism. The current political era is crumbling, and soon it is time to start anew...

I want to refine this political theory and post it on its own someday, but I think it's quite useful to explain to establishment Democrats why their """theories""" are wrong.

I predict that the next "root" will be Sanders, because he seem to fit the bill. He, like Reagan, was/is hated by their respective party establishment. He, like Reagan, mounted a primary challenge against the moderate establishment candidate that was lost, but energized a large part of the base nonetheless.

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.


Also Sanders is much more left wing than Reagan was Right Wing or FDR was left wing so Sanders polices unlike Reagan/FDR will skip the "Root" phase of a political era and go straight to the "Expansion " phase of a political era which will mean he likely wont usher in a new era.

[Virginiá]

Stage 1: The Root (Maximum number of terms)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democratic)
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
The root politician is immensely popular, winning all of his elections in a landslide. He is considered to have very bold economic ideas that set the standard for the next several decades, along with having a strong base of support among their respective parties.

Stage 2: The Continuation (1 elected term)
Harry S. Truman (Democratic)
George H. W. Bush (Republican)
The continuation is, to its namesake, a continuation of the root's policies. He tends to be more moderate and more friendly with the party establishment than the root. He is mildly popular and tends to win elections in an upset (1948, 1988).

In general I like the stage ideas you have but the limits seem arbitrary. For instance, FDR won EV landslides but his PV margin was getting notably smaller after 1936. After 12 years, particularly during the New Deal era, POTUS would have to take responsibility for a whole lot of issues the country faced, and that wears on his popularity and his party.

The main issue I had was Stage 2. One-term only doesn't seem correct. I get that you have Truman and GHWB, but 2 data points isn't enough (also Truman chose not to run, although you could easily argue he'd have lost just the same). I'd say there is a decent chance they are a one term president, but not guaranteed. They simply have a higher probability of being booted out. You might equate that to the same issue as the root president, except that because the continuation president doesn't have the same flair/deep popularity as the root, they are far more easily ruined by something like a recession, scandal or other issue. However, I don't think there is any rule that would prevent them from winning 2 terms.

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

This seems extraordinarily arbitrary. I seriously doubt it matters that much.

[TheLeftwardTide]

1. You managed to misunderstand the identity politics point.
2. If the generation of the future is libertarian, maybe consider moving towards them.
3. Usually I consider helping your wife commit loan fraud and abandoaning your principles for easy money to be more corrupt than taking money from a (((corporation))), but different strokes for different folks.
4. If someone recieves the most negative news coverage of any candidate, and has both sides attacking them, they might drop in popularity. Who knew?

1. You managed to misunderstand the identity politics point.

No, you just don't understand what identity politics is, see my point above.

2. If the generation of the future is libertarian, maybe consider moving towards them.

Wrong. I never said that the generation of the future is libertarian. I said that millennial conservatives draw their conservatism from fiscal issues, while they tend to be socially moderate or liberal. This is just among millennial conservatives, not necessarily the rest of the generation. I used this point to explain the other part of Johnson's popularity among millennials.
If you want your party to be libertarian so badly, why not join the Libertarians? If it's because they're relegated to a permanent minority, then why not join the Republicans? Their ideology is much closer to libertarianism, especially from the "old guard".

3. Usually I consider helping your wife commit loan fraud and abandoning your principles for easy money to be more corrupt than taking money from a (((corporation))), but different strokes for different folks.

Ah yes, the old "Sanders scandal" card. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't prove any misconduct on the behalf of Sanders. The FBI won't find anything, lol. There was a larger probability of misconduct in Benghazi and Emailgate. Oh, and if I recall correctly, Bernie already got cleared, so the current investigation only involves Jane Sanders. Also, where's the evidence of collusion? Please don't cite Breitbart. This is more or less a right-wing hit job on Bernie Sanders, and I predict that the American people will see it as such, especially with the declining popularity of the right.

4. If someone receives the most negative news coverage of any candidate, and has both sides attacking them, they might drop in popularity. Who knew?

You mean like every single presidential nominee in modern times? Again, refer to my point above.

[Virginiá]

Historically the realigning Party in the White House rules for some time before the opposition Party's minority coalition President takes back power.

•The Jeffersonian/Jackson Democrats had the White House for 40 years before Whig Party nominee •Harrison took the office.
•The Lincoln GOP had the White House for 24 years before Democrat Garfield took office.
FDR's Democrats for 20 years before Einsehower.

Yet the Democrats took back the WH only 12 years into Reagan's era. Why? I think it's pretty obvious why. Reagan never had a GOP majority congress and relied heavily on southern moderate Democrats to get his agenda through the legislative branch. Then in 1992 came a southern moderate Democrat (in contrast to the northern liberals of Mondale and Dukakis) who embodied much of the Reagan Revolution in his campaign rhetoric.

Clinton's TV ads purposely stressed this moderate streak. Bill Clinton's Presidency was in many ways an extension of the GOP-Southern Democrat alliance that had been forged during the Reagan Revolution.

Those are some excellent points, as usual. I was only trying to stress that I think the length of time the new majority coalition holds the White House is probably better expressed in terms of probability, and definitely not in a strict number of terms. What I liked about Socdem's post was that he emphasized that the "root" president can serve for a great many terms if possible, but it's different for the continuing president. In this case, I think a person like GHWB or Truman have much better chances at winning than the usual candidate following 3+ terms of their party in power, but not guaranteed. They lack the magic that the original realigning president had.

[OSR stands with Israel]

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''

Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .

[TheLeftwardTide]

In general I like the stage ideas you have but the limits seem arbitrary. For instance, FDR won EV landslides but his PV margin was getting notably smaller after 1936. After 12 years, particularly during the New Deal era, POTUS would have to take responsibility for a whole lot of issues the country faced, and that wears on his popularity and his party.

The main issue I had was Stage 2. One-term only doesn't seem correct. I get that you have Truman and GHWB, but 2 data points isn't enough (also Truman chose not to run, although you could easily argue he'd have lost just the same). I'd say there is a decent chance they are a one term president, but not guaranteed. They simply have a higher probability of being booted out. You might equate that to the same issue as the root president, except that because the continuation president doesn't have the same flair/deep popularity as the root, they are far more easily ruined by something like a recession, scandal or other issue. However, I don't think there is any rule that would prevent them from winning 2 terms.

I don't see the "one elected term" property of the continuation to be necessarily a limit, but more or less a parallel to draw between Truman and Bush to prove how history has effectively reflected itself. I agree with your analysis on why the continuation is the way that he is, though.

except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.


Also Sanders is much more left wing than Reagan was Right Wing or FDR was left wing so Sanders polices unlike Reagan/FDR will skip the "Root" phase of a political era and go straight to the "Expansion " phase of a political era which will mean he likely wont usher in a new era.

Like Virginia, I find the governor attribute arbitrary. FDR more or less used his governor position as a stepping stone to his presidency, not accomplishing anything very significant (to my recollection). It is a good side point though, like saying how both expansions are from Texas. If Sanders ends up being the root, I don't think it's even possible for his expansion to be a Texan, considering how far to the right Texas has shifted.

As Mondale Won 1 State said, Reagan was essentially considered to be Goldwater 2.0 when he first ran, and you underestimate how far right he seemed to be in the 70s. I think you underestimate how far left FDR was as well. While he did attack Hoover on spending in 1932, he also proposed policies such as the maximum wage and an economic bill of rights later in his presidency, which is completely outside of the Overton window today.

But I see no way how Sanders will be an expansion president. The expansion is able to exist and do what he does because of the current political status quo. In the 60s, that status quo was the post-war consensus, which advocated for government intervention in the economy, along with social democratic policy. This was a necessary condition for LBJ to get his domestic policy through. Likewise, the neoliberal consensus is more or less what made the Bush-era tax cuts possible. The expansion has to draw from the root. Seeing as we're now in the neoliberal era, with the current root of Reagan, he can't be the expansion.

It is not only possible, but likely, that history doesn't reflect itself for a third time. Sanders could very well not run, or lose to Trump, or not govern as a root. If he does ended up getting elected, and his position was not a root, I think the only other possible stage here would be faux-change. Opposition realignment has to be a centrist, and the other stages tend to be from the majority party.

This parallel was brought up to explain why I think the current Democratic establishment will not remain the same in the 2020s. Here, centrism tends to be less of a legitimate ideology and more of a punishment for the minority party, something done out of necessity.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Realigning eras are mostly a myth that depends on your starting point:

-From 1968 to the present, Republicans have won eight of the last 13 elections
-Since Reagan took office, Republicans have won six of ten elections
-Since Clinton took office, however, Democrats have won four of seven- and the popular vote in six of seven.

Wait, was it actually a Republican alignment from 1968-1992 and a Democratic one from 1992-2016 (or the present)?  Or a Democratic alignment until 1980 followed by a Republican one?  Over 13 elections, 8 have gone one way and 5 the other.  Honestly, that seems more like statistical noise than a realignment.  Since both parties have access to countless polls and data and tend to slowly adapt, we haven't had a real realignment since 1932 (or arguably even 1860) and probably never will again.

[libertpaulian]

Realigning eras are mostly a myth that depends on your starting point:

-From 1968 to the present, Republicans have won eight of the last 13 elections
-Since Reagan took office, Republicans have won six of ten elections
-Since Clinton took office, however, Democrats have won four of seven- and the popular vote in six of seven.

Wait, was it actually a Republican alignment from 1968-1992 and a Democratic one from 1992-2016 (or the present)?  Or a Democratic alignment until 1980 followed by a Republican one?  Over 13 elections, 8 have gone one way and 5 the other.  Honestly, that seems more like statistical noise than a realignment.  Since both parties have access to countless polls and data and tend to slowly adapt, we haven't had a real realignment since 1932 (or arguably even 1860) and probably never will again.

I'd say it's more of an ideological alignment.

Clinton campaigned like a populist liberal yet governed like a blue dog Democrat.  Obama campaigned like a populist liberal also but could get very few of his desired agendas through.  The country may have elected two "liberals," but they also elected a Congress that would restrain said liberalism.  They wanted to have their Reaganesque cake and eat it too.