Carter 1976, Carter 1980; Trump 2016, Trump 2020

[pbrower2a]

Let me start by saying that a comparison between Carter and Trump is not a discussion of shared character. Carter is a smart, decent fellow; Trump is a rogue. Both got elected  -- barely -- against weak opponents. Sure, Ford was an incumbent, but he had never been elected to any statewide office, which showed in a campaign that got up to speed too late to win. Hillary Clinton got raked over the coals for minor stuff in contrast to what Trump got away with.  If Carter had one of the cleanest administrations ever, Trump has (to parody the title of a book about Lincoln) a "team of shysters". Trump has been lucky so far with the economy and on foreign affairs, but it is not clear that Americans will suffer the corruption and cruelty of the Trump Presidency with delight in 2020.

In any event, here's 1976 as shown by margin:

  
Ford 10% or more (saturation 9 for 20% or more)
Ford 5-9.99%
Ford under 5%
Carter under 5%
Carter 10% or more (saturation 9 for over 20%)


Carter/Mondale 297 (50.08% popular vote
Ford/Dole 240 (48.01% pv)

Carter won in the South, winning every former Confederate state except Virginia (which in 2016 was the only former Confederate state that Hillary Clinton won!) in part by fitting the cultural norms of the South.  His political agenda, basically the anti-corporate attitude of Southern agrarians of the New Deal Era but without the racism, was apparently good for but one election.  If he had been a successful President he might have picked up states like California, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, and Washington (maybe Michigan if he did not have to face a Favorite Son in Gerald Ford) to offset losses in the South. Note well that he is the last Democratic nominee to have won Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas.  

Carter had some good ideas for reforming the federal government (like zero-based budgeting), but Congress rejected them. Nobody has tried to introduce them anew. After that he was an unsuccessful President by every standard except integrity. Here's what happens to a President who barely got elected the first time and lost badly in a re-election bid:

Reagan 10% or more (saturation 9 for 20% or more)
Reagan 5-9.99%
Reagan under 5%
Carter under 5%
Carter 10% or more (saturation 9 for over 20%)


Reagan/ GHW Bush 489 (50.75% pv)
Carter/Mondale 49  (41.01% pv)

It looks as if someone spilled some Prussian blue dye on a map of the United States. Carter was somewhat effective in appealing to Southern sensibilities.

[Boss_Rahm]

I've been wondering lately if Howard Schultz could reprise the role of John Anderson in 1980. Both runs would be efforts to prevent the more ideologically extreme wing of their former party from taking power. And in Anderson's case, the attempt was a failure.

[MABA 2020]

I've been wondering lately if Howard Schultz could reprise the role of John Anderson in 1980. Both runs would be efforts to prevent the more ideologically extreme wing of their former party from taking power. And in Anderson's case, the attempt was a failure.

Hmm? If this is true and we get a democratic landslide of Reagan proportions, I'd hate Schultz 1% less

[libertpaulian]

Trump and Carter seem to have similar electoral maps and coalitions (both did very well in the Midwest and the South and poorly in the Northeast and the West).

However, I don't see a Reagan awaiting in the wings for the Dems.  I could be wrong, though.

[lfromnj]

Trump and Carter seem to have similar electoral maps and coalitions (both did very well in the Midwest and the South and poorly in the Northeast and the West).

However, I don't see a Reagan awaiting in the wings for the Dems.  I could be wrong, though.

I mean the laziest Reagan analogy is Sanders.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump and Carter seem to have similar electoral maps and coalitions (both did very well in the Midwest and the South and poorly in the Northeast and the West).

However, I don't see a Reagan awaiting in the wings for the Dems.  I could be wrong, though.

I mean the laziest Reagan analogy is Sanders.

There are many differences between Reagan and Sanders


- Reagan for one was the two term governor of the largest state of the union , Bernie Sanders is a senator from one of the smallest states.

- Reagan while rhetorically was very conservative, he was very much a pragmatist while Governing(Both in CA and as President) , while Bernie has never been a pragmatist.

- The state of the nation was far far worse in 1980 than it likely will be in 2020

- Reagan's coalition and base was basically just an extension of Nixon's (The Suburbs and the Sunbelt) while Bernie's is not an an extension of Obama's and is much better suited for the New Deal Era(his coalition relies more on the support of WWC while Obama's was Affluent Suburbs )

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump will be the 3rd GOP prez to lose Congress in a midterm and lose reelection since Taft & Hoover

[cvparty]

there are definitely similarities, but the country is much more polarized now so a reagan-type landslide occurring in the present era is a lot less likely to happen

[junior chįmp]

Trump and Carter seem to have similar electoral maps and coalitions (both did very well in the Midwest and the South and poorly in the Northeast and the West).

However, I don't see a Reagan awaiting in the wings for the Dems.  I could be wrong, though.

I mean the laziest Reagan analogy is Sanders.

There are many differences between Reagan and Sanders


- Reagan for one was the two term governor of the largest state of the union , Bernie Sanders is a senator from one of the smallest states.

- Reagan while rhetorically was very conservative, he was very much a pragmatist while Governing(Both in CA and as President) , while Bernie has never been a pragmatist.

- The state of the nation was far far worse in 1980 than it likely will be in 2020

- Reagan's coalition and base was basically just an extension of Nixon's (The Suburbs and the Sunbelt) while Bernie's is not an an extension of Obama's and is much better suited for the New Deal Era(his coalition relies more on the support of WWC while Obama's was Affluent Suburbs )

None of the points you made mean anything. The country just elected a milf hunting con artist with no experience yet your talking about Reagan's gubentorial experience as if it meant anything. Also....when Reagan declared in 1976 his intention to take on Ford...the genius pundits were already writing his political obituary and downplaying the possibility of a looming Conservative realignment:

[mgop]

dems can't flip more than 5-6 states, so i can't see how next elections can be similar with 1980

[junior chįmp]

Trump and Carter seem to have similar electoral maps and coalitions (both did very well in the Midwest and the South and poorly in the Northeast and the West).

However, I don't see a Reagan awaiting in the wings for the Dems.  I could be wrong, though.

Because you have the benefit of hindsight bias. It seens so obvious today that someone, like say, FDR was such an obvious choice for president and just heroically waiting in the wings.

Nevermind the fact he ended up short for delegates in the 1932 convention or that Democrats like John Jacob Raskob, the party chairman considered FDR to be an out-and-out radical and sought to block his nomination.



People like Reagan and FDR were not obvious back then like Atlas likes to think.  These realigning presidents werent just waiting in the wings

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump and Carter seem to have similar electoral maps and coalitions (both did very well in the Midwest and the South and poorly in the Northeast and the West).

However, I don't see a Reagan awaiting in the wings for the Dems.  I could be wrong, though.

Because you have the benefit of hindsight bias. It seens so obvious today that someone, like say, FDR was such an obvious choice for president and just heroically waiting in the wings.

Nevermind the fact he ended up short for delegates in the 1932 convention or that Democrats like John Jacob Raskob, the party chairman considered FDR to be an out-and-out radical and sought to block his nomination.



People like Reagan and FDR were not obvious back then like Atlas likes to think.  These realigning presidents werent just waiting in the wings

Reagan wasnt obvious in 1975 but by 1979 he certainly was,

He was leading in almost all the GOP polls by a large margin and had most of the endorsements. Nobody really thought anyone but Ford had a chance to beat Reagan until Bush won in Iowa.

[MarkD]

I hope that the comparison between Carter and Trump is going to be that Trump is going to lose 2020 as badly as Carter lost 1980.

[junior chįmp]

Reagan wasnt obvious in 1975 but by 1979 he certainly was,

He was leading in almost all the GOP polls by a large margin and had most of the endorsements. Nobody really thought anyone but Ford had a chance to beat Reagan until Bush won in Iowa.

Ronald Reagan is disarray:

• The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 30, 1979: "Douglas L. Hallett, former aide to Pres Nixon, claims Ronald Reagan's decline in opinion polls and his inability to attract support of opinion-leaders suggest there are strong doubts regarding his ability to confront tough foreign and economic problems."

• The Washington Post, Jan. 12, 1980: "Reagan to Keep a Low Profile Despite Slipping in Iowa Poll"

• The New York Times, March 12, 1980: "Nearly 1/3 of Democrats and Republicans polled after they leave polling places [in Florida] rate Ford a better candidate than any of Republicans in race."

• That Iowa poll wasn't a minor slippage. The Des Moines Register poll showed Reagan's support collapsing from 50 percent to 26 percent. Reagan went on to lose the Iowa caucuses. But even that wasn't the beginning of the end.

https://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/257354-trump-is-like-reagan-and-the-media-is-clueless-about-it

[OSR stands with Israel]

Reagan wasnt obvious in 1975 but by 1979 he certainly was,

He was leading in almost all the GOP polls by a large margin and had most of the endorsements. Nobody really thought anyone but Ford had a chance to beat Reagan until Bush won in Iowa.

Ronald Reagan is disarray:

• The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 30, 1979: "Douglas L. Hallett, former aide to Pres Nixon, claims Ronald Reagan's decline in opinion polls and his inability to attract support of opinion-leaders suggest there are strong doubts regarding his ability to confront tough foreign and economic problems."

• The Washington Post, Jan. 12, 1980: "Reagan to Keep a Low Profile Despite Slipping in Iowa Poll"

• The New York Times, March 12, 1980: "Nearly 1/3 of Democrats and Republicans polled after they leave polling places [in Florida] rate Ford a better candidate than any of Republicans in race."

• That Iowa poll wasn't a minor slippage. The Des Moines Register poll showed Reagan's support collapsing from 50 percent to 26 percent. Reagan went on to lose the Iowa caucuses. But even that wasn't the beginning of the end.

https://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/257354-trump-is-like-reagan-and-the-media-is-clueless-about-it

This is the better graph :




Also the off makers and installed him the heavy favorite in the primaries in 1979, and in the general election after 1980

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Reagan wasnt obvious in 1975 but by 1979 he certainly was,

He was leading in almost all the GOP polls by a large margin and had most of the endorsements. Nobody really thought anyone but Ford had a chance to beat Reagan until Bush won in Iowa.

Ronald Reagan is disarray:

• The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 30, 1979: "Douglas L. Hallett, former aide to Pres Nixon, claims Ronald Reagan's decline in opinion polls and his inability to attract support of opinion-leaders suggest there are strong doubts regarding his ability to confront tough foreign and economic problems."

• The Washington Post, Jan. 12, 1980: "Reagan to Keep a Low Profile Despite Slipping in Iowa Poll"

• The New York Times, March 12, 1980: "Nearly 1/3 of Democrats and Republicans polled after they leave polling places [in Florida] rate Ford a better candidate than any of Republicans in race."

• That Iowa poll wasn't a minor slippage. The Des Moines Register poll showed Reagan's support collapsing from 50 percent to 26 percent. Reagan went on to lose the Iowa caucuses. But even that wasn't the beginning of the end.

https://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/257354-trump-is-like-reagan-and-the-media-is-clueless-about-it

This is the better graph :




Also the off makers and installed him the heavy favorite in the primaries in 1979, and in the general election after 1980

That is misleading, as initially after the Iranian hostage crisis started there was a big rally around the flag effect for Jimmy Carter. In fact the surge in winter/spring 1980 probably allowed Carter to knock off Kennedy.  Reagan was at a artificial low in Jan 1980 because of that.

[junior chįmp]

Reagan wasnt obvious in 1975 but by 1979 he certainly was,

He was leading in almost all the GOP polls by a large margin and had most of the endorsements. Nobody really thought anyone but Ford had a chance to beat Reagan until Bush won in Iowa.

Ronald Reagan is disarray:

• The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 30, 1979: "Douglas L. Hallett, former aide to Pres Nixon, claims Ronald Reagan's decline in opinion polls and his inability to attract support of opinion-leaders suggest there are strong doubts regarding his ability to confront tough foreign and economic problems."

• The Washington Post, Jan. 12, 1980: "Reagan to Keep a Low Profile Despite Slipping in Iowa Poll"

• The New York Times, March 12, 1980: "Nearly 1/3 of Democrats and Republicans polled after they leave polling places [in Florida] rate Ford a better candidate than any of Republicans in race."

• That Iowa poll wasn't a minor slippage. The Des Moines Register poll showed Reagan's support collapsing from 50 percent to 26 percent. Reagan went on to lose the Iowa caucuses. But even that wasn't the beginning of the end.

https://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/257354-trump-is-like-reagan-and-the-media-is-clueless-about-it

This is the better graph :




Also the off makers and installed him the heavy favorite in the primaries in 1979, and in the general election after 1980

Im not talking about the GE per se....Im more attacking this idea that realigning presidents are obvious from the get go and heroically waiting in the wings just plainly obvious to everyone. Atlas has this obsession with giving credence to meaninglessness factors like "Sanders is from a small state," or "Biden wrote the crime bill of 94" to explain why they cant be this perfect unicorn realigning president. Of course none of that shít matters at all.

Atlas thinks that this mythical unicorn realigning president will be supported 100% by the establishment within the parties (even though they almost never are) and that voters will rationally choose them based on the facts and cold hard rational calculation (which they almost never do) and that the pundits, journous, and experts will all be in unanimous agreement over this mythical figure (when they never have been).

[CEO Mindset]

So Trump will be a one-termer who ends up remaking the GOP into his image but moreso?

Of course if we follow the analogy exactly, this means that the reagan-analogue dem who wins 2020/their successor in 2028 won't do all that much liberalizing but we'll get a a GOP in office from 2032-40 who ends up doing truly massive changes towards economic/social liberalization.

[junior chįmp]

So Trump will be a one-termer who ends up remaking the GOP into his image but moreso?

Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek has a pretty good theory on realignments that I think answers your question. It goes like this: If Trump doesnt reconstruct the Republican party and expand its coalition but instead just adopts the standard Reagan/Bush GOP orthodoxy then his presidency is doomed. NY Times had a pretty good article recently on Skowronek:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

EDIT: Pretty good interview with the Prof himself from Nov 2016 here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[E-Dawg]

Trump and Carter seem to have similar electoral maps and coalitions (both did very well in the Midwest and the South and poorly in the Northeast and the West).

However, I don't see a Reagan awaiting in the wings for the Dems.  I could be wrong, though.

I mean the laziest Reagan analogy is Sanders.

There are many differences between Reagan and Sanders


- Reagan for one was the two term governor of the largest state of the union , Bernie Sanders is a senator from one of the smallest states.

- Reagan while rhetorically was very conservative, he was very much a pragmatist while Governing(Both in CA and as President) , while Bernie has never been a pragmatist.

- The state of the nation was far far worse in 1980 than it likely will be in 2020

- Reagan's coalition and base was basically just an extension of Nixon's (The Suburbs and the Sunbelt) while Bernie's is not an an extension of Obama's and is much better suited for the New Deal Era(his coalition relies more on the support of WWC while Obama's was Affluent Suburbs )

Man, I wish that turned out to be true...

[Samof94]

I just can image a Republican pundit going on about how Trump could have won had Covid 19 never existed.

[Hope For A New Era]

Skowronek is looking more right by the day.

We may be approaching the end of the "TV President" era as well, which is great. I hope all future campaigns are as boring as Biden's. People need to be voting with facts, not feelings.

Maybe even some depolarization by the end of the decade?

[Person Man]

Trump and Carter seem to have similar electoral maps and coalitions (both did very well in the Midwest and the South and poorly in the Northeast and the West).

However, I don't see a Reagan awaiting in the wings for the Dems.  I could be wrong, though.

I mean the laziest Reagan analogy is Sanders.

There are many differences between Reagan and Sanders


- Reagan for one was the two term governor of the largest state of the union , Bernie Sanders is a senator from one of the smallest states.

- Reagan while rhetorically was very conservative, he was very much a pragmatist while Governing(Both in CA and as President) , while Bernie has never been a pragmatist.

- The state of the nation was far far worse in 1980 than it likely will be in 2020

- Reagan's coalition and base was basically just an extension of Nixon's (The Suburbs and the Sunbelt) while Bernie's is not an an extension of Obama's and is much better suited for the New Deal Era(his coalition relies more on the support of WWC while Obama's was Affluent Suburbs )

Man, I wish that turned out to be true...

This didn’t age very well.

[Agonized-Statism]

Im not talking about the GE per se....Im more attacking this idea that realigning presidents are obvious from the get go and heroically waiting in the wings just plainly obvious to everyone. Atlas has this obsession with giving credence to meaninglessness factors like "Sanders is from a small state," or "Biden wrote the crime bill of 94" to explain why they cant be this perfect unicorn realigning president. Of course none of that shít matters at all.

Of course it doesn't, but what or who would Biden be realigning exactly? Reagan finalized the shift of rural areas, suburbs, and the South to the Republicans, Roosevelt brought the Northern working class and minorities via the New Deal Coalition, McKinley arguably shored up the North. Realigning presidents are the ones to take a growing movement and turn it into a winning coalition. The candidacies of Obama, Trump, and Sanders are the zeitgeist: the reaction to the losing neoliberal policies of the rotting Reagan Era. The former two won because of voters "in revolt", particularly in the Rust Belt. Who does Biden bring to the table? What game-changing movement is behind him?

I do think the next party system will be a Democratic one in response to the last few decades of Republican power, and that happens when the Republican coalition can no longer mathematically win, but a lot of the necessary Sun Belt states aren't there yet. Minorities, particularly Mexican-Americans, aren't turning out at levels necessary to even make Texas a swing state yet, and the results of the primaries (very strong for Sanders) make me seriously doubt Biden is going to be the one to make it happen. Sorry to hurt the 2020 Election board's feelings.

[Former President tack50]

I just can image a Republican pundit going on about how Trump could have won had Covid 19 never existed.

On this note, could Carter have won if the Iran hostage crisis had not happened?