Will the 40-year cycle repeat again this year?

[McGarnagle's End Times Cavalcade]

In the past, I've seen a hypothesis about elections since 1948, where circumstances repeat every forty years but with the opposite party winning.

If the cycle continues:

1980 / 2020 (The Old Man) - The opposition party nominates a familiar face (Reagan / Biden) who easily defeats an unpopular incumbent President (Carter / Trump) during an economic recession, and becomes the oldest President ever elected. I initially thought Sanders would end up being the nominee, which would mirror history more closely (like Reagan, he was the challenger in his party from four years prior) - but Biden still ticks enough of the boxes, and I've seen several polls where he's leading nationally 50%-41% - very similar to the margin Reagan defeated Carter by. Another similarity is that Reagan and Biden's surnames both end with "n" and contain two syllables.

For reference:

1976 / 2016 (The Wildcard) - The incumbent party nominates an establishment candidate (Ford / Clinton) who wins a closer than expected primary against a challenger on their right (Reagan) or their left (Sanders). The opposition party nominates an "outsider" or "wildcard" candidate who nobody expected would be president four years earlier (Carter and Trump, though very different in viewpoints and temperament, were unexpected candidates). The election is very close, decided by a few states the upper Midwest and rust belt, with the losing candidate winning just over 48% of the popular vote.

1972 / 2012 (...The More Things Stay the Same) - The incumbent President (Nixon / Obama) wins at least a majority of the popular vote against a candidate they paint as out-of-touch or elitist (McGovern / Romney). This president faces either a severe scandal or an emboldened opposition during their second term. After this election, this President has defeated a candidate whose surname begins with "Mc".

1968 / 2008 (The More Things Change...) - The opposition party nominates a candidate with five letters in their surname who calls for change from the previous eight years in a more conservative (Nixon) or liberal (Obama) direction. The incumbent party nominee is or once had been a Senator (Humphrey / McCain). The opposition candidate wins with more than 300 Electoral Votes.

1964 / 2004 (The Texan) - The incumbent Texan President (LBJ / Bush) is re-elected with a majority of the popular vote over a Senator who they paint as too far to the right (Goldwater) or the left (Kerry). A devastating national tragedy has happened in the previous four years (JFK's assassination in '63, 9/11 in '01). A memorable political ad damages the opposition party nominee (Daisy ad in '64, Swift boat ads in '04).

1960 / 2000 (The Scion) - A scion from a known political family (Kennedy / Bush) wins an extremely close election against the incumbent Vice President (Nixon / Gore). This election is widely viewed as stolen. The debates are viewed as damaging to the Vice President. The opposition's Vice Presidential nominee (LBJ / Cheney) is viewed as a ruthless, shrewd operator.

1956 / 1996 (The Sequel) - The incumbent President (Eisenhower / Clinton) is easily re-elected over a familiar face (Stevenson / Dole) during an economic upturn. The Democratic nominee was previously a Governor, while the Republican nominee is a military veteran.

1952 / 1992 (The Moderate) - The opposition party nominates a moderate (Eisenhower / Clinton) who easily defeats the incumbent party's nominee (Stevenson / Bush), ending three or more terms of the incumbent party in the White House. The Democratic nominee is a governor, while the Republican nominee is a military veteran.

1948 / 1988 (The VP) - The incumbent party's nominee is someone who is or had once been Vice President (Truman / Bush). The opposition party nominates a relatively liberal northeastern governor whose surname begins with D (Dewey / Dukakis) and who leads polling for a time, but loses with between 45 and 46% of the vote.

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

This is quite entertaining, although I'm sure that you could easily find differences between these elections if you want to find them. Of course history does not repeat itself.

But if this were a rule, then 2024 might be very promising to whoever the Democratic candidate will be.

[McGarnagle's End Times Cavalcade]

This is quite entertaining, although I'm sure that you could easily find differences between these elections if you want to find them. Of course history does not repeat itself.

But if this were a rule, then 2024 might be very promising to whoever the Democratic candidate will be.

History doesn't repeat exactly - but sometimes, it rhymes. There are certainly differences between these elections - but many correspondences too.

If this cycle continues, 2020, 2024 and 2028 will be Democratic years, and whoever is Biden's VP will be President after him. It also means Pence would be nominated in 2024 and would lose.

[Arachno-Statism]

Sanders would have been it, but the crushing of the progressives complicates things. This realignment won't be as clean.

[dw93]

Initially I thought so, but with Biden being nominated, the realignment will be delayed. Biden winning in 2020 would be like if Bush were to win in 1980 over Reagan.

[NHI]

Sanders would have been it, but the crushing of the progressives complicates things. This realignment won't be as clean.

[dw93]

Realistically, I think Obama and Trump, and Biden if he wins this year will, as far as realignments are concerned, will be viewed as a transition period from one era to another, sort of how Nixon, Ford, and Carter were a transition from the New Deal ear to the Neoliberal era.

[Does the title even matter?]

Reagan didn't "realign" anything. If Carter had been reelected, the GOP would have taken the Congress twelve years earlier than it did OTL.

[dw93]

Reagan didn't "realign" anything. If Carter had been reelected, the GOP would have taken the Congress twelve years earlier than it did OTL.

I don't think the religious right would be as strong without Reagan and whoever the GOP nominates in 1984 to run against Mondale will likely be more moderate than Reagan and a Republican party that takes control of Congress in 1982 will be led by Howard Baker and Bob Michel, not Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, and will thus be more moderate than the one that rode Nutty Newt's Contract to power in 1994.

[Blairite]

Eh, I don't really buy this theory. It seems like it tries to make reality fit to it rather than the other way around, and I'm deeply skeptical of using it as a blueprint to anticipate the future.

[gracile]

It's fun to look for coincidences like this, but realignments typically don't happen in such a clear cut way.

[morgieb]

Sort of, but the big difference is that instead of Ronald Reagan the Dems chose to nominate Nelson Rockefeller.

[Alben Barkley]

Does this mean Biden wins a 49-state landslide in 2024?

[Virginia Yellow Dog]

Does this mean Biden wins a 49-state landslide in 2024?

He said he will not run for re-election, and I will take him at his word.

So it will be either his Vice-President, or whoever primaries her in 2024. 

[Alben Barkley]

Does this mean Biden wins a 49-state landslide in 2024?

He said he will not run for re-election, and I will take him at his word.

So it will be either his Vice-President, or whoever primaries her in 2024. 

Wait what? When did he say that? The only source on that I can find is a Politico article from December about how he supposedly hinted to aides that he might only serve one term. He's certainly never declared that publicly. I mean I don't think it's necessarily likely he'll run again, but for this analogy to be perfect he'd have to.

[Virginia Yellow Dog]

Does this mean Biden wins a 49-state landslide in 2024?

He said he will not run for re-election, and I will take him at his word.

So it will be either his Vice-President, or whoever primaries her in 2024. 

Wait what? When did he say that? The only source on that I can find is a Politico article from December about how he supposedly hinted to aides that he might only serve one term. He's certainly never declared that publicly. I mean I don't think it's necessarily likely he'll run again, but for this analogy to be perfect he'd have to.

That's what I meant.  For obvious political reasons he had to walk that back (who wants to be regarded a lameduck right out of the gate?), but I think we all understand that given his advanced age he will only serve a single term as a caretaker President. 

[ShadowRocket]

I can't see Biden being a realigning president in the vein of FDR or Reagan due in large part to his age and probability that he retires after one term.

I can see him being like William McKinley in the sense that he's the one that puts together the coalition for Democratic dominance, but it's his VP that leaves the lasting mark policy wise upon assuming the presidency similar to Theodore Roosevelt. Elizabeth Warren would probably be the best fit for that kind of role. I'm not sure that Harris or Klobuchar would do that.

So I guess in some way the cycle would continue.

[Grassr00ts]

God I hope it does this year, but not in four years.

[bagelman]

No because the next Democratic president after Biden, even if she is Biden's VP, won't be up against a Republican who's name begins with "D".

This is all just for fun of course, but here's my take on a 40 year cycle that respects the spirit, but not the letter, of previous cycles:

46. Joe Biden (D-DE) (2021-2025)

The Old Man, but old enough to step down after one term. In this scenario he picks Warren as his VP, despite Baker.

47. Liz Warren (D-MA) (2025-2029)

The Veep, also steps down after only one term. Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-81, R-OH) is the most recent President to do this before Biden, btw.

48. (R) (2029-2037)

The Moderate, is able to revive the Republican Party post-Trump. With economic progressives in office for the past 8 years, this could be a libertarian figure - fiscally conservative but just drops most social issues. (Gay/Lesbian Republican maybe?) Of course, that might be an issue in the south, and there's still a chance of a rural WCW populist instead. One thing's for sure, Trumpist methods for actually running the country are not returning, ever.

49. (R) (2037-2041)

This one doesn't correspond to anything, and I deliberately put it in specifically to ruin the sanctity of the cycle, while at the same time making sure it's 40 years instead of 36. Previous President's VP, first President since Bush I to lose reelection, although the fairness of the 2040 election is questioned.

Perhaps in the future we'll have a popular vote compact, and that will lead to a situation where the Democrats win a very close election thanks only to running up the margins in the big states.

As for the one term that s/he does get, it's a third term of the previous president, with some minor surface differences. The nation continues trucking along, trying to deal with climate change....

50. (D-TX) (2041-2049)

The Scion and The Texan. I assume there's some Democratic political family somewhere in Texas. Climate change gets baaaaaad in the early 40s. Cities like Houston, New Orleans, and Miami drown in hurricanes and high tide. Heat waves create a new dust bowl, as the great plains become a complete wasteland. Despite high levels of personal corruption, people place their hopes in this president to provide relief.

51. (R) (2049-2057)

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same. Turns out people don't like living in FEMA camps indefinitely, and people start getting really mad at the way the previous President is doing things. One pattern shared by both Texans is that both of their parties nominated their more humble political rivals in the next election (H³ 68/McCain 2k8) which they lost. The loser of the 2040 Democratic primary, who is neither a scion nor particularly corrupt, is back to get embarrassed.

52. (D) (2057-2061)

The Wildcard, a very young figure (born in the early 20s) who nonetheless attracts some grouchy old millennial progressives. Kids these days never had to deal with Dubya Bush or Donald Dump! They have ZERO respect for their elders. This youngster is one of the GOOD ones we can trust to keep the future alive! Global climate change will destroy humanity and the only way to stop it is to BAN LAB GROWN MEAT! At least tofu isn't made from CHEMICALS!!!1. I'M NOT OLD!!

53. (R) (2061-2069)

The Old Woman

Carrying herself like a Matriarch, this figure is a millennial and was originally a Democrat, much like Ronald Reagan used to be over 100 years ago. Her platform is mostly about issues that don't exist or aren't understood yet. 2064 is the first true landslide in the 21st century, as they nation just throws itself at 4 more years.

However, to deliberately break the cycle, the Democrats come back in 2068 and win that year, although they essentially concede most issues from 2060/64 to the GOP. Who knows what the future will bring, and what new divisions will wreck havoc on America?