Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I voted for Ford in 1976, Anderson in 1980, and Democrats since then. I became a very partisan Democrat when I visited the local Republican Party headquarters in 2008 to ask about local candidates and found myself in an attempted brainwashing. The local Republican Party is basically a chapter of the John Birch Society that has melded $cientology onto its reactionary ideology.

A third-party vote is a wasted vote when the other main party offers nothing. Progressives won in ultra-safe states and districts. Otherwise the Koch syndicate prevailed as planned.

Sanders 2016!

Actually that isn't limited to your local Republican Party. But I find it telling that you seemingly cannot answer the strength of the GOP even when I give you answer.

Here is the facts. When Democrats run as Republican lite anywhere they lose to the Republican, everywhere. When the Democrat runs as a Democrat they win everywhere. The strength of the GOP rests not on their ideas (they don't have any), it isn't in their base (most of them are otherwise social pariahs), it isn't even their money (which they actually do have truck loads of). The GOP's main strength is the weakness of Democrats who choose to run as Republican Lite. It reduces the choices between Coke and Diet Coke and we all know which wins that taste test.

I call it the "Truman Rule" because Truman in his address to Americans for Democratic Action said on 17 May 1952

Originally Posted by Harry S. Truman

The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

[...]

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.

The whole speech can be read here. I assure you that it is still as fresh today as it was then, politics hasn't changed that much other than I think the Democrats need to purge their party of its reactionary elements of which I include Hillary and Bill Clinton.

I would argue that yes third party votes are usually wasted votes, and almost always wasted for National Office. My party doesn't run candidates outside of State and Local races so I don't have to worry about any vote for an APL Candidate that may run costing someone I really want for President or Senator. As such I tend to break for Democrats, but I am not beholden to that Party. I have voted for Greens, Libertarians, Republicans and any other number of persons when the Democrat on offer was repugnant. Trust me when I find those Democrats repugnant, they lose. I'm used to being to the left of everybody.

As for the current election Sanders is our best hope. Hillary should she get nominated (which is not guaranteed) will likely lose to Trump though she can beat any other Republican, however, we are guaranteed that if she is President that she will have a GOP dominated Congress and the best we can hope for is the Gridlock that has dominated the Obama Administration, of course she's just as likely to cave to every GOP whim too.

So I have absolutely no confidence in HRC. Just like other Democrats I found repugnant I simply can't vote for her.

1952. The Republicans finally got a clue and quit defending the economics of Herbert Hoover and the Gilded Age. After World War II the partisan divide in ideology got much narrower than it had been in the 1930s or than it is today.

To get a real liberal Regeneracy we need to get poor white people to recognize that the ruling elites are less reliable as political allies than poor people who do not look like them. Should that not happen, then the ruling elites have us all stuck playing a game of politics with the loaded dice of the ruling elites. American politics has become a corrupt casino -- the only game in town... indeed, the same crooked game from Seattle to Miami and Bangor to Honolulu. Karl Rove and his like are even more corrupt operators than Bugsy Siegel and his type.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

1952. The Republicans finally got a clue and quit defending the economics of Herbert Hoover and the Gilded Age. After World War II the partisan divide in ideology got much narrower than it had been in the 1930s or than it is today.

To get a real liberal Regeneracy we need to get poor white people to recognize that the ruling elites are less reliable as political allies than poor people who do not look like them. Should that not happen, then the ruling elites have us all stuck playing a game of politics with the loaded dice of the ruling elites. American politics has become a corrupt casino -- the only game in town... indeed, the same crooked game from Seattle to Miami and Bangor to Honolulu. Karl Rove and his like are even more corrupt operators than Bugsy Siegel and his type.

None of that has a chance without Democrats running as Democrats of the New Deal type. Anything less condemns poor whites to having to resort to the GOP who may or may actually not support their views on social issues. Anything that distracts from that economic message is baggage the Democrats will lose on. Or do you question the wisdom of President Truman born out of the divisions of the Depression a time much like our own?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

None of that has a chance without Democrats running as Democrats of the New Deal type. Anything less condemns poor whites to having to resort to the GOP who may or may actually not support their views on social issues. Anything that distracts from that economic message is baggage the Democrats will lose on. Or do you question the wisdom of President Truman born out of the divisions of the Depression a time much like our own?

Truman was wise enough in his time. By 1952 the New Deal was spent. Today it should be the Reagan-Bush era that is spent -- except that it has the wealth and bureaucratic power behind it.

This is not a repeat of the time of the Truman presidency. Quite to the contrary this is a 4T in which the economic elites try to force the depraved economics of the 3T upon us, only harder, as a solution. Such is obviously a sham solution, one that will create more economic distress now and even promote another Great Depression.

I am not sure whether Eisenhower was more conservative than Stevenson. It is telling that Eisenhower won all Northeastern and Western states twice, including some (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island) that Republicans have won only in landslides since the 1920s. Ike did not run as a "real" Republican, the sort who praised the economics of Herbert Hoover.

All common sense says that Democrats should clobber any Republican who praises the economic and foreign policy of George Worthless Bush. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats did exactly that. But there's a huge difference: the economic elites still had the means with which to buy media attention and willing stooges to run for any political office, true believers in the vile conception that no human suffering is in excess if it turns a profit.

The Great Depression defanged the economic elites who, had they been given the chance, would have returned America to the economic principles of the Gilded Age. The Gilded Age that the elites of our time want has more sophisticated technology but the same vile social order. It also has great wealth and plenty of PR firms and political operatives to befuddle people willing to be fooled. "Pie in the sky when you die" is the same reward that America's economic elites offered in the 19th century as it does now.

People are suckers to believe that the way to Heaven is to suffer for rapacious plutocrats and commit their progeny to more of the same, especially when those elites do nothing to make Heaven so pleasant (should it exist). If those elites so believe that we have 'pie in the sky when you die' so long as we toil to exhaustion for near-starvation pay, then why don't they give up their lavish ways of life?

One thing is certain: Republicans are very much on message. The Republican Party means exactly the same thing in Oregon as it means in Oklahoma -- complete dominion of economic elites and subordination of anyone else.

As of latest poll or 2012 election: Clinton vs. Trump
http://www.270towin.com/maps/5P4A3

Clinton vs. Rubio
http://www.270towin.com/maps/qgAbE

Clinton vs. Cruz
http://www.270towin.com/maps/qxGlX

Data from wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statew...election,_2016
Chart created at
http://www.270towin.com/

Clinton Green
Sanders Blue
shared lead split colors
no recent polls gray



Trump pink
Cruz red
Carson green
3 or more candidates close black
shared lead split colors
no recent polls gray

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Truman was wise enough in his time. By 1952 the New Deal was spent. Today it should be the Reagan-Bush era that is spent -- except that it has the wealth and bureaucratic power behind it.

This is not a repeat of the time of the Truman presidency. Quite to the contrary this is a 4T in which the economic elites try to force the depraved economics of the 3T upon us, only harder, as a solution. Such is obviously a sham solution, one that will create more economic distress now and even promote another Great Depression.

I am not sure whether Eisenhower was more conservative than Stevenson. It is telling that Eisenhower won all Northeastern and Western states twice, including some (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island) that Republicans have won only in landslides since the 1920s. Ike did not run as a "real" Republican, the sort who praised the economics of Herbert Hoover.

All common sense says that Democrats should clobber any Republican who praises the economic and foreign policy of George Worthless Bush. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats did exactly that. But there's a huge difference: the economic elites still had the means with which to buy media attention and willing stooges to run for any political office, true believers in the vile conception that no human suffering is in excess if it turns a profit.

The Great Depression defanged the economic elites who, had they been given the chance, would have returned America to the economic principles of the Gilded Age. The Gilded Age that the elites of our time want has more sophisticated technology but the same vile social order. It also has great wealth and plenty of PR firms and political operatives to befuddle people willing to be fooled. "Pie in the sky when you die" is the same reward that America's economic elites offered in the 19th century as it does now.

People are suckers to believe that the way to Heaven is to suffer for rapacious plutocrats and commit their progeny to more of the same, especially when those elites do nothing to make Heaven so pleasant (should it exist). If those elites so believe that we have 'pie in the sky when you die' so long as we toil to exhaustion for near-starvation pay, then why don't they give up their lavish ways of life?

One thing is certain: Republicans are very much on message. The Republican Party means exactly the same thing in Oregon as it means in Oklahoma -- complete dominion of economic elites and subordination of anyone else.

In 1952 the New Deal was not spent. The New Deal was the consensus. Eisenhower won as a Republican only because he was a Popular Commanding General and did not offend that consensus. Had he said anything to the effect of wanting to undo the New Deal he would have been rejected.

However, it appears that you don't seem to understand my point, not that that is anything unusual. The reason that BHO came out of no-where and defeated HRC is because he ran on a progressive platform and picked up Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virgina, North Carolina and Florida. It should be noted that the last time prior to 2008 NC and VA went blue was in 1976 with Jimmy Carter.

In 2012 he only lost NC and that was after massive suppression efforts by the GOP. As such when Democrats run as Democrats (as Truman described) they win. In fact they are so close to winning that the only power known to defeat them is overt and active voter suppression by the GOP.

When phony Democrats run, they do the work of the GOP for them and they don't win.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Wilson's racism is great enough to counter act any economic liberalism.

Then you are rating him on the social side. FDR was a racist too, after all he locked up 100,000+ Japanese Americans (but not German Americans) because they were yellow men.

TR on the other hand got the ball rolling with conservation, consumer protection,

These are not economic.

introducing the concept of a progressive income tax into the Overton window

Rhetorically he was a lot more progressive than he was in office. Also, he did help get the income tax by playing spoiler in 1912, allowing Wilson to win. No Republican was ever going enact the income tax.

I'm unwilling to give Bernie a +10 until he is elected President. A +9 or hell even a +5 candidate is useless to me unless he can get elected and push his agenda.

Furthermore I quite frankly fear Cruz more than Rubio.

Me too, but there is nothing in Cruz's stances that say would be be more anti-New Deal than most of the other Republican establishment guys, They are all pretty much 100% opposed to it. I think your emotional reaction is coloring your judgement. For example, I think Wilson was a shit, but he was a Democratic Progressive shit. Democrats and Populists had run the same candidate for president in 1896, a candidate who served in the Wilson administration (like FDR did). This matters because Democrats had a political constituency for things like progressive income tax (point 7) and monetary expansion (points 1-3) which FDR exploited to address the Depression economic collapse. Republicans had no internal political support for New Deal type policies, and so cannot rate very high on a New Deal scale.

Similarly I see Cruz as almost a demonic figure (he does scare me). But the content of beliefs about economic policy do not differ materially from the rest of the conservative Republicans.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

In 1952 the New Deal was not spent. The New Deal was the consensus. Eisenhower won as a Republican only because he was a Popular Commanding General and did not offend that consensus. Had he said anything to the effect of wanting to undo the New Deal he would have been rejected.

However, it appears that you don't seem to understand my point, not that that is anything unusual. The reason that BHO came out of no-where and defeated HRC is because he ran on a progressive platform and picked up Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virgina, North Carolina and Florida. It should be noted that the last time prior to 2008 NC and VA went blue was in 1976 with Jimmy Carter.

In 2012 he only lost NC and that was after massive suppression efforts by the GOP. As such when Democrats run as Democrats (as Truman described) they win. In fact they are so close to winning that the only power known to defeat them is overt and active voter suppression by the GOP.

When phony Democrats run, they do the work of the GOP for them and they don't win.

IIRC Eisenhower was a centrist who could have ran for either party and ran as a Republican because he was worried that the GOP would nominate an isolationist and win.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Then you are rating him on the social side. FDR was a racist too, after all he locked up 100,000+ Japanese Americans (but not German Americans) because they were yellow men.

I would argue that a FDR's actions were a reaction to a great amount of fear on the part of White America of the time. Much of the New Deal also excluded blacks because the programs did not actively help domestic and agricultural workers (which were the sectors dominated by blacks, particularly in the South). Again I think that has its roots in the reality of the time period.

These are not economic.

I wouldn't call them social either. Ensuring the purity of drugs and food is the right thing to do regardless of who does it. Since the business elites can't be trusted to do it on their own government therefore must do it.

Rhetorically he was a lot more progressive than he was in office. Also, he did help get the income tax by playing spoiler in 1912, allowing Wilson to win. No Republican was ever going enact the income tax.

Direct taxation, which is what the Income Tax is required a constitutional amendment. That amendment was introduced to Congress by President Taft, who was very much a Republican. A progressive Republican of the TR type to be sure, but a Republican none the less so your argument that no republican was ever going to enact the income tax falls flat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixtee...ution#Adoption

Me too, but there is nothing in Cruz's stances that say would be be more anti-New Deal than most of the other Republican establishment guys, They are all pretty much 100% opposed to it.

I would argue that this is only true of the Establishment Republicans: Cruz, Rubio and Bush. Trump is too all over the place to actually pin him down as being overtly anti-New Deal. He may be amenable to a right-wing version of a New Deal since he is most certainly running a populist style campaign.

I think your emotional reaction is coloring your judgement. For example, I think Wilson was a shit, but he was a Democratic Progressive shit.

I think that you're allowing modern politics to color your judgement of Wilson. We have to remember that the Democratic Party was from 1865- at least 1912 (and arguably until at least 1928) the Party of the Southern White Men Of Power (who are of course known for their progressive stances ) and Big City Machine Politics. The Fourth Party System was a transitory phase within what I've termed the Second Republic until the emergence of the Fifth Party System which gave rise to the New Deal, Fair Deal and the birth of the Third Republic (The Republic the US is now).

Democrats and Populists had run the same candidate for president in 1896, a candidate who served in the Wilson administration (like FDR did).

I would argue that the Populists were a minor party that originally split from the two main parties first and coaleced around that platform and was later absorbed by the Democratic Party under Wilson. Wilson of course did not direct this, but it was rather done by the Party Bosses within the Democratic Party.

This matters because Democrats had a political constituency for things like progressive income tax (point 7) and monetary expansion (points 1-3) which FDR exploited to address the Depression economic collapse. Republicans had no internal political support for New Deal type policies, and so cannot rate very high on a New Deal scale.

And yet the Income Tax already existed, it was used to partially finance WW1 and once enacted by bare majority Democratic Congress (and only then under the duress of war) were not repealed by subsequent Republican Administrations and Congresses.

Similarly I see Cruz as almost a demonic figure (he does scare me). But the content of beliefs about economic policy do not differ materially from the rest of the conservative Republicans.

Cruz scares me simply because he is the only establishment Republican with a snow ball's chance in hell of winning. I would argue that Bernie can beat him, his record is relatively clean (which can't be said for HRC) and he hasn't spent the last 20+ years being the GOP whipping girl. HRC can't beat him, her unfavorables are too high and the GOP has made a hobby of attacking her for 20+ years.

That being said I don't think my aversion to Cruz is rational (nor is it potentially racial prejudice on my part because I don't feel the same way about Rubio or Bush). There is something about the man that strikes me viscerally as being off, not right. I don't know if I can really explain it.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Direct taxation, which is what the Income Tax is required a constitutional amendment. That amendment was introduced to Congress by President Taft, who was very much a Republican. A progressive Republican of the TR type to be sure, but a Republican none the less so your argument that no republican was ever going to enact the income tax falls flat.

I said Republicans were not going to enact a progressive income tax. The taxes they proposed were flat, like the ones they propose today.

I would argue that this is only true of the Establishment Republicans: Cruz, Rubio and Bush.

My point was that Cruz belongs with the establishment on economics. Are you agreeing with me? Then we have no disagreement.

Trump is too all over the place to actually pin him down as being overtly anti-New Deal. He may be amenable to a right-wing version of a New Deal since he is most certainly running a populist style campaign.

I completely agree which is why to my mind he is the best of the set. The others I see as useless (meaning the policy portfolio available to them cannot solve any of our economic problems). With Trump there a few threads here and there that could potentially have some use, but then Trump mostly just says whatever belligerent thing that comes to mind so I can't really take him seriously.

I think that you're allowing modern politics to color your judgement of Wilson. We have to remember that the Democratic Party was from 1865- at least 1912 (and arguably until at least 1928) the Party of the Southern White Men Of Power (who are of course known for their progressive stances )

Again, you are talking social issues. The populists were mostly socially conservative economic liberals, many of whom were racists. Several of their leaders latter became KKK members. The Democratic party was indeed the party of the Southern White Man for the first 100 years of existence and so was an explicitly racist party, at least in the South. But they also embodied the Jacksonian distrust of the Money Power (= Wall Street today). In today's terms the populists can be thought of as a combination of working class Sanders supporters and working class Trump supporters. If you add working and middle class Latinos, Asians plus recent immigrants, and Cruz's Southern supporters, plus about 40% of SJWs you can get a feel for the Democratic party of 100 years ago. The rest go with the GOP, which is why they were the majority party.

The Democrats have always been the crazy party. They had to be since the Republicans represented societies dominant factions, and so could be more cohesive in their ideology. Look at the New Deal coalition. Immigrant-hating Klansmen in the same party as immigrants, and which was attracting an increasing number of blacks. WTF? But nowadays the GOP has the Southern white men, whose culture has permeated their party like it used to the Democrats. And so today the Republicans are the crazy party too.

The parties often switch around, something Lincoln alluded to in a story about drunks and coats

There is something about the man that strikes me viscerally as being off, not right. I don't know if I can really explain it.

That is exactly how I feel. He just gives he the willies. Back in the 1990's I happened upon the Westboro God hate fags page. This one was blood red and when it came up I could almost feel the evil radiating from the page. I was startled and quickly went to another page. Years later I went back to their site. They had a new page with an animation of Mathew Shepard burning in hell with sound effects (screams). I felt nothing but mirth from this page. Cruz elicits a milder form of the response I had from that blood red webpage all those years ago.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

In the 4T culture wars are not just on the back burner, they are off the stove. 4Ts are generally extremely conservative, culturally. The last 4T was when gays started to be seriously persecuted and prosecuted (gays were relatively tolerated during the teens and 20s), Hollywood signed onto the Hayes Commission rules that mandated self-censorship of sex and movie plots in preparation for it's role in wartime propaganda, fascists and communists alike started to be persecuted, women (in the initial stages during the Depression) expected to remain in the home, poor sexual deviants still sterilised (started in the 1910s) and as we know, children and adolescents kept under tight control. All in the United States. And Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Japan were even more tightly controlled with deviants of all stripes from mental patients to homeless to sexually loose to gays disappearing into concentration camps or killed outright. Only France and the UK, which remained more or less 3T right up until 1939 remained somewhat culturally free.

Where is the application to THIS 4T?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Following current practices, we'll get somewhere if a real crisis is triggered, and the GOP fails miserably like Hoover in the early 1930s

No. The fed will flood the system with money, preventing a repeat of the 1930's. The country will muddle through, the GOP would lose the election, block anything the Dems try to do, and then come back stronger.

or the path back will be long and require a concerted effort getting there.

No again. America is a conservative nation. Long slow efforts bend right.

So yes, the GOP gets undeserved hand waves and the Dems get no credit for the work they do. Is that due to something intrinsic?

Yes it is. It is the nature of the terrain, always has been. What is called "progress" is largely achieved by the periodic crises, when the political structure is rearranged. Although they often involve internal war; they do not always (see the last one). The "political revolution" that Sanders is calling for is patently ridiculous, except when to happens.

Assuming it's Hillary that gets the nod, I agree that she and Bill will fight -- just not for us. They are strictly warriors for their own cause. They'll save their party, and themselves, by selling out on the last few principles they have.

No they won't. There is no incentive on the part of the Right to accept their surrender. Remember they are now Jacksonian Republicans, with the most belligerent factions of the two parties combined. They will accept nothing short of the elimination of the Democrats as a political force, like the Federalists and Whigs. Today's Democratic party are the true heirs of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, while the GOP are the heirs of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. It is they who should be having Jefferson-Jackson dinners.

The Corporate elite has a lot of power, but they too have to work within the existing political institutions. They like the status quo of having both parties doing their will much of the time. But this is no more stable that the New Deal coalition. With Donald Trump, you can see it beginning to crack.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I've reviewed the 2000 election after the fact. Part of the problem is that the count in Florida was botched, and the recount was intentionally botched. A great deal of that has to do with who was governor, and who was secretary of state.

My contention is that if got to the point where the SCOTUS had to be called in they should have stopped the recount, and kicked it over to the House of Representives as the Constitution says should happen in cases where the electoral collage can't determine the president. In the case of Florida, a botched election means that their E.C. votes couldn't be allocated and thus neither candidate had the requisite 270 to win.

Had that happened, W would have still ended up being president.

Expect for the inconvenient fact that the Florida Supreme Court had already ruled, but was overridden by the SCOTUS, your argument might make sense. This was all politics, and the inclusion of Bush-brother Jeb!, bulldog Katherine Harris and two rounds through the courts makes that more than clear.

Originally Posted by Kinser79 ...

As to declaring Cruz to be qualified with less than due diligence would require the Democrats to bring a suit on the grounds that he is ineligible first. The SCOTUS can only rule on issues when someone brings a suit. It is entirely possible for Cruz to circumvent that problem by having a Resolution of the Congress declaring him a Natural Born Citizen much like John McCain did. However, just because it is possible does not make it probable.

Three problems here. First, declaring the canal zone as US territory is a lot less of a stretch than making the same argument for Canada. Second, John McCain had two US citizen parents -- one on active duty in the canal zone. Third, BHO would veto any attempt.

Originally Posted by Kinser79 ...

I will, however, agree that should the SCOTUS have a suit brought to their attention, they take it up, and declare Cruz to be a natural born citizen without said due diligence it will increase the partisan divide to pre-ACW levels. Considering that one of the few things Eric and I actually agree on is that this 4T has far more in common with the one before the last one than the last one (IE the one from 1850-1870ish) I would liken it to something akin Dred Scot or ruling the Fugitive Slave Law constitutional. It would be an act by the SCOTUS so repugnant to the People that the only result will be eventual civil war.

There are those on this board who do not recognize the truth that Jefferson wrote when he compared liberty to a tree that must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Odin

IIRC Eisenhower was a centrist who could have ran for either party and ran as a Republican because he was worried that the GOP would nominate an isolationist and win.

Essentially exactly as I said. His popularity, however, was based on two factors: 1. He was a commanding general in WW2, 2. he wasn't going to blow up the New Deal and everyone knew that.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I said Republicans were not going to enact a progressive income tax. The taxes they proposed were flat, like the ones they propose today.

The first income taxes levied federally were in 1862 and I assure you the Republicans were in charge of congress at that time and they levied a progressive style tax table. This tax was repealed in 1872 as it was a war time tax and much of the northern debt by that time had been paid off.

Income tax again became an issue in the 1880s during the Cleveland Administration (who was no progressive Democrat I assure you), rather the problems were arising from the costs associated to consumers on import tariffs. Cleveland's proposals were not implemented as the SCOTUS found them unconstitutional necessitating an amendment. The GOP then blamed budgetary problems and the Panic of 1893 on Clevelnd's tariff reform attempts and won the Mid-terms in 1894 and the Presidency in 1896 and immediately jacked up the taiffs to their highest levels. The Democrats took advantage of common perception at the time with tariffs and high prices on consumer goods (even though the US was a Net Exporter) and made pushes for an income tax. Quite simply before the Panic of 1907 an Income Tax wasn't in the GOP's playbooks, not even TR's and TR did things his way and to hell with the Party Bosses if they didn't like it.

All of this later fell to Taft because TR made the silly promise to not run again in 1904 (he really should have stuck around but at the time they would have considered it a third term because McKinley died not yet 12 months into his second term). All of that being said the tax table implemented in 1913 was pretty flat but given incomes at the time very few people ended up having to pay it. It was in effect a tax on only the very rich. Which the GOP agreed to only to prevent open class warfare and losses to the Progressives (who were at that time insurgents in both Parties, but were later mostly absorbed by the Democrats).

My point was that Cruz belongs with the establishment on economics. Are you agreeing with me? Then we have no disagreement.

I wasn't aware that we necessarily were in disagreement. I've always considered Cruz to be establishment in regard to economic issues, he is renegade on social issues mostly. And the way he's renegade about them is, well the best word I can think of to use is smarmy.

I completely agree which is why to my mind he is the best of the set. The others I see as useless (meaning the policy portfolio available to them cannot solve any of our economic problems). With Trump there a few threads here and there that could potentially have some use, but then Trump mostly just says whatever belligerent thing that comes to mind so I can't really take him seriously.

I think that what Trump has tapped into is the Southern White Working Class anger (which to a degree is influenced by what we call down here Dixiecrat inertia--many people follow their parents into joining political parties even if the positions change). Given that unlike the Democratic Party in the sixth party system they have virtually no one in the GOP that is on their side, I would expect that is what is driving his rise. He has tapped into that rage, but I'm not sure he can control it. To a large degree, I think that also explains the recent recurrence of Northern Know-Nothingism as well.

Again, you are talking social issues. The populists were mostly socially conservative economic liberals,

I would argue that the Progressives were socially conservative economic liberals, but they fell into both parties until about 1928 when the Democrats finally gobbled them up. I think that WW1 and the Presidencies of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover had something to do with that along with the split of the GOP in 1912. Prior to 1912 there were Progressive Republicans and Progressive Democrats.

many of whom were racists.

I would argue that most white men of that time would be considered to be racists today. The US at the time was a very racist society.

Several of their leaders latter became KKK members.

This was not limited to the Democrats. Indiana was basically controlled by the Klan and by the GOP. Though it could be argued that by that time any progressive elements in the GOP had been purged.

The Democratic party was indeed the party of the Southern White Man for the first 100 years of existence and so was an explicitly racist party, at least in the South. But they also embodied the Jacksonian distrust of the Money Power (= Wall Street today). In today's terms the populists can be thought of as a combination of working class Sanders supporters and working class Trump supporters. If you add working and middle class Latinos, Asians plus recent immigrants, and Cruz's Southern supporters, plus about 40% of SJWs you can get a feel for the Democratic party of 100 years ago. The rest go with the GOP, which is why they were the majority party.

Yes, I understand how the Second, Third and Fourth Party systems worked.

The Democrats have always been the crazy party. They had to be since the Republicans represented societies dominant factions, and so could be more cohesive in their ideology. Look at the New Deal coalition. Immigrant-hating Klansmen in the same party as immigrants, and which was attracting an increasing number of blacks.

I'd agree, but I wouldn't exactly call them crazy. Both Parties have always been collections of competing interests. Unlike Europe where parties are formed on the basis of (a) general ideological principle(s) the Parties in the US have always been fluctuating coalitions. This goes back to at least the Second Party system since it is potentially arguable that the Federalists had a general ideological principle even if the Democratic-Republicans (of which both parties would be called a split in Marxist-Leninist terms) did not.

WTF? But nowadays the GOP has the Southern white men, whose culture has permeated their party like it used to the Democrats. And so today the Republicans are the crazy party too.

The Republicans have always had their crazy elements, though those have shifted to the Democrats these days and the formerly Democratic crazy elements, of which the Dixiecrats are a substantial portion, have latched onto the GOP. I great deal of this I think has to do with Nixon's Southern Strategy and the rise of the Sixth Party System around 1968.

The parties often switch around, something Lincoln alluded to in a story about drunks and coats

Amusing. Lincoln had a way with words (I've read many of his letters and speeches), a trait that I fear is sorely lacking in the 21st century and even in the later half of the 20th. But then again Eric does accuse me of being a 19th Century man. I try to pretend he means by that both articulate and a deep thinker, but I know he's just attempting to say my views are obsolete (which they will not be until after the Mega-Saeculum passes away I believe).

Since my Grandmother's birth in 1921 (she's passed on now but I do use it sometimes as a frame of reference as I knew her much better than my 1913 cohort Great Uncle) there have been at least 3 Party systems to arise. Some would argue that from 1968-1980 was a Sixth Party System and since Reagan we're in the Seventh Party system. I would also argue that she was born into the world of what I sometimes call the Second Republic and died in the Third Republic.

Needless to say the parties are likely to switch again. Should Trump be elected and manage to pull off some sort of Right-Wing type of New Deal (and no I'm not holding my breath on that one--I actually think if he's elected he'd play a Buchanan role, though in his uniquely Trump way, and only serve one term) a new party system is likely to arise. In any case I fully expect that a Fourth Republic will be established before 2040.

The patterns of Republics in the US seem to strongly correlate with the Saeculums.

That is exactly how I feel. He just gives he the willies. Back in the 1990's I happened upon the Westboro God hate fags page. This one was blood red and when it came up I could almost feel the evil radiating from the page. I was startled and quickly went to another page. Years later I went back to their site. They had a new page with an animation of Mathew Shepard burning in hell with sound effects (screams). I felt nothing but mirth from this page. Cruz elicits a milder form of the response I had from that blood red webpage all those years ago.

The willies is a broad term. All I can say is that when I listen to Ted Cruz speak I feel as if I've been doused with a bucket of mucus. His manner is slimy or perhaps greasy would be a better adjective. He doesn't really make me angry because he never really says anything I don't expect him to say, it is just the way he says it that makes me uneasy. It is like playing poker with someone you suspect to have marked the deck.

Incidentally never play poker with someone who wears blue or red sunglasses. Though they have contacts for that too these days, though I've never encountered a sharp that has used them.

Yes, those Westboro people are lunatics.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No. The fed will flood the system with money, preventing a repeat of the 1930's. The country will muddle through, the GOP would lose the election, block anything the Dems try to do, and then come back stronger.

I disagree. All that will do is blow up an other asset bubble like the one we have currently. Money printing only would work to get out of a depression if it is given to main street and not the banks. The reason why is because depressions are a result of falls in aggregate demand, which is what drives the economy.

No again. America is a conservative nation. Long slow efforts bend right.

History would seem to indicate that America is actually a center-left country over all. You are confusing the revolutionaries of one century being the conservatives of the next for the nation being center-right.

Remember the basis for the revolution (not that I would call it a real revolution never having feudalism here) was an attempt to force a government monopoly of a large corporation on the public. Not something rightist types rebel against.

Yes it is. It is the nature of the terrain, always has been. What is called "progress" is largely achieved by the periodic crises, when the political structure is rearranged. Although they often involve internal war; they do not always (see the last one). The "political revolution" that Sanders is calling for is patently ridiculous, except when to happens.

By and large I agree with this partially. I would say that the country's history since 1789 can be divided into three separate Republics. The First Republic lasted from 1789-1865. The Second from 1865-1945. The Third 1945-Present. The First Republic collapsed into civil war because the issue of which layer had superiority wasn't answered at the end of the Revolutionary Saeculum 4T. The question of whether states or the Union was superior.

The Second Collapsed in economic depression because the issue left over from the civil war was whether or not the Federal Government had a right and/or duty to involve itself with the national economy, including but not limited all out war.

The Third Republic will be broken on the question of Empire and whether we can maintain that empire or if we ourselves will splinter when the Empire collapses as it must and as all empires do.

I would disagree, however, on Sander's calls for being ridiculous. I believe that Sander's call for a political revolution is the only chance we have to have the dissolution of the Third Republic and the rise of the Fourth Republic without an internal conflict. It is possible, though, that an internal conflict is already baked into the cake we all have to eat whether Sanders wins the Presidency or not.

No they won't. There is no incentive on the part of the Right to accept their surrender. Remember they are now Jacksonian Republicans, with the most belligerent factions of the two parties combined. They will accept nothing short of the elimination of the Democrats as a political force, like the Federalists and Whigs. Today's Democratic party are the true heirs of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, while the GOP are the heirs of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. It is they who should be having Jefferson-Jackson dinners.

The Corporate elite has a lot of power, but they too have to work within the existing political institutions. They like the status quo of having both parties doing their will much of the time. But this is no more stable that the New Deal coalition. With Donald Trump, you can see it beginning to crack.

The Anti-Federalists ultimately crash the Republic that the preside over. They always have. The Federalists and the Whigs still survive, though they are now called the Democrats and for some bizarre reason seem to think they are the political descendants of Jackson. I would say except for those few remaining purely Federalist elements everyone in America is contaminated with Jeffersonianism to some degree--including myself. I've actually used quotations from Jefferson as justification for Marxist Revolution in some of my writings, as is only natural for any American.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Expect for the inconvenient fact that the Florida Supreme Court had already ruled, but was overridden by the SCOTUS, your argument might make sense. This was all politics, and the inclusion of Bush-brother Jeb!, bulldog Katherine Harris and two rounds through the courts makes that more than clear.

The SCOTUS only overruled after an appeal. I'm not saying it was done right, but the process was followed. But yes I think we both agree that it was all politics.

Three problems here. First, declaring the canal zone as US territory is a lot less of a stretch than making the same argument for Canada. Second, John McCain had two US citizen parents -- one on active duty in the canal zone. Third, BHO would veto any attempt.

I agree on the first two.

On the third, BHO might not veto any attempt. Assuming that Cruz attempts to use a McCain Resolution like approach it could be (unlikely but possible) adopted by the Senate (with unanimous consent even being possible) as a resolution without being a joint resolution and as such would not be subject to Presidential Veto. I would argue that Cruz would be best served not trying this because unlike John McCain his own party doesn't like him very much so there is no guarantee that McConnell would let it hit the floor.

Should a Joint Resolution be tried, BHO may not veto it if it would rouse enough Democrats to override the veto (because they sense Cruz as being weaker than say Trump and Cruz has more GOP delegates headed into convention). That being said a Pocket Veto is possible because Congress is scheduled to adjourn for the Summer on 15 July. But should a Joint Resolution be necessary he'll want to have secured a majority of delegates first which means sometime after Super Tuesday (1 March) and the Session Adjournment. That gives Cruz April, May, June and maybe the first week of July to work it through the Congress.

McCain's resolution which was just a Senate Resolution took 20 calendar days to pass.

Then there is the chance that he may go with a court ruling, the federal courts are still packed with Bush appointees due to constant filibustering by the GOP.

If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated?

You’d be wrong.

In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.

That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.

My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.

Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations.

.......

So, those who say a Trump presidency “can’t happen here” should check their conventional wisdom at the door. The candidate has confounded conventional expectations this primary season because those expectations are based on an oversimplified caricature of the electorate in general and his supporters in particular. Conditions are ripe for an authoritarian leader to emerge. Trump is seizing the opportunity. And the institutions—from the Republican Party to the press—that are supposed to guard against what James Madison called “the infection of violent passions” among the people have either been cowed by Trump’s bluster or are asleep on the job.

It is time for those who would appeal to our better angels to take his insurgency seriously and stop dismissing his supporters as a small band of the dispossessed. Trump support is firmly rooted in American authoritarianism and, once awakened, it is a force to be reckoned with. That means it’s also time for political pollsters to take authoritarianism seriously and begin measuring it in their polls.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3xeEQ2MOk

I would say that the country's history since 1789 can be divided into three separate Republics. The First Republic lasted from 1789-1865. The Second from 1865-1945. The Third 1945-Present.

I believe Michael Lind came up with this idea .

The First Republic collapsed into civil war because the issue of which layer had superiority wasn't answered at the end of the Revolutionary Saeculum 4T. The question of whether states or the Union was superior.
The Second Collapsed in economic depression because the issue left over from the civil war was whether or not the Federal Government had a right and/or duty to involve itself with the national economy, including but not limited all out war.
The Third Republic will be broken on the question of Empire and whether we can maintain that empire or if we ourselves will splinter when the Empire collapses as it must and as all empires do.

You and I are thinking in remarkably parallel ways here. I believe each republic corresponds to a a modern version of a secular cycle. My dating is closer to yours than Linds: the secular cycles are roughly 1780-1870, 1870-1940 and 1940-?. The corresponding republics would be 1787-1861, 1861-1933, 1933- (dated from the end of the old regime) or 1789-1870, 1870-1945, 1945- (dated from the start of the new republic).
Note: 1870 refers to date 15^th Amendment ratified. I suspect you may have chosen 1865 to reflect the beginning of the creation of the new republic with the 13^th amendment

I would disagree, however, on Sander's calls for being ridiculous. I believe that Sander's call for a political revolution is the only chance we have to have the dissolution of the Third Republic and the rise of the Fourth Republic without an internal conflict.

I agree. By ridiculous I mean as not remotely politically viable in normal political times. The secular cycle concept says that each cycle ends with a “state collapse”. The period leading up to this is not a normal time and the ridiculous can happen.

The Anti-Federalists ultimately crash the Republic that the preside over. They always have. The Federalists and the Whigs still survive, though they are now called the Democrats and for some bizarre reason seem to think they are the political descendants of Jackson.

That is because they used to be before the coat change J

I would say except for those few remaining purely Federalist elements everyone in America is contaminated with Jeffersonianism to some degree--including myself. I've actually used quotations from Jefferson as justification for Marxist Revolution in some of my writings, as is only natural for any American.

Yep

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Truman was wise enough in his time. By 1952 the New Deal was spent. Today it should be the Reagan-Bush era that is spent -- except that it has the wealth and bureaucratic power behind it.

This is not a repeat of the time of the Truman presidency. Quite to the contrary this is a 4T in which the economic elites try to force the depraved economics of the 3T upon us, only harder, as a solution. Such is obviously a sham solution, one that will create more economic distress now and even promote another Great Depression.

I am not sure whether Eisenhower was more conservative than Stevenson. It is telling that Eisenhower won all Northeastern and Western states twice, including some (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island) that Republicans have won only in landslides since the 1920s. Ike did not run as a "real" Republican, the sort who praised the economics of Herbert Hoover.

All common sense says that Democrats should clobber any Republican who praises the economic and foreign policy of George Worthless Bush. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats did exactly that. But there's a huge difference: the economic elites still had the means with which to buy media attention and willing stooges to run for any political office, true believers in the vile conception that no human suffering is in excess if it turns a profit.

The Great Depression defanged the economic elites who, had they been given the chance, would have returned America to the economic principles of the Gilded Age. The Gilded Age that the elites of our time want has more sophisticated technology but the same vile social order. It also has great wealth and plenty of PR firms and political operatives to befuddle people willing to be fooled. "Pie in the sky when you die" is the same reward that America's economic elites offered in the 19th century as it does now.

People are suckers to believe that the way to Heaven is to suffer for rapacious plutocrats and commit their progeny to more of the same, especially when those elites do nothing to make Heaven so pleasant (should it exist). If those elites so believe that we have 'pie in the sky when you die' so long as we toil to exhaustion for near-starvation pay, then why don't they give up their lavish ways of life?

One thing is certain: Republicans are very much on message. The Republican Party means exactly the same thing in Oregon as it means in Oklahoma -- complete dominion of economic elites and subordination of anyone else.

Eisenhower won the way that he did because he was the Commanding General of most of the US troops who had fought in WWII and whom most of these troops (now GI Civics in civilian life) looked up to. And because the election happened during the Korean War, which had been the culmination to that time of the Cold War and which in 1952 was stalemated and from American's point of view, therefore going badly. Americans did not trust MacArthur (who wanted an expanded war and who had been badly humiliated by a Chinese attack he didin't see coming) and did not believe in Robert Taft's isolationism. And were very tired of the Democrats after having had a Dem in the White House for the last 20 years (almost the entire 4T). So everybody "liked Ike".

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated?

You’d be wrong.

In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.

That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.

My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.

Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations.

.......

So, those who say a Trump presidency “can’t happen here” should check their conventional wisdom at the door. The candidate has confounded conventional expectations this primary season because those expectations are based on an oversimplified caricature of the electorate in general and his supporters in particular. Conditions are ripe for an authoritarian leader to emerge. Trump is seizing the opportunity. And the institutions—from the Republican Party to the press—that are supposed to guard against what James Madison called “the infection of violent passions” among the people have either been cowed by Trump’s bluster or are asleep on the job.

It is time for those who would appeal to our better angels to take his insurgency seriously and stop dismissing his supporters as a small band of the dispossessed. Trump support is firmly rooted in American authoritarianism and, once awakened, it is a force to be reckoned with. That means it’s also time for political pollsters to take authoritarianism seriously and begin measuring it in their polls.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3xeEQ2MOk

So Trump is popular in the US for much the same reasons Putin is popular in Russia.
It makes sense. Authoritarianism can bring relative nobodies into power if they can capture the imagination of authoritarians. Napoleon. Hitler. Eisenhower (by position). Khomeinei (by position as religious leader). Abu Bakr al Bagdadi.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

Here are two overlays of elections to suggest how political loyalties can change. To be sure, any victor of a Presidential election is likely to have much of an overlay with any winner of Presidential landslides, but Barack Obama better fits an Eisenhower win (Ike won Massachusetts and Minnesota twice, states (Massachusetts) that Nixon lost in his 49-state landslide and that (Minnesota) Reagan lost in his 49-state landslide, or the even more-impressive FDR landslide of 1936 (Maine and Vermont were never in doubt for Obama). Also remarkable is that Barack Obama won Virginia, a state that never went for Carter or Clinton -- twice.

Take the Eisenhower wins of 1952 and 1956, and you see Obama winning practically the same states except Tennessee (which used to be the most liberal of Southern states), Mormon country, and the states that depend more upon ranching than upon farming for their agriculture. (The farm-ranch divide reflects the difference between the realities of rancher-hand relationship and the farmer-farmhand relationship. Ranchers must supply basic needs for ranch-hands; a dairy farm operates much like a factory with dairy workers working much like assembly-line workers). In 2008 Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower did not win twice; in 2012 President Obama got re-elected without winning any state that Ike did not win twice.

(Note: the source to which I make many contributions, Leip's Election Atlas, uses the archaic red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. I made these maps based on the device in Leip's site.



gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

I see similarities of temperament between Eisenhower and Obama, and I see both fitting the similar State political cultures, even if they could hardly have different curriculae vitae going into the Presidency. That both are Reactive politicians showing the virtues of Reactive Presidents (savviness, perceptiveness, and pragmatism) with few vices (neither is particularly amoral, unlearned, or uncultured).


Now, Carter vs. Obama:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012



Carter 1976, Obama twice red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost after 1988, and some states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas for at least 36 years (and the stretch will almost certainly continue this year).

I see Carter barely piecing the New Deal coalition one last time with mostly narrow wins. In 1976 the GI generation ranged in age from 52 to 75. In 1980 the GI generation had aged four years to a range from 56 to 79. The GI Generation underwent much attrition in those four years, and a very illiberal generation (Generation X) took its place. That Carter was a flawed and unlucky President had its obvious role in the election of Ronald Reagan.

Barack Obama in fact did well with GI voters... but not many were left in 2008 (aged 84 to 107), let alone 2012 (aged 88 to 111). He did spectacularly well with the Millennial Generation.

OK, so could a Republican nominee for President win almost all of the states in white on the Eisenhower-Obama overlay some year? Sure -- when it runs a moderate, pragmatic, slightly-conservative nominee. Or perhaps an electoral blowout when the Republican nominee wins 46 or so states.

Scenario: The Democrats have had two successive two-term Presidencies with Clinton or Sanders in between (one term, reasons of health). The Republicans run a war hero who says nothing to offend most moderates and the Democrats run "Adlai Stevenson V" who wins the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the First District of Maine.



gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956, Republican in other elections
tan -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956, Democratic in other elections
orange -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice, Adlai Stevenson V
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice, General X
deep blue -- Republican all five elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never, General X
dark green -- Adlai E. Stevenson II twice, Obama never General X
pink -- Adlai E. Stevenson II twice, Obama once, General X

Crazy? Maybe not. After all 2032 will likely be going into the middle of a 1T, and 4T politics will have gotten very stale.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

So Trump is popular in the US for much the same reasons Putin is popular in Russia.

Maybe. Authoritarians offer greatness without goodness, which is like offering fitness without exercise.

It makes sense. Authoritarianism can bring relative nobodies into power if they can capture the imagination of authoritarians. Napoleon. Hitler. Eisenhower (by position). Khomeinei (by position as religious leader). Abu Bakr al Bagdadi.

I'd replace Eisenhower with Benito Mussolini or Fidel Castro on that list. Eisenhower was merely 'authoritative'.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I believe Michael Lind came up with this idea .

I'm sure that Lind didn't. I first came across the idea trolling through the American Enterprise Institute archives some years ago. I've of course modified it a bit to make it more useful to my purposes.

You and I are thinking in remarkably parallel ways here. I believe each republic corresponds to a a modern version of a secular cycle. My dating is closer to yours than Linds: the secular cycles are roughly 1780-1870, 1870-1940 and 1940-?. The corresponding republics would be 1787-1861, 1861-1933, 1933- (dated from the end of the old regime) or 1789-1870, 1870-1945, 1945- (dated from the start of the new republic).
Note: 1870 refers to date 15^th Amendment ratified. I suspect you may have chosen 1865 to reflect the beginning of the creation of the new republic with the 13^th amendment

I do use the 13th Amendment as the creation point of the Second Republic because the right of Freedmen to vote was quickly suppressed. A right that only exists on paper can hardly be called a right.

I agree. By ridiculous I mean as not remotely politically viable in normal political times. The secular cycle concept says that each cycle ends with a “state collapse”. The period leading up to this is not a normal time and the ridiculous can happen.

Oh yeah there is no way in hell Sanders would be where he is now and gaining strength the way he is in "normal times". Ma is still convinced he won't be nominated, but I think differently. I told her "forget what you think you know, what has happened before isn't going to work now, and everyone knows it which explains both Sanders and Trump".

That is because they used to be before the coat change J

lol Yeah. It makes me wonder how he would feel about that?

Yep

It is unfortunate that Jefferson is quoted more than read. Same with Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville.