The author writes "Will Republicans become the new majority party that realigns America? I’m not yet sure. I do know Democrats, who seemed triumphant and positioned to recreate politics a year ago, no longer seem well-positioned or capable of re-engineering their party to meet the present moment."
The author writes "Will Republicans become the new majority party that realigns America? I’m not yet sure. I do know Democrats, who seemed triumphant and positioned to recreate politics a year ago, no longer seem well-positioned or capable of re-engineering their party to meet the present moment."
Republicans were established as the dominant party when a Republican won the 1988 election when another Republican was president, giving them three terms in a row. Republicans have won the presidency when another Republican was president multiple times before then, in 1928, 1908, 1880, 1876. They have also lost elections like this in 2008, 1960, and 1884 for an overall score of 5 wins and 3 loses. Democrats have also had 8 elections in which a Democrat was running when another Democrat was president. They lost all 8: 2024, 2016, 2000, 1968, 1952, 1920, 1896, and 1868. Not only that but there have been four elections in which the party with the most votes did not win, Democrats lost all four of these too.
So no, Democrats have not ever been triumphant in the sense where they can extend their period in power with a new candidate, whereas Republicans have. This is a huge advantage, and it has nothing to do with Democrats being woke, because Republicans had it when they were progressives, and the Democrats were the conservative party. Add to this the "House advantage" of ties going to the Republicans and it is amazing that Democrats have been able to as many elections as they did since the Civil War.
The key to Democratic victories has been the Republican propensity to screw up economically. Democrats got their day in the sun when the economy collapsed on Hoover's watch, and FDR won the 1932 election. Rather than handing power back to the Republicans in 1940, he decided to run himself for a third and fourth term, taking advantage of the fact that Democratic *incumbents* can win. FDR then died in office allow his VP to win a 5th Democratic term as an incumbent (any other candidate would have lost, as happened in 1952).
Democrats lost in 2024 because they did not have a healthy incumbent to run and they cannot win any other way. Why do you think Biden tried to run? Over and over again he said only he could beat Trump, but he couldn't either, so Democrats were doomed in 2024 just as they were in 2016. In contrast, Republicans will need to run someone other than the incumbent in 2028, in which they still have a decent chance of winning--unless Trump screws up, for which Republicans have a penchant* (e.g. 1992, 2008 and 2020). Having faith that Trump has the right stuff for failure, I think Democrats will probably win in 2028.
*Having these advantages makes a party sloppy. FDR's success gave Democrats an advantage (Nixon lost in 1960, where Eisenhower would have won handily had he been allowed a third time) and Dems got sloppy. Kennedy-Johnson cut taxes and started a war of choice, collapsing the Bretton Woods system three years after they left office. GWBush decided, hey! we can do better than Kennedy by cutting taxes TWICE and starting TWO wars of choice, and so managed to wreck things while still in office. Trump has been handing out the sledgehammers to his crew. He has a tall order, can he in just four years fuck things up enough to make Kennedy and Bush look like pikers?
According to this model, the election of reconstructive president Reagan began a new dispensation that will not end until we get another reconstructive president which hasn’t happened since. The centerpiece of the Reagan Revolution was supply-side tax cuts (cuts on taxes in investment and on high-income individuals) which continues to be advanced to this very day (Trump has promised yet more reductions) and so the Revolution is still ongoing.
I believe this is more than enough to establish my contention that the Republican party has been dominant since 1981.
I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing, which makes it hard to respond! I'm not sure how you're measuring what's a majority party, etc. It's not well-defined without an entire explanation of the model you're working through about how American politics works.
In America's two-party system, both parties are also going to trade the presidency somewhat, even when one party has the advantage just due to the structure of the system. In the middle twentieth century after FDR, Democratic ideas were so dominant the Democrats held the House and Senate almost the entire period, and the House for 40 consecutive years and the Senate for 26 during the period. Yet Republicans still elected Eisenhower to two terms, and briefly held the house and senate for two 2-term stints. At the same time, Eisenhower was operating entirely under the other party's ideas, slowing their progress instead of enacting Republican ideas.
It would help if you explained the model you're working on for calling something dominant. It would take a long time (probably another article, which maybe I should write!) to explain the model I'm talking about. American political eras tend to either have a majority and opposition party (twentieth century R and D) or two dueling ideas (late nineteenth century Progressive era). The difference isn't who wins more, but whose ideas are dominant. Are we competing over one party's ideas, with the other party defined in opposition, or do we have two sets of entirely different competing ideas.
It’s really complicated because everything affects everything else. It’s frustrating because I can’t just go into the lab and try things out. Social science doesn’t work that way. But it is also fascinating. :)
The author writes "Will Republicans become the new majority party that realigns America? I’m not yet sure. I do know Democrats, who seemed triumphant and positioned to recreate politics a year ago, no longer seem well-positioned or capable of re-engineering their party to meet the present moment."
Republicans were established as the dominant party when a Republican won the 1988 election when another Republican was president, giving them three terms in a row. Republicans have won the presidency when another Republican was president multiple times before then, in 1928, 1908, 1880, 1876. They have also lost elections like this in 2008, 1960, and 1884 for an overall score of 5 wins and 3 loses. Democrats have also had 8 elections in which a Democrat was running when another Democrat was president. They lost all 8: 2024, 2016, 2000, 1968, 1952, 1920, 1896, and 1868. Not only that but there have been four elections in which the party with the most votes did not win, Democrats lost all four of these too.
So no, Democrats have not ever been triumphant in the sense where they can extend their period in power with a new candidate, whereas Republicans have. This is a huge advantage, and it has nothing to do with Democrats being woke, because Republicans had it when they were progressives, and the Democrats were the conservative party. Add to this the "House advantage" of ties going to the Republicans and it is amazing that Democrats have been able to as many elections as they did since the Civil War.
The key to Democratic victories has been the Republican propensity to screw up economically. Democrats got their day in the sun when the economy collapsed on Hoover's watch, and FDR won the 1932 election. Rather than handing power back to the Republicans in 1940, he decided to run himself for a third and fourth term, taking advantage of the fact that Democratic *incumbents* can win. FDR then died in office allow his VP to win a 5th Democratic term as an incumbent (any other candidate would have lost, as happened in 1952).
Democrats lost in 2024 because they did not have a healthy incumbent to run and they cannot win any other way. Why do you think Biden tried to run? Over and over again he said only he could beat Trump, but he couldn't either, so Democrats were doomed in 2024 just as they were in 2016. In contrast, Republicans will need to run someone other than the incumbent in 2028, in which they still have a decent chance of winning--unless Trump screws up, for which Republicans have a penchant* (e.g. 1992, 2008 and 2020). Having faith that Trump has the right stuff for failure, I think Democrats will probably win in 2028.
*Having these advantages makes a party sloppy. FDR's success gave Democrats an advantage (Nixon lost in 1960, where Eisenhower would have won handily had he been allowed a third time) and Dems got sloppy. Kennedy-Johnson cut taxes and started a war of choice, collapsing the Bretton Woods system three years after they left office. GWBush decided, hey! we can do better than Kennedy by cutting taxes TWICE and starting TWO wars of choice, and so managed to wreck things while still in office. Trump has been handing out the sledgehammers to his crew. He has a tall order, can he in just four years fuck things up enough to make Kennedy and Bush look like pikers?
sic transit gloria mundi
No, the Republicans have not been the dominant party since the 1980s. Franks’s analysis is better than yours.
Republicans have held Presidency 28 out of 48 years (58%)
The Senate: 24 out of 46 years (52%) and the House: 24 out of 46 years (52%) for an overall 52% control of the Legislative branch
The Fed Chief has been a Republican 36 out of 46 years (78%)
Republican appointees have comprised the majority of Supreme Court Justices every year since 1980. The median Justice has been conservative 36 of 44 years (82%) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices#/media/File:Graph_of_number_of_sitting_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices_appointed_by_Republican_and_Democratic_presidents.png
I average the 3 branches of the Federal government to get 65%.
Add in Republican domination of Federal Reserve and things like legalization of stock buybacks by Reagan and declining tax rates on capital (average of capital gains and corporate rates) which is associated with declining investment of profits in favor of share buybacks: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F256392ca-fa28-4b59-86d3-d93102c7a419_621x289.gif
plus declining top income tax rate since 1981 https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb0febab2-3c5e-41c7-8a20-55fe23f998fc_441x154.gif
and one can conclude that control of the “high seats of our civilization” that control of the political-economy, has favored Republicans since 1981.
I use the Skowronek concept of political time in which periods favorable to one or the other party shifts in what I call dispensations: https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-a-political-dispensation
According to this model, the election of reconstructive president Reagan began a new dispensation that will not end until we get another reconstructive president which hasn’t happened since. The centerpiece of the Reagan Revolution was supply-side tax cuts (cuts on taxes in investment and on high-income individuals) which continues to be advanced to this very day (Trump has promised yet more reductions) and so the Revolution is still ongoing.
I believe this is more than enough to establish my contention that the Republican party has been dominant since 1981.
I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing, which makes it hard to respond! I'm not sure how you're measuring what's a majority party, etc. It's not well-defined without an entire explanation of the model you're working through about how American politics works.
In America's two-party system, both parties are also going to trade the presidency somewhat, even when one party has the advantage just due to the structure of the system. In the middle twentieth century after FDR, Democratic ideas were so dominant the Democrats held the House and Senate almost the entire period, and the House for 40 consecutive years and the Senate for 26 during the period. Yet Republicans still elected Eisenhower to two terms, and briefly held the house and senate for two 2-term stints. At the same time, Eisenhower was operating entirely under the other party's ideas, slowing their progress instead of enacting Republican ideas.
It would help if you explained the model you're working on for calling something dominant. It would take a long time (probably another article, which maybe I should write!) to explain the model I'm talking about. American political eras tend to either have a majority and opposition party (twentieth century R and D) or two dueling ideas (late nineteenth century Progressive era). The difference isn't who wins more, but whose ideas are dominant. Are we competing over one party's ideas, with the other party defined in opposition, or do we have two sets of entirely different competing ideas.
I linked to this post:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-a-political-dispensation
A broader treatment of political evolution is here:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/political-evolution-in-the-us
But political evolution is intertwined with economic evolution
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-economic-culture-evolves
It’s really complicated because everything affects everything else. It’s frustrating because I can’t just go into the lab and try things out. Social science doesn’t work that way. But it is also fascinating. :)