Compare/contrast American Presidential elections

[pbrower2a]

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

It may be premature, but I expect historians to hold Eisenhower and Obama similar in quality.

Despite the great differences in curriculae vitae, Eisenhower and Obama seem to have something very much in common: both are members of Reactive generations. 60-ish Reactives (George Washington, John Adams, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower) may be the best sorts of leaders that Reactive leaders can be: cautious, mellow, respectful of precedent, and more trusting in legality than in the contemporary passion. Even if Barack Obama is one of the youngest Presidents ever elected and won't reach or surpass 60 as President (barring an amendment to undo the 22nd Amendment) he seems to act like someone in his sixties.

(The worst Reactive leaders are amoral, angry, cynical, bigoted leaders with an agenda of seeking revenge against real and imagined personal enemies -- like Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong, puppets of tyrannical leaders such as Vidkun Quisling and Mátyás Rákosi, and such brutal functionaries of tyrants as Andrei Vishinsky and  Lavrenti Beria). When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress.

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.


 
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.

(This site uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans... I do not make waves about that in that website).

To be sure, one would expect any winning President to win almost entirely states that FDR won in 1936 (all then voting except Vermont and Maine), that Nixon won in 1972 (all but Massachusetts), or Reagan won in 1980 (all but Minnesota).  But the overlay between Obama and Eisenhower fits far better includes all four such states that FDR, Nixon, and Reagan won in nearly-complete wins of the entire USA. As another coincidence, Eisenhower was the first Republican to win Virginia since 1928 (24 years) and Obama was the first Democrat to win the Old Dominion since 1964 (44 years) -- and both won the state twice.   


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. Barring a major realignment of the states in partisan identity or an electoral blowout, Republicans are unlikely to win more than a state or two in white and Democrats are unlikely to win more than a state or two in yellow for the next couple of decades..

[pbrower2a]

Sometimes a contrast between sets of elections shows more about the states than about changes in the Parties and intervening events. America went through the historical wringer between 1928 and 1952.

Herbert Hoover 1928 (promise of a New Era of unprecedented and lasting prosperity) vs. Dwight Eisenhower 1950's who promised much the same as Hoover did in 1928... but delivered.

Al Smith got clobbered badly, and the slogan "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" that the Republican Party used against him showed what Smith won -- heavily-Catholic Massachusetts and Rhode Island, some former Confederate States, and all states in which alcoholic beverages were legal (on the latter, none -- Prohibition was the law and a joke in 1928).  



Hoover 1928, Eisenhower twice -- blue
Smith 1928, Eisenhower twice -- white

Hoover 1928, Stevenson twice -- yellow
Hoover 1928, Eisenhower once -- light green
Smith 1928, Stevenson twice -- red

Ike must not have had a problem with the Catholic vote.

Other than that, the correspondences after 24 to 28 years are eerie. That is after the worst economic meltdown in American history, the pervasive creation of new American institutions to meet the economic disaster, the biggest war in American history, and successful Presidencies of the other Party over twenty years. Stevenson won 'back' the Southern racists who deserted Harry Truman in 1948 but lost much more in return. If Carter to Obama is the 2T/3T cusp to the 3T/4T cusp, then Hoover to Eisenhower is from the free-wheeling phase of a 3T to a comparatively-placid 1T.

Partisan identity within and among states can be stable when Democrats win two close elections 16 years apart. As in the previous map, a mass of states in blue and red shows partisan stability even if the politicians and times are different, as between the prospect of a New Era (3T falling apart but hardly anyone knowing it vs. an entrenched 1T) or the nearly-euphoric end of a 1T against the near-end of an Awakening Era.

Kennedy 1960. Carter 1976. Two close elections sixteen years apart.



Kennedy and Carter -- red
not voting -- Carter -- gray (DC)
uncommitted and Carter -- orange (Alabama 5 for Kennedy, 6 for Byrd in electoral votes)
Kennedy and Ford -- green
Nixon and Carter -- yellow
not voting -- Carter -- gray (DC)

Alabama is split Kennedy/Byrd.

Possible interpretation: Kennedy largely put the New Deal Coalition back for the Democrats and Carter in 1976 was the Last Hurrah of the New Deal Coalition.

---

We can also draw conclusions of the last six Presidential elections (1992 to 2012).




deep blue -- all elections for the Republican
medium blue --  all but one election for the Republican (but once for Obama)
pale blue -- all but once for the Republicans (but once for Clinton)
deep green -- Clinton twice, but Obama losing by more than 10% twice
medium green -- Clinton twice, Obama barely losing once
yellow -- Clinton once, Obama twice
tan -- Clinton never, Obama twice
medium red -- all but one election for the Democrat
deep red -- all elections for the Democrat

white -- always went for the winner  (Clinton twice, George W. Bush twice, Obama)

When the state last voted for the losing nominee:



2012
2004
2000
1996
1992
1976

Ohio hasn't voted for the loser of the Presidential election since 1960.

Even more telling: the last time a State voted against a winner who got 350 or more electoral votes. That is partisanship at the time -- voting for electoral failures!



2008 *
1996
1992
1988*
1980
1944
1932

WV voted against George H W Bush in 1988 and against Barack Obama in 2008.

---

Independent candidate John Anderson in the 1980 election got only 6.61% of the vote, but with the arguable exception of Ross Perot (who seemed to pick off voters largely from the center-right)  he was the only third-party or independent Presidential nominee to get votes out of the political center since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Anderson did not win any states at all in 1980; he did not even come close. For people who thought Jimmy Carter simply a failure and Reagan too strident for their tastes, he seemed a good choice.

His vote (in green) largely seems like a portent of the part of the electorate that could have voted for Republicans in landslides as in 1972 and 1984, but perhaps vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012. The connection does not seem so obvious in 1992 or 1996. In the first map I ignore the votes for Carter and Reagan, which represent core loyalties and an assessment of who had failed and who promised better.




John Anderson electoral amount

under 2.5%.....20% saturation
2.5-4.5%.........30% saturation
4.5-6.61%.......40% saturation

6.61% -- national average
6.61%-8.5%....50% saturation
8.5%-10%.......60% saturation
10%-12.5%.....70% saturation
12.5% or more  80% saturation

Below, intensity relates how well Anderson did in 1980. Red is for a Democratic win and blue is for a Democratic win (as was the norm in the 1980 and in the mapping tool that I have adopted from some other website):

Now... how the states went in 1992, the first Democratic win for President since 1976:



1996:



Now... how the states went in 2000, the closest Presidential election in over 100 years Red - Democratic, blue -- Republican. Intensity shows how Anderson did:



2004, in another close election:

---

Now 2008. One of the observations of Anderson voters was that they were decidedly above average in formal education. Until 2004 the common logic was that the more educated one was the more likely one was to vote Republican. The connection between formal education and Republican voting was no longer valid  in 2008 and 2012.  



(NE-02 of course went for Obama contrary to Nebraska as a whole)

2012:




Note the paucity of states in pale-red or dark blue colors both times. (Again, red is Democratic and blue is Democratic as used to be the convention. Intensity shows how the states went for Anderson in 1980. As a general rule, where Anderson did best in 1980, so did Obama in 2008 and 2012.

---

Now, Eisenhower vs. Clinton. Clinton's wins in 1992 and 1996 aren't far from the results for Obama in 2008. But do Clinton wins resemble Eisenhower wins? Not as well.

Here is Eisenhower vs. Obama again:



gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Eisenhower twice, Clinton once
yellow -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
red-- Stevenson twice, Clinton twice
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.

(This site uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans... I do not make waves about that in that website).

Now, Eisnhower and Clinton:




gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Clinton twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Eisenhower twice, Clinton once
yellow-- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Clinton twice
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Clinton never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Clinton once
red -- went Democratic in all four elections (Stevenson twice, Clinton twice).

---

100 years apart, overlay between William Howard Taft and Barack Obama, 1908/2008.

Taft ® 51.6/321 - Bryan (D) 43.0/162 - Debs (S) 2.8/0
Obama (D) 52.9/365- McCain ® 45.6/173

Similar percentages of the electoral vote for the winners. a hundred years later, Obama was winning much the same states as Taft, although their Parties were winning nearly the opposite sets of states.



Taft/ McCain blue
Taft/Obama yellow
Bryan/Obama red
Bryan/McCain green

Bryan won all of the former secessionist states, Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Nevada.  Bryan won seven states by 9% or less; Taft won six states by 9% or less.  Other states were blow-outs.

Clearly different in 1908 from a century later: Alaska, Arizona, Dee Cee,  Hawaii, and New Mexico weren't voting. There was no television or even radio in 1908. Above all, several Southern states did not have free and fair elections (blacks were effectively barred from voting).

Now what if the polarization is on the side of the winner?

FDR (D) 53.4/432 - Dewey ® 45.9/99  
Obama (D) 52.9/365- McCain ® 45.6/173

Arizona and New Mexico were voting this time; radio (but not TV) was very much a part of American life. America was well unified in a war going very well in 1944.  Alaska and Hawaii, let alone the District of Columbia, would not vote in 1944. Several states in the South still had no free elections.



FDR/Obama
FDR/McCain
Dewey/McCain
Dewey/Obama

FDR lost only four states by 14% or more, and only three by 5% to 9% (none between 9% to 14%).  His other losses were by 5% or less. He won the other 41 states at the time. Nine were by 5% or less, and another five by 5% to 9%. He won the 22 others by 9% or more.

It is enough to know that Barack Obama won enough states to win with the tipping-point state as Iowa, which he won by 9.54%. He had Reagan-like margins in his wins but Mondale-like losses in many states that he lost. Obama lost fourteen states by 14% or more.

America was terribly rifted in 2008. The 1944 election is a ratification of the successes of one of the most effective Presidents ever. People may disagree on who the greatest, second-greatest, and third-greatest Presidents were, but in some order those are Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. The 2008 election followed a President whose sole success was in getting re-elected.

Also posted here. Definitely not plagiarized.

I do much posting here on American elections.

[FLBones]

Clinton will be elected but be a one term president, leading to a Republican win in 2020. I do think the economy will do well the rest of the year but by 2018, we'll be in a recession. We could see a war break out between 2018-2022. 2016-2022 will be crazy times. The economy will begin to boom in the 2020s and we'll enter the 1T around 2026 when the oldest Millennials begin to enter midlife. The new social order will be in place.

[pbrower2a]

This election may mark the end of American democracy. We may never have another free election.

As of 2017 what will be the difference between America and Russia?

We speak English here.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump wins dictatorial power with a stooge Congress:




It was close, but liberals are shut out of any relevance in the absolute plutocracy that America becomes ion January 2017 and may be until its dissolution. It was amazingly close. Trump won all the really close states.

[Warren Dew]

One could argue that Trump simply had a better run campaign. He was campaigning in all the really close states at the end, while Clinton was neglecting half of them and spending a lot of time campaigning in states that were not close.

Or one could argue that is was a realigning election with respect to the upper midwest. One could say it was the "northern strategy".

[Galen]

(11-14-2016, 02:13 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: One could argue that Trump simply had a better run campaign.  He was campaigning in all the really close states at the end, while Clinton was neglecting half of them and spending a lot of time campaigning in states that were not close.

Or one could argue that is was a realigning election with respect to the upper midwest.  One could say it was the "northern strategy".

Trump had way more campaign appearances than Clinton did.  I have considered that lack to be evidence in favor of Clinton having and serious undisclosed chronic health issue.  Hillary had trouble filling a school gym and Trump was consistently filling stadiums and ended up turning people away.  Its ironic they got the Republican they wanted to run against and still managed to lose.

If the Democrats continue to refuse to learn from their mistakes then that could very well be the outcome.  If at the end of four or eight years the economic conditions of people in those states improve then that is a very likely outcome.

If Sargon of Akkad is right then they won't learn anything.

[Eric the Green]

And we know however that Trump kept Hitler's book next to his bed, and read and absorbed its lessons.

We know that the first step in dumbing down America is to replace the public schools with a voucher program for private schools. The Republicans have been pushing this for decades, along with libertarians, and succeeding in Middle America (but not CA). It sounds OK, but ending public schools means that the vouchers can be reduced or turned off too, and the public has no control. Who pays for all that's needed in a school? Individual responsibility, right? So, teachers and students must provide all the materials, and teaching standards are left up more often to the schools. Most of the private schools are religious schools. A country of private schools is education only for the wealthy. An uneducated public will be easy prey for the "populists" who are not populists, but only the most popular. But why not? After all, public schools is socialism, right?

http://www.nea.org/home/16970.htm

There are many ways that the Republicans and New Democrats have used to dumb down the people. For example, removing the fairness doctrine meant that radio talk shows could be as slanted and biased as they wanted to be. Concentration of media has meant taking away public affairs from the radio entirely, except for right-wing talk shows that boost public support for the corporate world that owns them. The media cabal have largely reduced TV news to entertainment. Now even the best network news only featured news for the first half of the program, and ABC has reduced real news to almost zero. Pundit talk shows are disappearing on PBS, and news magazine shows have become solely entertainment outlets, whether crime stories or entertainment news.

[pbrower2a]

Please --  let's take the discussion of the election itself (unless it is of a comparison with another election in American history) to some other, if necessary, new thread.  If you believe as Eric or I do that the dumbing-down of the American electorate or the debasement of the intellectual content of American politics singly or together degrade the quality of the choices that Americans end up with, then let us take the discussion there. I intend to do so with my post with the Hitler citation.

Here.

[pbrower2a]

(11-14-2016, 02:13 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: One could argue that Trump simply had a better run campaign.  He was campaigning in all the really close states at the end, while Clinton was neglecting half of them and spending a lot of time campaigning in states that were not close.

Or one could argue that is was a realigning election with respect to the upper midwest.  One could say it was the "northern strategy".

Donald Trump ran a ruthless campaign, one that exploited mass distress with promises of a secret cure. The secret cure is the demolition of 90 years of social progress while most of the profit is reshaped into easy collection of exorbitant rents and monopoly profits, with other ways of making money more than enough for an standard of existence impossible. In such a world, even small business has no chance unless it is outright crime. Now that many Americans know what the secret is, they might not like it.

Realignment? We shall see in 2020. If it is a realignment, then I am glad that I have no children or grandchildren to suffer in a new manifestation of feudalism in which great suffering is for the many and great indulgence is for the few. Even that could be temporary.

I see evidence that Donald Trump is unpopular in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania in statewide polls and that even in a district poll (Paul Ryan's WI-01) that in a safe Republican district, Trump and Ryan both have but middling support.

Fluke elections (1976?) happen, and fluke elections generally aren't replicable in the next general election.

[Eric the Green]

I would argue that 1980 was a fluke election, and the handsome actor beat the "malaise" president just because he was charming. But the fluke has lasted 40 years.

[Kinser79]

(03-14-2017, 12:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would argue that 1980 was a fluke election, and the handsome actor beat the "malaise" president just because he was charming. But the fluke has lasted 40 years.

A "fluke" that lasts that long is not a fluke.

[pbrower2a]

(03-14-2017, 02:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-14-2017, 12:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would argue that 1980 was a fluke election, and the handsome actor beat the "malaise" president just because he was charming. But the fluke has lasted 40 years.

A "fluke" that lasts that long is not a fluke.

Even I can agree with that. 1976 was the fluke because one of the weakest campaigners ran against an even weaker campaigner.

Demographic trends can work against President Trump. Bait-and-switch is bad policy. But we shall see in 2020, right?

...I have no idea of to what I can compare the 2016 election.

[Galen]

(03-14-2017, 03:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-14-2017, 02:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-14-2017, 12:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would argue that 1980 was a fluke election, and the handsome actor beat the "malaise" president just because he was charming. But the fluke has lasted 40 years.

A "fluke" that lasts that long is not a fluke.

Even I can agree with that. 1976 was the fluke because one of the weakest campaigners ran against an even weaker campaigner.

Demographic trends can work against President Trump. Bait-and-switch is bad policy.

There was no way that any Republican was going to win after Watergate and the Nixon pardon.  Ford was destined to be a placeholder and only known for being the only president never to have been elected as president or vice-president.

[Kinser79]

(03-14-2017, 03:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-14-2017, 02:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-14-2017, 12:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would argue that 1980 was a fluke election, and the handsome actor beat the "malaise" president just because he was charming. But the fluke has lasted 40 years.

A "fluke" that lasts that long is not a fluke.

Even I can agree with that. 1976 was the fluke because one of the weakest campaigners ran against an even weaker campaigner.

Demographic trends can work against President Trump. Bait-and-switch is bad policy. But we shall see in 2020, right?

...I have no idea of to what I can compare the 2016 election.

The old "Demographics will save the Dims" meme I see.

I have a crazy idea.  Lets just say we start enforcing our immigration law, and this causes tightness in the job markets.  Suddenly lots of people will suddenly have something to lose, and immigrants and more likely the children of immigrants will start assimilating.  When that happens they have something to "conserve" and then become "conserve-ative".

As such what could just as easily happen is the GOP's base is permanently expanded.  But if you want the Dims to stay around y'all can have the NeoCon trash.  Their ideology originated in y'all's thinktanks anyway.

[freivolk]

(03-14-2017, 03:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...I have no idea of to what I can compare the 2016 election.

Propably the Civil War/Gilden Age elections from 1860 till 1888 work best. The GOP political dominates by concentrating on one section/group (then: the North; today: the white vote), the Dems are a diverse coaltion of the underprivileged (then: the South, catholic immigrants; today:Afro-Americans, Hispanics). The elections are close and there is often a diveregence between popular vote and Electoral college.

[Eric the Green]

On the saeculum schedule, as I see, it, 2016 compares to 1852. Similar non-entities to Trump were elected in 1852 and 1856, whose incompetence led by the predominant party of the old order created the conditions for a national break-up.

[Eric the Green]

(03-14-2017, 03:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-14-2017, 02:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-14-2017, 12:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would argue that 1980 was a fluke election, and the handsome actor beat the "malaise" president just because he was charming. But the fluke has lasted 40 years.

A "fluke" that lasts that long is not a fluke.

Even I can agree with that. 1976 was the fluke because one of the weakest campaigners ran against an even weaker campaigner.

Demographic trends can work against President Trump. Bait-and-switch is bad policy. But we shall see in 2020, right?

...I have no idea of to what I can compare the 2016 election.

Jimmy Carter was not a weak campaigner. He ran a good campaign in 1976, and won. But by focusing on "the national malaise" while in office, and seemingly unable to control events, he was not as convincing as a speaker and communicator as the charming actor was. The fluke was in 1980, because an unqualified, charming actor-candidate (Reagan) was able to convince a gullible public to vote for image and style and a phony ideology over substance. Unfortunately, that fluke has yet to be corrected.

You could say that the "fluke" is an American public that has been dumbed-down and made gullible in the last 40 years (counting up to 2020 by including the biggest phony, unqualified TV-star-president of them all, who just continues the Reagan flukery).

[freivolk]

(03-20-2017, 01:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: On the saeculum schedule, as I see, it, 2016 compares to 1852. Similar non-entities to Trump were elected in 1852 and 1856, whose incompetence led by the predominant party of the old order created the conditions for a national break-up.

Its historical incredible ignorant to compare Buchanan and Pierce to Trump. Buchanan looked back at 36 years in various offices, including secretary of state. You simply couldn´t be more political establishment then James Buchanan. And in this he is very comparable to Clinton. Buchanan and Pierce were very competent in the old ways to game the political system, they simply didn´t realized that the old rules didn´t worked anymore. Trump is a poltical outsider, who´s election blows the system up. This makes him comparable to Fremont and Lincoln. The problem is, he just is no Lincoln. The election may be a alternate version of 1856, where Fremont beats to everyones surprize Buchanan.

[Eric the Green]

(03-20-2017, 06:26 PM)freivolk Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 01:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: On the saeculum schedule, as I see, it, 2016 compares to 1852. Similar non-entities to Trump were elected in 1852 and 1856, whose incompetence led by the predominant party of the old order created the conditions for a national break-up.

Its historical incredible ignorant to compare Buchanan and Pierce to Trump. Buchanan looked back at 36 years in various offices, including secretary of state. You simply couldn´t be more political establishment then James Buchanan. And in this he is very comparable to Clinton. Buchanan and Pierce were very competent in the old ways to game the political system, they simply didn´t realized that the old rules didn´t worked anymore. Trump is a poltical outsider, who´s election blows the system up. This makes him comparable to Fremont and Lincoln. The problem is, he just is no Lincoln. The election may be a alternate version of 1856, where Fremont beats to everyones surprize Buchanan.

You certainly can't be more Establishment than Donald Trump. Today, the "political" "Establishment" is not the Establishment, unless it's the Republican representatives of the Establishment. The Establishment is the big money elite that gets all the breaks from our Republican and neo-liberal DINO politicians like Trump-- the big money elite who own everything in America and run everything.

Pierce and Buchanan are comparable to Trump, because they represent business as usual for today: the trickle-down economics that has caused our country to slide toward a break-up or worse. In this, Trump is very similar to Buchanan and Pierce. Trump is gaming the system, using the same old slogans, except more explicitly. Blowing the dog whistle of "less government" which really means "screw the poor," especially if they are not "real Americans" (white Christians). In this Trump is also like the Know Nothing Party which ran Millard Fillmore in this same period. It really means, "screw everybody but Donald Trump."

Trump only blows the system up, if the resistance to him revs up. Otherwise, just business as usual. Just let business have all the breaks. Close down government agencies that help people to protect themselves from the corporate state. Trump may be a "political outsider," but that means nothing, because his policies are nothing but political insider policies. Favor the rich, screw everyone else. That's been what US politics has been about for 40 years now.

I hope Trump is not Fremont. He was the first presidential politician of a new political party, the same one that now represents the elite, and a Party which needs to die in this 4T, IF it is to be any kind of regeneracy.

You name the issue, and Drump represents what is wrong and needs to die. Wall Street corruption and greed, nationalist racism, cuts to social and community programs, tax breaks for the wealthy, deregulation on steroids (including appointing wolves to guard henhouses), militarism and the MIC, corruption and big money in politics, culture wars, etc. The only issue he had some sense about, trade, appears to be nothing but a ruse about which he is doing nothing and probably will screw up on. Even his vaunted "infrastructure" plan doesn't exist, replaced by more cuts.