Now that we’ve had time to recover from the shell shock of 2008 and assure ourselves that everything is going to be okay, it’s time to get depressed again. Specifically, the object of our depression is a political science concept known as the presidential party system. We tend to think of presidential contests as being highly individualized affairs, but in truth over time they tend to follow periods of dominance by one party or another for a fixed and empirical length. An analysis of these shows us that, by most probable permutations, we could be in for a VERY long winter indeed.

Political scientists recognize there to have been 5 or more presidential party systems in our history, depending on how they view the first few elections and the contemporary ones. All agree upon the Jacksonian system, which lasted from 1828 to 1860, the Reconstruction/Gilded Age system, which lasted from 1860 to 1896, the National Republican system, which lasted from 1896 to 1932, and the New Deal system, which lasted from 1932 to 1968. The similarities in outcome from each of these systems is amazing. They all lasted between 32-36 years, with 36 years being the modal set. They all were characterized by a dominant party winning most presidential elections with the opposition party capturing no more than two such contests during the system. And, all have similar characteristics of electoral breakdown from year to year.

Having established all that, it’s time to look at our current system. Since 1968 experts have agreed that the New Deal system is over, and that some sort of system has existed since 1968. The problem is we don’t know if we’re still in that system or not. The system began when a schism over Johnson’s civil rights policies broke the south in a very fundamental way off of the Democratic block, and Nixon was later able to solidify that hold, except for the Carter hiccup, on the southern states for the Republican party. The blowout victories of Reagan and Bush were built on that same coalition. The problem, now, is one of timing. Presidential systems really only have so long that they last, and it’s been 40 years since 1968. That begs the question, are we still in d**k Nixon’s system, or are we in a new system altogether?

The likelihood that we’re still in d**k Nixon’s presidential system is remote. It would be totally without precedent in the history of presidential systems. That leaves us with option that somewhere a new system started and there is a new demarcating line to be drawn. Where that line is drawn can leave our party in a fairly grim position.

Chronologically, the first option is that d**k Nixon’s system was unusually short. That would place the start point of the new system at 1992 with Clinton’s win. This would make Nixon’s system only a 24 year system, which would be short beyond precedent for a presidential system. However, an argument could be made here, since 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988 were all major blowouts that transcended our understanding of a Red State-Blue State system. That would leave the Nixon system short, but with a much more national character. It would also place us 16 years into a Democratic presidential system. That would portend a two term Obama administration, and then at least one more Democratic president. It’s not the happiest of outcomes, but at least we’d be halfway through.

The second option is that Nixon’s system came to an end in 2000. That would make it a 32 year long system, and would reflect the tendency of opposition parties to win their victories during systems thanks to a party schism (thank you Mr. Perot). The stumbling block is that rarely do parties demonstrate weakness so soon after starting a new party system. Jackson at least slid the Van Buren administration in before the Whigs poked a hole in the Democrats’ armor. Between Lincoln and Cleveland you had Grant, Hayes, and Garfield. Only in Nixon’s system was weakness demonstrated so quickly after the system was formed, and it would be a weak system if we place the end point at 2000, having allowed more opposition victories than other systems. Still, it would be a Republican system by preponderance.

The last option, and unfortunately, the more likely one, is that a new party system has just started. That leaves us in the worst position possible. That suggests that we’ve just initiated a 36 year system of which 28 years will belong to the Democrats. The next election, in that case, will probably shape the map to what we can expect to see for three subsequent decades. And if that’s not a cause for depression, I don’t know what is.