I think it’s a little short on legislative policy. You have the ACA, Bush tax cuts, Inflation Reduction Act, ACA repeal fail, TARP, and the Patriot Act. I think the CARES Act (March 2020) is an obvious oversight, but maybe that just falls into COVID. But Medicare Part D (2003), CHIPS (2022), No Child Left Behind (2002), the bipartisan infrastructure law (2021), Dodd-Frank (2010), and ARPA (2021) seem like plausible candidates for policy/political impact.
You might also be a little short on court decisions. You have Obergefell, Bush v. Gore, and Dobbs, but boy, Shelby County, Citizens United, and especially Heller all seem pretty darn big.
I think at least one congressional procedure change deserves to be on the list—the nuking of the filibuster on nominations (2013 by Dems for lower courts and executive nominees; 2017 by GOP for SCOTUS nominees). This paved the way for much more partisan nominations, and forever changed how nominees interact with the Senate. Maybe this could be rolled into the Kavanaugh nomination on the list.
So what gets chucked if you add 2-4 things from my suggestions? I’d get rid of at least one of the Obama moments. Winning Iowa seems very time-period local. Will anyone care about that 50 years from now? And I get the point that every midterm is important, but I still think you have to chuck one or tow of them—you don’t have every SCOTUS nom on here, and that’s arguably always bigger than a midterm. I’d chuck 2022 “Dems limit damage” and 2002 “GOP adds to majorities.”
Greg Abbott deserves credit for pulling off the biggest political stunt of the decade (and, perhaps, the century to date). Other Republican governors followed suit. Immigration suddenly became a hot topic in blue states far from any national border and a leading electoral issue nationwide.
The effects of Abbott's stunt shaped the 2022 and 2024 elections, and are still being felt today.
Great list, but I really think the defeat of McCain-Kennedy in 2007 belongs on a top-50. To refresh: an immigration "compromise" was supported by the leading Congressional Dems and the Dem establishment including the newly enshrined Dem majority. The Republican sponsor was their nominee-in-waiting. And it was supported by the sitting Republican president. It failed because of the howls of the populace hitting the house reps who were all facing their two-year re-election cycle.
I always point to this for people who don't realize how truly deeply felt the immigration issue is, and how the "elite" consensus was pitted against the populace, which was always roughly 60-40 against anything smacking of amnesty etc.
The failure to understand the lessons of McCain-Kennedy 2007 left immigration as a "free lunch" issue for Trump to pick up off the floor in 2015.
I would also add the list as presented fails the "ctr-f immigration" test... immigration and terrorism are the two biggest political issues of the 21st century. Need to address is somehow. Brat/Cantor was an immigration referendum as I remember it, not purely a "tea party" tax thing.
It's quite a feat of partisan brain to think McConnell stole BOTH — that he clearly (clearly enough to use the word "stole") should have let Garland get confirmed but clearly should not have allowed Barrett to be.
Merrick Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016; *well* before the election and within historical timeframe.
Barrett was nominated on September 26, 2020 and confirmed on October 26, 2020; just 8 days before the election. The shortest length of time *ever* before a presidential election.
The problem with the Garland theory is that he was never getting on the Court in 2016. The whole issue was whether he was going to get buried in committee, or he was going to lose a vote on the floor. McConnell chose to bury in committee (in order to save a tough vote for his swing-state Senators like Gardner) and that can be rightly criticized, but the alternative timeline is not Garland on the Court, it’s Garland’s nomination going down to defeat on the Senate floor.
Joe Biden as chair of Senate Judiciary refused (for unapologetically partisan reasons) to hold a vote on John Roberts to the D.C. Circuit when Bush Sr. nominated him the January before the 1992 election. Was that outrageous on the same grounds as the lack of a vote on Garland was, or is the high principle also finely tailored so it only apply to SCOTUS nominees?
Appreciate #47 Scott Brown win being included because while the headline is that it prevented the Dems' last shot at a filibuster proof majority there were two lesser stories - (1) Ted Kennedy selfishly choosing to die in office rather than to retire and campaign for his successor; and (2) the MA Dem Party had manipulated a change in Senator replacement process when Kerry was running for President and Romney was in the Governor's chair. Dems' flipped the replacement to special election to take control from Romney and it ended up costing them (Dem Deval Patrick was Governor when Kennedy died).
This list shares a similarity to The Ringer’s countdown of the top 100 sports moments of the past quarter-century that inspired it. The Ringer's number one was the helmet catch in the 2008 Super Bowl. The play was memorable for its almost slapstick character, but a 32-yard pass completion is only a mildly unusual NFL play. It raised the Giants' chance of winning the game from 27% to 48%, a big influence, but there are plenty of plays with 100% changes--like a last-play field goal by a team down by 1 or 2.
What I remember about that Super Bowl was one of the most egregiously biased lines--I had a lot of money on the Giants plus 13.5. For me and other bettors, the game had been long-since over. With the Patriots up 4 with 1:15 to go and the Giants in possession, there was basically zero chance for the Patriots to cover. That would have taken a touchdown and a field goal by a team looking only to run out the clock.
So the helmet catch changed nothing relative to expectation. It was exciting if you cared who won the game, and fun if you like wacky plays, but of scant interest to bettors.
My impression of most of the 51 selections here is similar. The events themselves were symbolic endpoints to much earlier surprises. The number one event, Trump winning in 2016 was a high (or low) point of the global populist surge on both left and right incited by the 2008 financial crisis with its Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Brexit and many other manifestations. The probability of Trump winning had gone from near zero a year earlier to around 50% on Election Day, and jumped to 100% with the vote. But the global cultural change that made Trump's election possible had occurred almost a decade earlier, and it continued to evolve afterwards.
Maybe nothing has been the same in *modern* American politics going forward from trump's election in 2016. But politics since trump are very much the same as in the pre-Civil War South. Has there been a Supreme Court more hostile to the Reconstruction Constitution since the Andrew Johnson administration than the one that now serves trump?
I think Nate gets events in roughly the right range but I disagree with some of his rankings. For example, I think the US electing Barrack Obama should have been ranked higher than Trumps first election win. I do agree however that both should be top 5 events. All in all a good list to think about as we ring in the new year.
“Democrats winning two Senate seats there would have seemed extraordinary if you’d predicted it at the start of the century.”
I get that Georgia had already been voting Red for President, but its legacy of post-Reconstruction Democrat dominance at the state level meant that as of Jan 1, 2000/2001 (either way), Georgia had had at least 1 Democratic US Senator ever since 1873. They had 2 from 1873 until 1981, and then one seat changed hands repeatedly—they didn’t have 2 Republicans until 2005.
That said, I think that’s a fine spot on the list for that double-header election: it did a lot to galvanize GOP activists/rallygoers into their mob vandalism the next day. After all, the game theoretic-lens of the 2020 story is that the Left rioted and burned cities while the media and government gave them all kinds of leniency and excuses—and then instead of being punished at the ballot box they won the White House and kept winning, so the Right’s dregs figured they’d resort to the same thuggish tactics.
This is a fun read and good list. A few comments:
I think it’s a little short on legislative policy. You have the ACA, Bush tax cuts, Inflation Reduction Act, ACA repeal fail, TARP, and the Patriot Act. I think the CARES Act (March 2020) is an obvious oversight, but maybe that just falls into COVID. But Medicare Part D (2003), CHIPS (2022), No Child Left Behind (2002), the bipartisan infrastructure law (2021), Dodd-Frank (2010), and ARPA (2021) seem like plausible candidates for policy/political impact.
You might also be a little short on court decisions. You have Obergefell, Bush v. Gore, and Dobbs, but boy, Shelby County, Citizens United, and especially Heller all seem pretty darn big.
I think at least one congressional procedure change deserves to be on the list—the nuking of the filibuster on nominations (2013 by Dems for lower courts and executive nominees; 2017 by GOP for SCOTUS nominees). This paved the way for much more partisan nominations, and forever changed how nominees interact with the Senate. Maybe this could be rolled into the Kavanaugh nomination on the list.
So what gets chucked if you add 2-4 things from my suggestions? I’d get rid of at least one of the Obama moments. Winning Iowa seems very time-period local. Will anyone care about that 50 years from now? And I get the point that every midterm is important, but I still think you have to chuck one or tow of them—you don’t have every SCOTUS nom on here, and that’s arguably always bigger than a midterm. I’d chuck 2022 “Dems limit damage” and 2002 “GOP adds to majorities.”
April 13, 2022
Texas sends its first busload of migrants to NYC.
Greg Abbott deserves credit for pulling off the biggest political stunt of the decade (and, perhaps, the century to date). Other Republican governors followed suit. Immigration suddenly became a hot topic in blue states far from any national border and a leading electoral issue nationwide.
The effects of Abbott's stunt shaped the 2022 and 2024 elections, and are still being felt today.
Great list, but I really think the defeat of McCain-Kennedy in 2007 belongs on a top-50. To refresh: an immigration "compromise" was supported by the leading Congressional Dems and the Dem establishment including the newly enshrined Dem majority. The Republican sponsor was their nominee-in-waiting. And it was supported by the sitting Republican president. It failed because of the howls of the populace hitting the house reps who were all facing their two-year re-election cycle.
I always point to this for people who don't realize how truly deeply felt the immigration issue is, and how the "elite" consensus was pitted against the populace, which was always roughly 60-40 against anything smacking of amnesty etc.
The failure to understand the lessons of McCain-Kennedy 2007 left immigration as a "free lunch" issue for Trump to pick up off the floor in 2015.
I would also add the list as presented fails the "ctr-f immigration" test... immigration and terrorism are the two biggest political issues of the 21st century. Need to address is somehow. Brat/Cantor was an immigration referendum as I remember it, not purely a "tea party" tax thing.
Mcain/Palin?
No I'm speaking about this reform/amnesty bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007 which was a successor and sitll referred to as McCain-Kennedy
So, the two Supreme Court nominees that Mitch McConnell effectively "stole" from Democratic Presidents doesn't make the list?
It's quite a feat of partisan brain to think McConnell stole BOTH — that he clearly (clearly enough to use the word "stole") should have let Garland get confirmed but clearly should not have allowed Barrett to be.
Merrick Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016; *well* before the election and within historical timeframe.
Barrett was nominated on September 26, 2020 and confirmed on October 26, 2020; just 8 days before the election. The shortest length of time *ever* before a presidential election.
The problem with the Garland theory is that he was never getting on the Court in 2016. The whole issue was whether he was going to get buried in committee, or he was going to lose a vote on the floor. McConnell chose to bury in committee (in order to save a tough vote for his swing-state Senators like Gardner) and that can be rightly criticized, but the alternative timeline is not Garland on the Court, it’s Garland’s nomination going down to defeat on the Senate floor.
That's no better than special pleading.
Joe Biden as chair of Senate Judiciary refused (for unapologetically partisan reasons) to hold a vote on John Roberts to the D.C. Circuit when Bush Sr. nominated him the January before the 1992 election. Was that outrageous on the same grounds as the lack of a vote on Garland was, or is the high principle also finely tailored so it only apply to SCOTUS nominees?
Appreciate #47 Scott Brown win being included because while the headline is that it prevented the Dems' last shot at a filibuster proof majority there were two lesser stories - (1) Ted Kennedy selfishly choosing to die in office rather than to retire and campaign for his successor; and (2) the MA Dem Party had manipulated a change in Senator replacement process when Kerry was running for President and Romney was in the Governor's chair. Dems' flipped the replacement to special election to take control from Romney and it ended up costing them (Dem Deval Patrick was Governor when Kennedy died).
Democrats selfishly (and stupidly) dying in office at very inopportune times could be a major subthread here.
I'd flip numbers 1 and 5. Without Obama Donald Trump would not have been elected President.
What about Obama’s tan suit?
This list shares a similarity to The Ringer’s countdown of the top 100 sports moments of the past quarter-century that inspired it. The Ringer's number one was the helmet catch in the 2008 Super Bowl. The play was memorable for its almost slapstick character, but a 32-yard pass completion is only a mildly unusual NFL play. It raised the Giants' chance of winning the game from 27% to 48%, a big influence, but there are plenty of plays with 100% changes--like a last-play field goal by a team down by 1 or 2.
What I remember about that Super Bowl was one of the most egregiously biased lines--I had a lot of money on the Giants plus 13.5. For me and other bettors, the game had been long-since over. With the Patriots up 4 with 1:15 to go and the Giants in possession, there was basically zero chance for the Patriots to cover. That would have taken a touchdown and a field goal by a team looking only to run out the clock.
So the helmet catch changed nothing relative to expectation. It was exciting if you cared who won the game, and fun if you like wacky plays, but of scant interest to bettors.
My impression of most of the 51 selections here is similar. The events themselves were symbolic endpoints to much earlier surprises. The number one event, Trump winning in 2016 was a high (or low) point of the global populist surge on both left and right incited by the 2008 financial crisis with its Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Brexit and many other manifestations. The probability of Trump winning had gone from near zero a year earlier to around 50% on Election Day, and jumped to 100% with the vote. But the global cultural change that made Trump's election possible had occurred almost a decade earlier, and it continued to evolve afterwards.
The problem with these lists is they are just not important.
I stopped reading at Sanders being an effective politician. This is clearly not true
kinda feel you'd put #1 Trump not #1 9/11 for showmanship's sake if nothing else
Maybe nothing has been the same in *modern* American politics going forward from trump's election in 2016. But politics since trump are very much the same as in the pre-Civil War South. Has there been a Supreme Court more hostile to the Reconstruction Constitution since the Andrew Johnson administration than the one that now serves trump?
I think Nate gets events in roughly the right range but I disagree with some of his rankings. For example, I think the US electing Barrack Obama should have been ranked higher than Trumps first election win. I do agree however that both should be top 5 events. All in all a good list to think about as we ring in the new year.
Howard Dean post-Iowa meltdown
“Democrats winning two Senate seats there would have seemed extraordinary if you’d predicted it at the start of the century.”
I get that Georgia had already been voting Red for President, but its legacy of post-Reconstruction Democrat dominance at the state level meant that as of Jan 1, 2000/2001 (either way), Georgia had had at least 1 Democratic US Senator ever since 1873. They had 2 from 1873 until 1981, and then one seat changed hands repeatedly—they didn’t have 2 Republicans until 2005.
That said, I think that’s a fine spot on the list for that double-header election: it did a lot to galvanize GOP activists/rallygoers into their mob vandalism the next day. After all, the game theoretic-lens of the 2020 story is that the Left rioted and burned cities while the media and government gave them all kinds of leniency and excuses—and then instead of being punished at the ballot box they won the White House and kept winning, so the Right’s dregs figured they’d resort to the same thuggish tactics.
HDI for US 1990 to 2023 suggests the consequence of politics,if not everything else, for most Americans was marginal, at best: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhdr.undp.org%2Fdata-center%2Fspecific-country-data&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ca2b010abb65448bdb1d508de44b082c0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639023722055175838%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YBTpdAv5ECkknbTiwdRsJtEv8X79vuE7B%2B3n5PlbT5k%3D&reserved=0