There's a cap on the cultishness of a Democratic Presidency

[cthulu2016]

All post-JFK Democratic presidents have a built in limitation on how blindly followed they can be.

There is a quasi-fascist, authoritarian component in any population. It takes a critical mass of such people for fanatical or unquestioning support of an executive to coalesce around.

Before World War II no party had a monopoly on reptile-brain thinking but over time the Republican Party has staked out the fascist psychology as 100% theirs.

LBJ goes big into Vietnam—Can't seek another term.
Nixon goes big into Vietnam... and Cambodia—wins 48 states

Reagan oversees so-so economy. Greatest hero ever.
Clinton oversees rip-snorting boom-town economy. Symbolizes the greed of narcissistic baby boomers.

Clinton tries to kill Osama Bin Laden — it was a fake publicity stunt. Osama Bin Laden never hurt anybody!
Bush make half-assed effort to find Bin Laden. Greatest hero ever.
Obama kills Bin Laden. Meh.

Bottom line:We, to our credit, just don't have enough atavistic nazi-wannabees to fuel a cult presidency. We can have a highly regarded presidency, like Clinton and like I imagine Obama will be, but the over-the-top monarchistic presidency will elude us. (Good thing,) It is also hard to imagine a Democrat pegging a 90% approval rating, for a similar reason. The Republicans are more petulant.

[dkf]

1. That's because Democrats can only get into "victories" to a certain extent.

Republicans thrive on it.

[zbdent]

3. and the "liberally-biased media" has to make sure that "both sides are represented in any discussion

about an issue ... whereas Faux has ... what ... maybe 1 liberal on for a few minutes?

[dkf]

6. I would not know about Fox. I can't remember the last time I watched it.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. The GOP have mastered conspicuous consumption and conspicuous lying. n/t

[saras]

4. You're overlooking the fact that the owners of the media are to the right of the Tea Party...

...and in fact their history and values can't be factually discussed without risking violation of Godwin's law.

Since WWII there's been no hope of support for progressive policies from the media.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. I doubt that Republicans are as lockstep or as right wing as many here imagine

They disowned Bush after 2006 or so, after all.

We'd do better not to think of our opponents as subhumans (reptile-brained or otherwise). As JFK himself once said,

Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

[Fumesucker]

8. They disowned Bush because he was too liberal..

[zbdent]

10. I find it hard to believe he was "too liberal" when damn near every veto he used was against any

piece of legislation passed by Pelosi/Reed ... if it had "bipartisan support" (read: written by a Republican), it got his signature.

No, they disowned him after the "liberally-biased media" took Bush43's **** out of their mouths and started to expose him, and then when the economy went into the shi**er, they said THEY never voted for him ... (odd, I can't find more than a handful, with a finger or two for change, who admit voting for him, but he had a "mandate from The People", right???)

[regnaD kciN]

7. Actually, Nixon won 49 states...

...something only equalled by...Reagan.

[cthulu2016]

9. Oh, right... Mass and DC

Poor DC...

Yes, 49 states.