Doug Sosnik was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and co-wrote a New York Times best-seller on the future of politics in the United States.

Democratic strategist Doug Sosnik was a close adviser to President Bill Clinton, and he’s famed in Washington circles for his closely held, big-think memos on the state of American politics. Here’s his latest.

***


It is not an overstatement to say that the failures of our leaders and governmental institutions have brought our political system to the brink of implosion.

The country is undergoing the most significant economic, technological and demographic changes since the Industrial Revolution. Such change in any one of these areas would test our ability to adapt. But the fact that we are experiencing all of these shifts at the same time has exacerbated Americans’ fears and fundamental distrust of those in power. The public has concluded that our 20th-century institutions are incapable of dealing with 21st-century challenges.

The public’s discontent has been clear at the ballot box in four out of the past five elections; each time, the public voted against the party in power. But the current environment suggests that the level of pent-up frustration and demand for change is more profound than we have seen before in our lifetimes. The support for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is an expression of this alienation and distrust toward the system and the elected officials who govern it.

The overwhelming belief that the system is rigged in favor of the rich has spurred an emerging populist movement that transcends traditional partisan lines. At a time when big corporations and the wealthy have enjoyed the largest gains, a majority of Americans have experienced stagnant wages and a decline in wealth.

The sense of everyday Americans that they are worse off has also contributed to a yawning social and cultural divide defined by age, race and income. This began to emerge following the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and is reflected in his job approval ratings throughout his two terms. Since the summer of 2009, when these divisions began to intensify, Obama’s positive job-approval ratings have remained flat, never going below 40 percent or above 53 percent. A closer look at these numbers shows the impact that age, race and income have had on his ratings. The narrow band reflects little movement from Obama’s core supporters, as well as steadfast opposition from his detractors.

While both political parties have become more ideological during the Obama presidency, this trend began during the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency. This year’s Republican primary is the most rightward leaning since 1964, while Democrats have not been this far to the left since the 1972 campaign. As the parties have become increasingly ideological, Americans have drifted away from both of them. Self-identified independents are at near-historic levels.

Americans vote for their presidents based on their attitudes about the current commander in chief, their sense of the times they are living in, and their hopes for the future. Candidates are rarely able to change voters’ initial points of view of the here and now. All they can do is demonstrate that their experience and vision for the future best fits the zeitgeist.

The consistency of the polling during the past decade suggests that the current divisions and downcast mood of the electorate won’t budge between now and the election. In fact, it’s unlikely that we’ll see any significant change in the foreseeable future. In this period of profound alienation, with both parties engaging in harsh ideological primaries, the public is likely to view the entire political process as a race to the bottom. Americans will be inclined to view their choice for president through the prism of which candidate is the least flawed and poses the least threat to their future well-being.

Experience tells us that we’re in the midst of the most decisive phase in the presidential election. Since 1980, the period between now and the end of the primaries has had the greatest impact in determining the outcome of the presidential election, with the 2000 election being the only exception. There is every reason to believe that the 2016 election will follow the same pattern.

Republican Primary

Despite the fact that the Republican Party is more dominant at the state and local levels than at any time in modern history, it has been in political free-fall nationally for the past decade. In addition to losing the popular vote in five out of the past six presidential elections, Republicans have had a net negative favorability rating for over a decade. Their continued move rightward and willingness to take more strident ideological positions on immigration and social issues have put them outside the mainstream of a majority of the country.

Ironically, their successes in off-year elections, when they moved further and further to the right, have made it more difficult for them to achieve success at the national level. So far their primary season has continued this ideological movement, further diminishing their national standing. According to the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, conducted on January 13, 42 percent of respondents say they have a less favorable view of the Republican Party based on what they have seen, read or heard so far during the nomination process; only 19 percent have a more favorable view of the GOP.

The Republican Party has a complicated delegate selection process. In its most simplified form, the process can be broken down into four categories: 1) 55 percent of the pledged delegates are selected in some form of a proportional allocation system, 2) 16 percent are selected by winner-take-all, 3) 25 percent are selected in a hybrid form based on winner-take-all and proportionality; and 4) 4 percent come from state caucuses and conventions. Additionally, RNC members automatically become delegates and comprise 6.8 percent of the overall total. (See a detailed chart of the Republican primary schedule here, here and here.)

It’s likely that we will see at least four phases during the primary season, with the real possibility of a fifth phase over the summer. We are currently in the middle of the first phase, the “winnowing of the field,” which has reduced the number of viable candidates. The second phase begins with the March 1 “SEC primary,” often referred to as the southern Super Tuesday, when 14 states will select 26 percent of the delegates. The third phase begins on March 15, when the RNC begins permitting winner-take-all primaries, with Florida and Ohio the two big prizes that day. The last phase is the race for the 37 percent of the remaining delegates leading up to the last set of primaries on June 7.

Based on these rules and the large field of candidates, there is an emerging view among leading Republicans that there is an increasing probability of an open Republican convention this summer in Cleveland.

Democratic Primary

Based on the results of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, it is now clear that the Democrats are going to have a long and protracted primary, lasting well into the spring. The party's shift to the left has dominated the debate up until now, and it is likely to intensify throughout the remainder of the primaries.

Unlike the Republican Party, which has a variety of methods to determine how delegates are selected, the Democratic Party operates on a proportional allocation system in every state. As a result, candidates are not able to quickly rack up large delegate totals even if they carry a state. It should be noted that in a close race the 712 superdelegates could prove decisive, since they represent 14.9 percent of the 2,382 votes needed to secure the nomination.

After the initial batch of primary and caucus states in February, which comprise less than 4 percent of the total number of pledged delegates, the race becomes a contest to secure delegates. There are two key primary dates in March, when 17 states and territories will select almost 40 percent of the total pledged delegates. In many of these states there is a large share of nonwhite voters who could have a significant impact on the outcome. The proportional allocation of delegates will make it very difficult for a candidate to catch up if he or she has fallen behind after these primaries. (See a detailed chart of the Democratic primary schedule here, here and here.)

In the period between the March primaries and the middle of April, fewer than 400 delegates will be selected. With the exception of the Wisconsin primary on April 5, most of the attention will be focused on the New York (Wall Street) primary on April 19. The last two key dates during the primary will be April 26, when five Northeastern states will select 384 delegates, and June 7, when California and five other states west of the Mississippi will hold elections.

2016 Congressional Elections

It is likely that 2016 represents the best and final shot for Democrats to regain control of at least one branch of Congress for the rest of this decade. This year, Republicans are defending 24 U.S. Senate seats to the Democrats’ 10. In addition, the combination of a higher presidential election turnout and top-tier Senate races in targeted presidential states gives Democrats the opportunity to pick up the four seats they need to take back control of the Senate.

The outcome of Senate elections increasingly mirrors the voting at the top of the ticket. There are currently only 16 incumbent U.S. senators (five Democrats and 11 Republicans) who hold seats in states that did not vote for their party in the last presidential election. Of the 11 Republicanc-held seats up for election this year, seven are in states carried by Obama in 2012.

House Republicans have the largest number of members since 1929 and currently enjoy a 59-seat majority. Even with the possibility of Trump or Ted Cruz at the top of the ticket, few people give Democrats much of a chance of taking back a House with only 26 Republican incumbents in seats carried by Obama in 2012.

2016 Marks the Beginning of the Battle For Control of the 2022 Reapportionment and Redistricting Process

While the Democratic Party has suffered significant losses at the federal level since President Obama took office in 2009, its losses at the state and local levels have been devastating. Since 2009, the Democrats have lost 11 governorships and 932 state legislators’ seats, resulting in the loss of control of 30 state legislative chambers across the country.

Republicans have managed to establish and maintain their dominance in the U.S. House and at the state level through their successful reapportionment and redistricting efforts at the beginning of the decade, when they were able to draw district lines that favored Republican candidates.

The Republicans now control 30 state legislatures, compared with only 11 for Democrats. In 24 states they enjoy a "trifecta"—holding the governorship and control of both legislative branches—while Democrats hold a trifecta only in seven states.

The only way for Democrats to regain this lost ground will be through the reapportionment and redistricting process at the beginning of the next decade. The 2016 election marks the beginning of this process, since there are several states electing new governors, many of whom are likely to be part of the process if they are reelected in 2020. There are also numerous state legislative bodies that could flip this year. (See a chart of 2016 battleground state legislatures here.) These changes will impact who will be at the table carving up political power at the beginning of the next decade.