Two Guesses

[J. J.]

One thing that we did see in NH that supports a change within the Republicans was a move away from the social conservatives, who, even collectively, did terribly.

The three leading candidates were Romney, Paul, and Huntsman, not known known as being hard right socially.  Paul, arguably, has a left wing stance on the military.

[J. J.]

We have seen a new development.

With Ryan on the ticket there is a very clear difference in philosophy between the Republican and Democratic Parties.  It is the role of government in the economy, and there is a polar contrast.

That will be a central macro-theme of the election.

[J. J.]

I would not call the Democratic map a realignment map.  Here would be an example of one:

A Republican realignment map would look more like this:

Neither map is, of course, a prediction.  I basically think that, for a realignment, you'd basically need the loser to be below 150 EV's, though I'd feel more comfortable if its below 125 EV's.

In addition, there would have to changes in Congress, though 2010 might qualify.  If this is a Republican realignment, I think they'll have to hold the House and probably take the Senate, as well as winning the presidency.

[J. J.]

There is some evidence that we are in a re-alignment, but we really won't know until 2016.  We might be able to rule it out in the meantime.

[J. J.]

...and this election could have simply meant that either Obama was competent or incompetent depending on whether or not he gets reelected.

Well, I've made the argument that a realignment is basically seen over a series of elections:

1. The Precursor Election

The change party increase in the congressional midterms dramatically.  1858, 1894, 1930, 1978.

2. The Grand Realignment

The change party holds at least one house and the president is elected in a landslide of Electoral Votes, defeating the incumbent party candidate.  1860, 1896, 1932, 1980.

3.  The Holding Election

The change party may lose seats, but still holds at least one house, usually gaining seats in the house the hold.  1862, 1898, 1934, 1982.

4.  The Confirming Election

Change party wins the presidency by a larger margin of Electoral Votes, still holds one house and gains seats.  1864, 1900, 1936, 1984.

At the time, 1946, 1950, 1966, 1974, 1994 and 2006 all could have been Precursor Elections.  It is very clear that none of them were.  2010 has that potential.

If Romney loses or wins, but not by a large margin (e.g. 335 to 203), it probably is not a realignment.  We could rule out one ending in 2016.

[J. J.]

Though, the next opportunity or a realignment would be in 2014, if under the logic that it takes a precursor mid term.

The original prediction was that by 2016, we'd be in a realignment (inclusive of just ending one).  So yes, 2014 would be a possibility for the precursor.

I think as you can tell, this is a macro view.

I actually thought that we could have seen a McCain victory over Clinton in 2008, and we'd be seeing the Obama realignment this year.

[J. J.]

Could have 1968 been an idealogical realignment and 1980 beomg a policy realignment?

Not really.  In many ways, Nixon was ideologically close to LBJ, and vice versa.

[J. J.]

What about the rhetoric and the maps?

What about it?

[J. J.]

Wasn't 1968 the year that the South stopped voting for losing Democrats and when the entire idea of "law and order" and "silent majority" started to be talked about? ...and in 1972, there was the 3A meme. Maybe policy didn't change yet, but ideology was changing and in 1968 was the year a Democrat lost the South since all the Southern states could vote after the Civil War.

Well, no.  Nixon didn't get a majority in any Southern State in 1968, despite his VP being from one.  Excepting the border states, Goldwater got a hired percentage in 1964.  Nixon didn't give his "silent majority" speech until 1969.  "Law and order" was associated as much, if not more, with Wallace.

Further, in 1976, you had the return of the "New Deal coalition."

[J. J.]

Wasn't 1968 the year that the South stopped voting for losing Democrats and when the entire idea of "law and order" and "silent majority" started to be talked about? ...and in 1972, there was the 3A meme. Maybe policy didn't change yet, but ideology was changing and in 1968 was the year a Democrat lost the South since all the Southern states could vote after the Civil War.

Well, no.  Nixon didn't get a majority in any Southern State in 1968, despite his VP being from one.  Excepting the border states, Goldwater got a hired percentage in 1964.  Nixon didn't give his "silent majority" speech until 1969.  "Law and order" was associated as much, if not more, with Wallace.

Further, in 1976, you had the return of the "New Deal coalition."

...and look at how Nixon did in 1972. You can also see that the states where McGovern came closest were the Great Lakes and Northeast.

but wasn't that more of a short-lived reactionary election, perhaps in the same mold that 2008 could of proved to be? 

1972 was not 1968.  A blowout election, 1964, 1912, even 1988, does not make a realignment in and of itself.  There have to be a number of factors, including changes in the composition of Congress.  That didn't happen in 1966-72.

[J. J.]

But did anything that happened with Nixon foreshadow what would happen with Reagan? 

Probably not too much.  You could argue that the "Hard Hat" rioters were, in some ways, precursors of the Reagan Democrats, but they represented union leadership (and one union only).  They were also a reaction to the hippies in many ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot

I don't think you could have looked at Nixon in 1968 or 1972, and seen the Reagan presidency in the 1980's, in terms of policy.  I think you could have policy-wise, looked at Nixon, and seen a Carter or Ford.

 

[J. J.]

What about the rise of cultural conservatism? The main thing with Reagan seemed to be the huge tax cuts, his spending was pretty similiar or even more Keynesian than the 3 before him.

That was supply side economics, which wasn't Keynesian.

You really didn't see cultural conservatives coming to prominence until the late 1970's.  I would argue that, really, every presidential nominee, from either party, from 1992 umtil today, was to the right of both candidates in 1976.

[J. J.]

How so? and can you be a big Government spender and be supply side?

Easily.  The concept is that if you cut taxes, you raise revenue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It deals with opportunity and the role of government.

[J. J.]

I mean, is that just in terms of revenues or spending? They're different yet related. I mean, even if you did move up the Lauffer curve, would you be spending more than you have brought in revenue? I mean, wasn't it Ross Perot who believed in lower taxes meant more revenue and then spend that extra reveune on health care reform and overall better services?   And what kind of  "opportunity" and "roles"? 

They are not related.  Supply side economics says the deficits don't matter.

[J. J.]

Why are Republicans campaigning on deficits then? Its probably just a ploy but none of the less, the political environment and shifts within it are more complicated than they appear.

Because, they are not supply siders.  This is a difference in policy, even complex economic policy.

Supply siders are not necessarily opposed to big government, or big government deficits.  They may oppose some regulations, as a hidden tax.

[J. J.]

So, you think this could be a shift in spending?

Yes, and that would be big.

[J. J.]

Would this mean more foreign policy isolationism and perhaps a return to the Gold Standard? Perhaps an end to the war on drugs?

Probably not.

[J. J.]

How would we finance government if there is a substantial decrease in spending? Could there be an increase turn to the private sector?

First, you do have revenue enhancement, which might involve removing deductions.  Second, budget cuts.  Third, restructuring taxes to reward activities that create jobs, and taxable income.

[J. J.]

So, tax levels would be the same, but spending would be greatly reduced? Perhaps in the short run, this will lead to looser credit (because whose going to take out a mortgage when there is no inflation?), but when that dries up and the market forces pushing down interest rates become less and less relevant as the market begins to distort under the growing cartel power of the banks, we will probably see 2007-2008 all over again on a bigger scale.

People who want to buy houses.  That would increase housing prices.

I also would not worry about "cartel power."

[J. J.]

Will they lower interest rates then or will demand prop it up? If the latter, then there might be another debt crisis.

Well, interest rates won't make a huge difference if the actual value of the property declines.  That has been the problem.

[J. J.]

and how will reduced spending prop up underwater home owners?

Because those homes won't stay underwater.  It would make more money available and increase investment.

We could see a different approach to economic problems.

[J. J.]

So J.J. Any comments on the potential coalitions I see forming?

One thing I have seen is a de-emphasis on the religious right in the GOP.  A Mormon and a Catholic are not Evangelicals, or even mainline Protestants.

[J. J.]

and how will reduced spending prop up underwater home owners?

Because those homes won't stay underwater.  It would make more money available and increase investment.

We could see a different approach to economic problems.

So, how will decreased spending cause reinflation?  Unless lower spending somehow automatically raises speculation and then we could be heading into a new economic system which requires a higher degree of sophistication at the individual level.

Lower government spending would ease the crowding out of funds for private investment.  That really is not the point of the last post, however.

[J. J.]

So, J.J., now that it looks as President Obama will win re-election with Democrats retaining the Senate and Republicans retaining the House, how does this fit into your realignment predictions?

I think it is way too early to say that for either.  We could see a Romney victory amd it not be a realignment.

[J. J.]

So, it would make it even less likely than a Romney victory. Albeit, they are both still possible.

An Obama victory would not be an indication of a realignment.  A Romney victory of 338 to 200 EV would also not indicate a realignment.  These things tend to be big.