Wasn't 1992 a realigning election?

[Rob]

Yes, in the sense that the most important political story of this generation- the ongoing GOP collapse in (non-southern) suburbia- began that year.

I think its hard to classify the '92 election as a realignment election because it falls under the same rule as the '76 election.  Carter and Clinton were both Southern Democrats who managed to revive enough Southern white support to win.

Clinton was able to win back some of the ancestrally Democratic southern white vote, but you can't compare that to 1976. Unlike Carter, Clinton would have won without carrying a single ex-Confederate state, and even Dukakis and Mondale had won significant support among parts of this demographic.

[Rob]

The Phila 'burbs went Republican for House, Senate, and Governor in 1994, and for Governor and Senate in 1998, with the House seat that flipped being close.

Yes, following the pattern set by the breakdown of the Solid South. Northern suburbs began voting Democratic at the presidential level in 1992, but it took some time for those trends to be seen downballot as well.

[Rob]

Within "4-6 years?" Why? Or did you just pull those numbers out of your ass? Realignments have never worked that way in American politics.

[Rob]

Since when was 1968 a landslide?

It's a "landslide" if you want to combine the votes for racist candidates (57%, iirc), but of course not all Wallace voters would have chosen Nixon in a two-way race. Outside the old Confederacy, Wallace probably hurt Humphrey more than Nixon.

[Rob]

I have to disagree, in the West Wallace definitley took more votes away from Nixon.

Definitely in the interior West, but not so much in the industrial Midwest and Northeast. Out west, Wallace's best showings were in working-class areas that haven't been competitive for national Democrats since the 1960s; most of Wallace's voters in these areas, almost certainly, ended up voting for Nixon (or Schmitz!) in 1972 and (with the possible exception of 1976) for Republicans since.
 
But in the critical states of the industralized Midwest and Northeast, Wallace ran best among unionized working-class voters. I think that's the key difference, and indeed it was widely noticed that as Wallace fell in the polls in Michigan, for example, Humphrey rose- and ended up carrying the state thanks to his union support. A straight Nixon-Humphrey race would probably mean Democratic victories in Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and New Jersey.