Presidential Table Vol. 2: Re-aligners (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 05, 2024, 01:19:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Presidential Table Vol. 2: Re-aligners (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Re-Alignment?
#1
William McKinley
 
#2
Dwight Eisenhower
 
#3
Barack Obama
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 28

Author Topic: Presidential Table Vol. 2: Re-aligners  (Read 587 times)
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,021
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

« on: January 03, 2014, 11:54:04 PM »
« edited: January 03, 2014, 11:57:18 PM by Del Tachi »

Thanks for the shout out, Obamanation.

While Eisenhower's victory in 1952 is without a doubt the most consequential election outcome of the 20th Century, it's main effects were somewhat limited to the South.  Of course the increasing Southernization of the U.S. over the following four decades meant that this regional shift in party allegiance had national implications. 

1896 is an interesting case because of the strength of the mandate Congressional Republicans received in '94 followed by the impressive performance of McKinley's two presidential campaigns.  However, 1894-96 represents more of a realignment centered around issues rather than partisan allegiances.  The Civil War/Reconstruction issues of the 1860s finally "dried-up" as Plessy v. Ferguson immortalized Jim Crow; now, economic issues born out of the excess and greed of the Gilded Age were taking center state in a post-Panic of 1893 America.  Unusual though is that the American electorate chose not to "jump ship" and switch parties when these new issues arose - which, for the Democrats, might have just been a case of bad timing.  So, what 1896 represents in not really a realignment but rather the apogee of the 1860-1932 era of Republican dominance. 

2008 has all the right ingredients to be a realigning election:  electorally decisive victory for one party over the other, parties breaking ground in new states or regions while forfeiting some previous strongholds, and a young, charismatic leader to embody the transition.  Moreover, rapidly changing demographic structures may act to "cement" the Democrats advantage among the electorate, and infighting and identity crisis may stop the GOP from effectively competing nationally for the next quarter-century at least.  However, there gare some problems with labeling 2008 as a realignment, namely the 2010 midterm results and the Democrat's lack of a resounding mandate (i.e, 1936, 1972, etc.) in 2012.  Or, 2012 might have been a "wake up call" to a more substantial democratic realignment later down the road, say 2020 or 2024, kind of how Wilson's moderate success in the 1910s foreshadowed FDRs strides in the 1930s..  Only time can tell. 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 12 queries.