How likely is this scenario?

[Penelope]

J.J., I often like to think that you're just trying to be a good political analyst, trying to figure out what will happen.

That was your first mistake.

Yeah. I guess I've been a bit naive in regards to him.

[J. J.]

J.J., I often like to think that you're just trying to be a good political analyst, trying to figure out what will happen.

Then I realize that you are actively looking for, not just for a regular realignment (which would be perfectly acceptable to be looking for), but a Republican realignment.

Well, posted it in January 2008, when we certainly didn't know who the nominees would be.  I was actually looking at a GOP victory, with a Democratic realignment afterward.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I say it point blank; I don't insinuate anything.  If there was a realignment, the party in power will gain seats in one house, at least, in the election after the presidency shift.  Simply put, if that doesn't happen there is no realignment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, the case is Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

1978 - GOP gained in the House and Senate.

1980 - GOP gained in the House and took control of the Senate.  Reagan elected in a landslide.

1982 -  GOP loses seats in the House and gains a seat in the Senate.

1984 - Reagan re-elected.

That was a realignment, but a weak one.

If 2006 was analogous to 1978, then there should have been a gain someplace for the Democrats in 2010, the year analogous to 1982.  (There was no great domestic crisis in 2006, which is needed to trigger a realignment, either.)  We can easily say that 2006 was not the start of a realignment.

Was 2010?  Maybe.  A lot of what I expected to see in a realignment was there.

If Obama wins in 2012, there was no realignment beginning in 2010.  If Obama loses by a narrow to moderate margin, i.e. he gets 150 electoral votes, there is no realignment.  Obama get between 100-150 electoral votes, there might be a realignment.  Under 100, probably.  If 2012 looks like the worse case scenario map, it is almost definitely a realignment.

[Penelope]

No one is saying 2006 was a realignment (to my knowledge).

[J. J.]

No one is saying 2006 was a realignment (to my knowledge).

There were some that suggested that possibility, based on 2006 and 2008.  Some of the factors, i.e. a domestic crisis, were not present in 2006, which was one of the reasons I didn't think it was.  I also never thought 1994 was the start of a realignment.

I have a great advantage over most everyone here, but not because I am particularly brilliant, but because I was alive during the last realignment and was taking notes.

Keep in mind that while Obama could lose, that, in itself, would not necessarily be a signal of a realignment.  A crushing defeat or even being denied renomination would be, and only one signal.  You need a lot of things happening, and that is only one of them.

[President von Cat]

Realignment talk is silly.

A large Republican victory in 2012 would signify one thing, and one thing only: that Obama failed to turn the economy around. If Republicans are already interpreting a potential Obama defeat as a sign that the population has "re-aligned" behind their agenda of gutting social safety nets, union busting and no-holds-barred deficit reduction, they are going to have a very rude awakening in 2014.

You claim to have taken notes and learned something during the last "alignment", yet you are making the same mistakes overconfident Democrats made when they thought they saw a "re-alignment" election in 2008.

[J. J.]

Realignment talk is silly.

A large Republican victory in 2012 would signify one thing, and one thing only: that Obama failed to turn the economy around. If Republicans are already interpreting a potential Obama defeat as a sign that the population has "re-aligned" behind their agenda of gutting social safety nets, union busting and no-holds-barred deficit reduction, they are going to have a very rude awakening in 2014.

You claim to have taken notes and learned something during the last "alignment", yet you are making the same mistakes overconfident Democrats made when they thought they saw a "re-alignment" election in 2008.

Like whistling in graveyards?

I heard pretty much the same thing during the last realignment. 

Again, it is not definite, but we should be watching.  Some signs are there, that were not there in 2006.

[President von Cat]

There hasn't been a true "re-alignment" since the 1960s. 2006 just was a repudiation of a president who couldn't turn around the Iraq War, just as 2010 was a repudiation of a president who wasn't getting the message on the economy - neither were "realignments" in the sense that a lasting voting coalition was forged.

Republicans took over control of the White House in January, 1969, and with the exception of the Carter years, they didn't cede it until January, 1993. Same with the Democrats who managed to keep it from 1933 until 1953 (!). Looking back on those years, you can see how one could call 1932 and 1968 "re-alignment" elections. Its something you take in in the long view. You can't just look at one election, days or months after it happened and say, "Look, its a realignment!" Or even worse,
make that call for an election that hasn't even happened yet.

If Obama was to win 2012, and then perhaps another Democrat won again in 2016, you might look back on 2008 and put it up there with 1932 and 1968. But until then, all we can say for sure was that back then, voters had had it with the GOP and Obama was the more credible alternative.

Its an age old saying, but don't count your chickens until they hatch. You're dreaming up a Republican electoral re-alignment when they don't even have a candidate, when the Republican Congress has a 14% approval rating, when generic Republicans have a 60% disapproval rating, and when the GOP has yet to win the public argument on any of the issues it is putting forward.

[Nichlemn]

As I've said before, Obama will most likely either lose or pick up more EV's. Now that's not saying he'll get 400 or something crazy - he'll get around 369 if he wins (that is, against Romney).

Streaks are worth looking at, but not completely sticking to. Should McCain have won due to the 200-year streak of electing white men to the presidency? Should Obama not have won Arkansas, Missouri, and West Virginia, since no Democrat has won without them?

No. Trends exist, and will subvert old streaks. But it isn't just the fact that a lot of Presidents have won more their second time around that leads me to believe that in Obama's case, this will also be true. Clearly, in Woodrow Wilson's case this was not true at all.

It's the fact that the next election will be almost exclusively about jobs and the economy. An election like that is never close. It'll be a landslide either for or against Obama.

... unless the economy is mixed, or moderately bad but compensated for by an unusually weak GOP opponent, or some other combination. One of circumstances occuring appears quite possible.

[m4567]

1992 wan't a re-alignment? Or at least some kind of modern change? The map has been similar since, whoever wins.

[pbrower2a]

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

If you see this map, we're in a realignment.

1992 wan't a re-alignment? Or at least some kind of modern change? The map has been similar since, whoever wins.

We haven't had a realignment since 1992; all subsequent elections are variants on the theme. Ignore letters as they signify nothing here.

The states in the very dark red went for President Obama by more than 12%; those very dark blue  went against him by more than 10% in 2008 -- and they have gone only one way.   There is probably no Republican likely to win any of the states in dark red and no Democrat likely to win any state in dark blue except in an electoral blowout. The political cultures of those states are solid enough that I can say that in full confidence.  In medium red are those states that President Obama won by between 10 and 12% in 2008 but that no Democratic nominee has lost since 1992; in medium blue are those that President Obama lost by 10% or less but no Democrat has won beginning in 1992.  There may be no "right Republican" to win any state in  medium red and no "right Democrat" to win any state in medium blue except in an electoral disaster for the other side. 

All other states look like possible swing states for the 'right' nominee of either Party in a close election. President Obama can't win one of the states in either shade of blue on this map and lose -- and can't lose any state in either shade of red and have a reasonable chance of winning.   

[J. J.]

1992 wan't a re-alignment? Or at least some kind of modern change? The map has been similar since, to whoever wins.

The GOP actually gained 9 House seats in 1992.

[J. J.]

If you see this map, we're in a realignment.

1992 wan't a re-alignment? Or at least some kind of modern change? The map has been similar since, whoever wins.

We haven't had a realignment since 1992; all subsequent elections are variants on the theme. Ignore letters as they signify nothing here.


The states in the very  went against him by more than 10% in 2008 -- and they have gone only one way.   There is probably no Republican likely to win any of the states in dark red and no Democrat likely to win any state in dark blue except in an electoral blowout. The political cultures of those states are solid enough that I can say that in full confidence.  In medium red are those states that President Obama won by between 10 and 12% in 2008 but that no Democratic nominee has lost since 1992; in medium blue are those that President Obama lost by 10% or less but no Democrat has won beginning in 1992.  There may be no "right Republican" to win any state in  medium red and no "right Democrat" to win any state in medium blue except in an electoral disaster for the other side. 

All other states look like possible swing states for the 'right' nominee of either Party in a close election. President Obama can't win one of the states in either shade of blue on this map and lose -- and can't lose any state in either shade of red and have a reasonable chance of winning.   
[/quote]

First, we are not talking swing states, but a realignment, the a massive long term change.  That is the worse case scenario for Obama.  I would say 100-125 EV's or less, with the current map, would be realignment range, but a number of other things must also take place.

That is one of the reasons 1992 isn't a realignment, no precursor election, no "holding election."  Even in 1992, the the party that lost the presidency gained House seats, and control didn't change until 1994.

Obama could easily lose, but the result would not be a realignment.  If there is a realignment, you could see a map that looks closely like the one I posted.  We basically won't know if there is a realignment, with a high degree of certainty until at least after 2012 or 2014. 

So far, the first elements are present and there is no evidence that points away from it.  There have been other instances where there were these elements, but there was no realignment.

[pbrower2a]

It gets more interesting when I add states that have gone one way four of five times.

States in pink went once for Dubya; states in light blue went for Clinton once or for Obama but not for both. Except for Arizona (which would have been close for Obama if the Republican nominee weren't from the state) and Virginia, these were all close in 2008. The right sort of Democrat has shown the ability to win any of the states in light blue in a close election; the wrong sort of Democrat can lose (or the right sort of Republican)  can win those states in pink For this exercise treat NE-02 as a state.

The pale shades of red and blue allow for miracles. Indiana 2008 is a prime example: the Democratic nominee was from the neighboring state, campaigned there early and long, and didn't give up on it. The Republicans had a shoo-in for re-election as Governor and no Senate seat up for grabs, and thus little big to fight for . Senator Obama appealed heavily to urban voters usually ignored in Presidential campaigns because the state is Indiana, one of the worst states for JFK, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Arizona is a sure thing for President Obama  if the Republicans scare the Hell out of senior citizens with plans to privatize Medicare or Social Security... in which case the President has about a 40-state landslide anyway. But if he campaigns extensively for the Democratic nominee for Senate and has a good GOTV campaign there for the Senatorial nominee, he just might win the state. 

Now for the green -- five states that Bill Clinton won twice, but which President Obama lost by big margins. They used to always go with Democrats in wins -- but President Obama so far seems a bad fit for these states. President Obama is a horrible fit for the culture of these states because he is a Northern liberal or is so perceived. Carter (1976) and Clinton (twice) won these states running as Southern moderates or populists. Should the Democrats nominate a Southern moderate or populist in 2016, (Al Gore forgot his Southern roots and probably lost because of that) then  the Democratic nominee can win one or more of these states. The two that I think most likely to be the Democratic nominee in 2016 (Cuomo, Klobuchar) are d@mnyankee Catholics who have never shot a rifle in a backwoods hunt and aren't going to win those states in green except in an electoral blowout. I'm not calling a trend yet as I can see solidity in some states.  Culture matters greatly in deciding who the possible winners are in a Presidential election.

Sure, weird things can happen, like the Democratic nominee saying disparaging things about Asian-Americans and losing Hawaii or a Republican nominee saying derogatory stuff about Mormons and losing Utah. But such indicates a campaign meltdown anyway.       

[pbrower2a]

Now the final map on this theme:

You surely noticed the states in gray. With one exception -- Missouri -- those are all legitimate swing states in a close election. I'm going to make one arbitrary change that makes much more sense: I no longer consider Missouri a legitimate swing state. Because President Obama is far more likely to win Virginia than Missouri, I am going to switch categories between the two states. For maximum contrast I am going to show the legitimate swing states in white or yellow

 

Nevada may have gone for Barack Obama by a huge margin in 2008, but I see that state as one of the most likely to swing in any election. Should President Obama win all states in any shade of red and either the two in yellow or one in white, then he wins. If the Republican wins all states in shades of blue, all of those in green and white, and one of those in yellow, then he wins.

This map is relevant until at least 2016, barring an electoral rout that forces a realignment.   

[J. J.]

It gets more interesting when I add states that have gone one way four of five times.

Sure, weird things can happen, like the Democratic nominee saying disparaging things about Asian-Americans and losing Hawaii or a Republican nominee saying derogatory stuff about Mormons and losing Utah. But such indicates a campaign meltdown anyway.       

Here is my "Obama loses, but not badly " map.  This is not a realignment, but just a scenario where Obama is in the low to mid 40's and R candidate is reasonably popular on election day.  The economy improves slightly in mid 2012:

This map shows Obama losing, but not a realigning election.  It is probably more in line with your current maps.

[Sam Spade]

@JJ: The Obama worse-case scenario you present is not entirely impossible, but you're going to need his standing to collapse to such a point where a third-party candidate runs who can siphon off those dissatisfied voters, and that candidate has to get more than 5%.  I consider that a long-shot at this moment.

And even then, NY and CA will be red.  And CT.  And probably MA and ME-1.

[pbrower2a]

Realignments seem to come under the cover of catastrophic losses for the nominee of a Party. The Party that seems to be losing without end must relearn how to win elections if it is to regain credibility.  So let us contrast 1976 (a bare Democratic win) to 1992 (a decisive Democratic win):

(!gnore shades and letters)

Ford 1976, GHWB 1992

Carter 1976, Clinton 1992

Ford 1976, Clinton 1992

Carter 1976, GHWB 1992

Carter and Clinton were both Southerners and ran as moderate populists. 

[J. J.]

@JJ: The Obama worse-case scenario you present is not entirely impossible, but you're going to need his standing to collapse to such a point where a third-party candidate runs who can siphon off those dissatisfied voters, and that candidate has to get more than 5%.  I consider that a long-shot at this moment.

And even then, NY and CA will be red.  And CT.  And probably MA and ME-1.

In a true realignment, either NY or CA would be blue.  That is what I consider a worst case scenario.

1988, 1992, 1996, or 2008 were not realigning elections (the "Realignment" or "Confirming" elections).  We are talking about something someone sees maybe twice in a lifetime.  Literally. 

[Nichlemn]

@JJ: The Obama worse-case scenario you present is not entirely impossible, but you're going to need his standing to collapse to such a point where a third-party candidate runs who can siphon off those dissatisfied voters, and that candidate has to get more than 5%.  I consider that a long-shot at this moment.

And even then, NY and CA will be red.  And CT.  And probably MA and ME-1.

In a true realignment, either NY or CA would be blue.  That is what I consider a worst case scenario.

1988, 1992, 1996, or 2008 were not realigning elections (the "Realignment" or "Confirming" elections).  We are talking about something someone sees maybe twice in a lifetime. 
Literally. 

A landslide doesn't necessarily mean a realignment. It can be as simple as one candidate being a lot more popular than another without any greater ramifications.

I think the concept of realigning elections is nonsensical anyway, mostly consisting of seeing patterns in random noise.

[J. J.]

@JJ: The Obama worse-case scenario you present is not entirely impossible, but you're going to need his standing to collapse to such a point where a third-party candidate runs who can siphon off those dissatisfied voters, and that candidate has to get more than 5%.  I consider that a long-shot at this moment.

And even then, NY and CA will be red.  And CT.  And probably MA and ME-1.

In a true realignment, either NY or CA would be blue.  That is what I consider a worst case scenario.

1988, 1992, 1996, or 2008 were not realigning elections (the "Realignment" or "Confirming" elections).  We are talking about something someone sees maybe twice in a lifetime. 
Literally. 

A landslide doesn't necessarily mean a realignment. It can be as simple as one candidate being a lot more popular than another without any greater ramifications.

I think the concept of realigning elections is nonsensical anyway, mostly consisting of seeing patterns in random noise.

Realignment theory has been around for a while, and there is a lot of data supporting it, both historic and data that came in after the theory was first postulated.

I agree that a landslide is not necessarily a realignment; there are other factors.  Some of those factors have already happened.  As I've indicated, Obama could lose worse than McCain, and it wouldn't be a realignment.

A landslide is, however, something expected within a realignment.  It is a symptom of a realignment.

[Nichlemn]

@JJ: The Obama worse-case scenario you present is not entirely impossible, but you're going to need his standing to collapse to such a point where a third-party candidate runs who can siphon off those dissatisfied voters, and that candidate has to get more than 5%.  I consider that a long-shot at this moment.

And even then, NY and CA will be red.  And CT.  And probably MA and ME-1.

In a true realignment, either NY or CA would be blue.  That is what I consider a worst case scenario.

1988, 1992, 1996, or 2008 were not realigning elections (the "Realignment" or "Confirming" elections).  We are talking about something someone sees maybe twice in a lifetime. 
Literally. 

A landslide doesn't necessarily mean a realignment. It can be as simple as one candidate being a lot more popular than another without any greater ramifications.

I think the concept of realigning elections is nonsensical anyway, mostly consisting of seeing patterns in random noise.

Realignment theory has been around for a while, and there is a lot of data supporting it, both historic and data that came in after the theory was first postulated.

Can you point me to some examples of this? From reading the Wikipedia page, it looks like archetypal "fooled by randomness" to me.

[Link]

@JJ: The Obama worse-case scenario you present is not entirely impossible, but you're going to need his standing to collapse to such a point where a third-party candidate runs who can siphon off those dissatisfied voters, and that candidate has to get more than 5%.  I consider that a long-shot at this moment.

And even then, NY and CA will be red.  And CT.  And probably MA and ME-1.

In a true realignment, either NY or CA would be blue.  That is what I consider a worst case scenario.

1988, 1992, 1996, or 2008 were not realigning elections (the "Realignment" or "Confirming" elections).  We are talking about something someone sees maybe twice in a lifetime. 
Literally. 

A landslide doesn't necessarily mean a realignment. It can be as simple as one candidate being a lot more popular than another without any greater ramifications.

I think the concept of realigning elections is nonsensical anyway, mostly consisting of seeing patterns in random noise.

Realignment theory has been around for a while, and there is a lot of data supporting it, both historic and data that came in after the theory was first postulated.

Can you point me to some examples of this? From reading the Wikipedia page, it looks like archetypal "fooled by randomness" to me.

[J. J.]

@JJ: The Obama worse-case scenario you present is not entirely impossible, but you're going to need his standing to collapse to such a point where a third-party candidate runs who can siphon off those dissatisfied voters, and that candidate has to get more than 5%.  I consider that a long-shot at this moment.

And even then, NY and CA will be red.  And CT.  And probably MA and ME-1.

In a true realignment, either NY or CA would be blue.  That is what I consider a worst case scenario.

1988, 1992, 1996, or 2008 were not realigning elections (the "Realignment" or "Confirming" elections).  We are talking about something someone sees maybe twice in a lifetime. 
Literally. 

A landslide doesn't necessarily mean a realignment. It can be as simple as one candidate being a lot more popular than another without any greater ramifications.

I think the concept of realigning elections is nonsensical anyway, mostly consisting of seeing patterns in random noise.

Realignment theory has been around for a while, and there is a lot of data supporting it, both historic and data that came in after the theory was first postulated.

Can you point me to some examples of this? From reading the Wikipedia page, it looks like archetypal "fooled by randomness" to me.

V. O. Key's original paper came out in 1955 and dealt with the 1896 and 1936 elections; excerpts of one of his books were required reading in my 1984 polisci class on elections.  Here is the original paper.  http://faculty.smu.edu/jmwilson/Key1.pdf

Key was a major figure in political science in America, definitely not on the fringe, and looking at his bio, possibly a New Dealer.

The thing was, his theory, based on 1896 and 1936, basically explained 1980-84, almost 30 years later.

There is a difference between his "critical election" theory and "realignment" theory of today, at least as I use it.  I think it is a series of elections, not a single one.  I'm looking for a lot of elements in a realignment, not just one grand realigning election.