Are we in the 7th party system?

[TheReckoning]

The Fifth Party system started in 1932, with the election of Roosevelt. It was followed by Democratic/liberal dominance in politics.

It arguably ended with the election of Nixon in 1968, which was followed by Republican/conservative dominance in politics. So arguably, 1968 was the start of the 6th party system.

Is it possible that in 2008, the election of Barack Obama started the 7th party system, and we are in for another 2 decades of Democratic/liberal dominance?

[Annatar]

Well the problem with the 2008 being the start of the new party system theory, there were a lot of books that came out in 2009 and 2010 to this effect is the 2010 midterms, kind of ironically, the 2 most important elections in recent American history were likely the 1994 and 2010 midterms because of how they transformed the political landscape.

If 2008 had been the beginning of a new democratic majority, the 2010 losses would not have been so severe, the democrats were wiped out in large swathes of the country in which they have never recovered, hence why they struggle to win more than 40/99 legislative chambers. 

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

Obama continued mostly the same sort of governance that his predecessors since Reagan led. Honestly Trump's election changed more; dividing the country much more on education and rural/urban lines, emphasizing social policies over economic and #populism. Obama's win may have been a landslide but it didn't fundamentally change much, unlike Trump's.

[dw93]

I think Obama, Trump, and Biden may end up being for the 6th party system what Nixon/Ford and Carter were for the 5th, a transition period, though God forbid Biden's Presidency ends up being like Carter's.

[Hope For A New Era]

Stop using 1932 as the yardstick for what constitutes a party system transition. It is not normal for the country to do an abrupt political 180 like that. It was an extreme reaction to an extreme situation.

Realignments are messy affairs that take many steps.

The Sixth Party System is perhaps the messiest and most amorphous of them all so far in our history.

In fact, there's an argument to be made that there was no point at which all of the elements of the Sixth Party System were in place simultaneously.

By the time the transition into the Sixth was fully completed in 2010 with the final collapse of D support in the South, the transition into the Seventh had already been underway for at least two and possibly as many as six years in the form of suburban leftward trends that began under Bush.

There may be no point at which we are ever 100% in the Seventh Party system.


After all this, though - I'd say 2020 puts us "mostly" in #7, just as 1980 put the country "mostly" in #6 (following the first two "steps" of 1964 and 1968 and the temporary reversal of 1976).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Stop using 1932 as the yardstick for what constitutes a party system transition. It is not normal for the country to do an abrupt political 180 like that. It was an extreme reaction to an extreme situation.

Realignments are messy affairs that take many steps.

The Sixth Party System is perhaps the messiest and most amorphous of them all so far in our history.

In fact, there's an argument to be made that there was no point at which all of the elements of the Sixth Party System were in place simultaneously.

By the time the transition into the Sixth was fully completed in 2010 with the final collapse of D support in the South, the transition into the Seventh had already been underway for at least two and possibly as many as six years in the form of suburban leftward trends that began under Bush.

There may be no point at which we are ever 100% in the Seventh Party system.


After all this, though - I'd say 2020 puts us "mostly" in #7, just as 1980 put the country "mostly" in #6 (following the first two "steps" of 1964 and 1968 and the temporary reversal of 1976).

Yup if you look at every party system you would see there was a period of transition which lasted at least 4 years and half of them took more than a decade and if you break each party system from its main phase and dealigning/transition phase you get this


1st Party system: 1789-1824
Dealignment/Transition Period: 1824-1828
2nd Party System: 1828-1854
Dealignment/Transition Period: 1854-1860
3rd Party System: 1860-1884  ( You could make a case that the main phase of this ended in 1876)
Dealignment/Transition Period: 1884-1896 (you can make a case this phase began in 1876)
4th party System: 1896-1932
Dealignment/Transition Period: None
5th Party System: 1932-1968
Dealignment/Transition Period: 1968-1980
6th Party System: 1980-2008
Dealignment/Transition Period: 2008-Present


 

[It’s so Joever]

Obama continued mostly the same sort of governance that his predecessors since Reagan led. Honestly Trump's election changed more; dividing the country much more on education and rural/urban lines, emphasizing social policies over economic and #populism. Obama's win may have been a landslide but it didn't fundamentally change much, unlike Trump's.

This.
I think both the Obama and Trump residencies will be seen as the transition into the second progressive era, fueled by a generation disillusioned with the 1990’s system which hasn’t worked for so many.
It won’t be Democratic dominance per say, but I do expect both parties to be somewhat more left on fiscal issues largely as a reaction to the current situation.

I assume this era will also see heightened nationalism as well. In a way it seems the Republicans are going full circle on a lot of issues (with protectionism bs free trade being the obvious)

[Skill and Chance]

Well the problem with the 2008 being the start of the new party system theory, there were a lot of books that came out in 2009 and 2010 to this effect is the 2010 midterms, kind of ironically, the 2 most important elections in recent American history were likely the 1994 and 2010 midterms because of how they transformed the political landscape.

If 2008 had been the beginning of a new democratic majority, the 2010 losses would not have been so severe, the democrats were wiped out in large swathes of the country in which they have never recovered, hence why they struggle to win more than 40/99 legislative chambers. 

Seems likely that we are still in the 1992/1994 era.  If 2008 didn't change that, I highly doubt 2020 will.  I really like the 1896-1952-1992 story vs. the traditional FDR and Reagan stories.

[EastwoodS]

The Fifth Party system started in 1932, with the election of Roosevelt. It was followed by Democratic/liberal dominance in politics.

It arguably ended with the election of Nixon in 1968, which was followed by Republican/conservative dominance in politics. So arguably, 1968 was the start of the 6th party system.

Is it possible that in 2008, the election of Barack Obama started the 7th party system, and we are in for another 2 decades of Democratic/liberal dominance?

No 1992 would have started the 7th. I doubt the Democrats actually live up to the Republican dominance of the 6th, though.

[Agonized-Statism]

The Reagan Era coalitions haven't quite given way, but we're definitely coming into it. IMO the Democrat majority will come when the Republicans' EV advantage is gone, which now means whenever the Southwest and Southeast become competitive. Arizona and Georgia becoming competitive was a start, but Texas has to flip to finalize it. North Carolina and Florida are acting weird too.

[Virginiá]

No 1992 would have started the 7th. I doubt the Democrats actually live up to the Republican dominance of the 6th, though.

Republicans lagged behind power-wise throughout much of the past 6th. They didn't actually consolidate power in many southern state offices until 2010, their House majorities up until 2010 looked more like 1996 than 2014, and they've lost the popular vote in presidential elections 7 out of the last 8 times, scraping by due to the electoral college. They haven't even surpassed 55 Senate seats since 1928.

Don't get me wrong, the Republican coalition has been resilient and has held full federal control or at least kept its foot in the door much more often than Democrats over the past 40 years, but they haven't been a massively dominant force in Congress like Democrats were pre-Reagan, and only recently began wiping Democrats out at the state-level. So for future Democrats to live up to Republican dominance in Congress - at least in the House - would be pretty easy, mostly because the bar isn't that high.

[EastwoodS]

No 1992 would have started the 7th. I doubt the Democrats actually live up to the Republican dominance of the 6th, though.

Republicans lagged behind power-wise throughout much of the past 6th. They didn't actually consolidate power in many southern state offices until 2010, their House majorities up until 2010 looked more like 1996 than 2014, and they've lost the popular vote in presidential elections 7 out of the last 8 times, scraping by due to the electoral college. They haven't even surpassed 55 Senate seats since 1928.

Don't get me wrong, the Republican coalition has been resilient and has held full federal control or at least kept its foot in the door much more often than Democrats over the past 40 years, but they haven't been a massively dominant force in Congress like Democrats were pre-Reagan, and only recently began wiping Democrats out at the state-level. So for future Democrats to live up to Republican dominance in Congress - at least in the House - would be pretty easy, mostly because the bar isn't that high.

Well the current alignment we are in right now is majority democrat, imo. I think sometime around 2028, 2032 the Republicans will take over the presidency predominantly for sometime.

[pbrower2a]

The Fifth Party system started in 1932, with the election of Roosevelt. It was followed by Democratic/liberal dominance in politics.

It arguably ended with the election of Nixon in 1968, which was followed by Republican/conservative dominance in politics. So arguably, 1968 was the start of the 6th party system.

Is it possible that in 2008, the election of Barack Obama started the 7th party system, and we are in for another 2 decades of Democratic/liberal dominance?

Obama? Not yet. He could be a portent, but... an electoral map of 2020 looks more like that of 2000 than like that of 2000 than like that of 2008.

The extreme regional divide in voting, in which Obama won by a landslide in enough states in which to win the election (the tipping-point state for Obama was Iowa, where he won by  9.54%) but lost a raft of states by even larger numbers isn't sustainable over twenty years. OK, the pattern has held for four elections... Obama was a fine President, but you-know-who followed him.

We are in transition from an era in which regional divides were slight (Clinton-era elections) to... whatever. Parties do not have their own internal realignments unless they are losing elections on a large scale consistently, as did the Democrats in 1980, 1984, and 1988. One bad election (1964 for the Republicans, 1972 for the Democrats) may teach the lesson to not rely solely upon the Party base. Supporters of Goldwater and of McGovern were as fervent as any voters... but that is about what the Parties got with little else in those years. Just think of it: in 1972, West Virginia (which then had voted reliably for Democratic nominees for President) went 62-36 for Nixon despite being heavily unionized.     

It is still possible to see Obama as an anomaly in the same sense that Eisenhower was an anomaly between the New Deal and the New Frontier. Demographic trends say more about political trends than do political values.

[EastwoodS]

The Reagan Era coalitions haven't quite given way, but we're definitely coming into it. IMO the Democrat majority will come when the Republicans' EV advantage is gone, which now means whenever the Southwest and Southeast become competitive. Arizona and Georgia becoming competitive was a start, but Texas has to flip to finalize it. North Carolina and Florida are acting weird too.

I’m sorry but I’d actually argue we’re already in a majority Democratic environment and have been since 1992. 2020 is showing that this dominance at the presidential level for Democrats is fading not expanding. The future, concerning trends, is looking more promising for Republicans.

[Agonized-Statism]

The Reagan Era coalitions haven't quite given way, but we're definitely coming into it. IMO the Democrat majority will come when the Republicans' EV advantage is gone, which now means whenever the Southwest and Southeast become competitive. Arizona and Georgia becoming competitive was a start, but Texas has to flip to finalize it. North Carolina and Florida are acting weird too.

I’m sorry but I’d actually argue we’re already in a majority Democratic environment and have been since 1992. 2020 is showing that this dominance at the presidential level for Democrats is fading not expanding. The future, concerning trends, is looking more promising for Republicans.

And I accept that apology because your post history is mostly GOP power fantasies, but the fact is that Republicans have maintained a decaying advantage since 1980 which has allowed them to win all the close races since that time. Clinton, Obama, and Biden won only during national crises and, in Clinton's case, with a major third-party candidate in the race. All had crossover appeal with Republicans when elected- the three broke through with otherwise Republican-voting Reagan Democrats, blue collar workers previously concerned about 9/11 and gay marriage, and suburbanites respectively. The shifts in the EV-rich Sun Belt indicate that this is is a Republican alignment transitioning to a Democrat one.

Granted, the Democrats could screw up and lose some of their coalition to grant the Republicans a few extra years' power, but Republicans haven't yet done anything to exploit the gentrifier-gentrified divide in the Democrat Party. There are too many elements pushing back against either becoming a suburban party again or becoming a diverse working class party, and this huge WWC bloc that came in under Trump alienates both. If there's one thing Democrat hacks are right about, it's that any move the GOP makes post-Trump will lose one of their disparate groups of supporters. We're looking at the final dissolution of the Reagan Era Fusionist coalition this decade.

[RINO Tom]

But Orange County voted for McCain, and it didn't vote for Trump.  Sorry, bud!

[Skill and Chance]

Well the problem with the 2008 being the start of the new party system theory, there were a lot of books that came out in 2009 and 2010 to this effect is the 2010 midterms, kind of ironically, the 2 most important elections in recent American history were likely the 1994 and 2010 midterms because of how they transformed the political landscape.

If 2008 had been the beginning of a new democratic majority, the 2010 losses would not have been so severe, the democrats were wiped out in large swathes of the country in which they have never recovered, hence why they struggle to win more than 40/99 legislative chambers. 

I think 2010 was proof that we were still in the Reagan era.  A lot of the seats that flipped in 2010 were seats that really should have flipped during the 1980's. 

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

As others have pointed out, party systems don't usually realign as dramatically as they did in '32. Even the 1968 realignment is pretty messy, because the GOP had been gaining in the south since the 1950s and they didn't really start dominating it until the 1994 midterms. I think we're currently living in a re/de-alignment era, so if America is in a new political alignment, we won't know until a few more election cycles pass.

In some ways, the current realignment of American politics started with Clinton's coastal gains in '92 and the conservative backlash of '94. The 2000 presidential election showed a very clear party system, but that hasn't lasted (think of the blue wall moving right, and states like Virginia and Colorado zooming left). Trump and Biden didn't really realign the system either. Trump's gains in the midwest, while important, shouldn't be that surprising. The 'blue wall' was not very blue during the Bush years either, they were just blue enough that the electoral college map made the upper midwest seem like a liberal stronghold. And Clinton/Biden's gains in the suburbs are just a continuation of what's been slowly but surely happening since the 90's.

I'm inclined to say yes, but a map of states doesn't reflect a new party system as well as it used to, because cultural divisions in 21st century America don't start or stop at state lines. A young woman who's a teacher in Oklahoma City is probably a Democrat, and an old man who's a welder in Minneapolis is probably a Republican. Whatever party system we are in or transitioning to will be defined by socio-economic status, with college education probably being the best predictor, than geographical location.

[Unironic Kamala Harris for President Supporter]

Unless both GA Senate seats flip blue, I don't see how we can start considering this a Seventh Party System since the Republicans still seem fairly dominant (state legislatures and the Senate).

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I think Obama, Trump, and Biden may end up being for the 6th party system what Nixon/Ford and Carter were for the 5th, a transition period, though God forbid Biden's Presidency ends up being like Carter's.

On the contrary, I've heard Trump described as the Carter equivalent, despite their radically different personalities. I think it's somewhat justified: unpopular one-term president, perceived as a Washington outsider, who ends up revitalizing the opposition party. No doubt, Biden won't enjoy the dominance that Reagan did, but the Trump administration did revitalize the Democratic Party after its huge losses in 2010 and 2014, even if they still are (more often than not) fighting uphill battles in state governments.