Prediction of the post-game analysis of the 2008 election

[memphis]

After a decisive Obama win with greater than 300 EV (though less than 350), pundits will point to the theme of change as the topic that wins the election for the Dems. Bush's unpopularity made the election a tough one for McCain, but an erratic inability to stick with one or two consistant attacks on Obama will be faulted. Palin's lack of knowledge will surely be cited as a GOP weakness as will historic turnout by African-Americans. McCain stubborn insistance that PA could swing his way when no polling suggests this will be suggested as the final nail in his campaign's coffin. What the pundits will miss entirely is a segment of voters who are motivated to pick Obama based on his tax plans, which cut their taxes significantly more than McCain's.

[paul718]

Did the raising of Obama's past associations as an issue help or hurt McCain?

Did the Palin selection help or hurt?

Was it inevitable that the Democrat would win this year?

[Lief 🗽]

Landslide.

Mandate.

Re-alignment.

[WillK]

Regarding Obama, post-game discussion will be on the dramatic win but with questions about will he be able to govern and how will he work with congress.

Regarding McCain, the discussion will be about "What happened to the John McCain we liked?" (this narrative, which contrasts the 2000 McCain to the 2008 McCain, is already  being discussed.) and how will go back to the Senate now?

[MarkWarner08]

Landslide.

Mandate.

Re-alignment.

Yes to the first two; no to the third. It'll take at least one generation to tell if 2008 represents a realignment toward Democrats. We all know how well the 1980 "realignment" worked for the GOP....

Besides 1860, 1896, and 1932, there have been no realignments. Unfortunately, all three of those occurred before the advent of modern polling.

[Lief 🗽]

Landslide.

Mandate.

Re-alignment.

Yes to the first two; no to the third. It'll take at least one generation to tell if 2008 represents a realignment toward Democrats. We all know how well the 1980 "realignment" worked for the GOP....

Besides 1860, 1896, and 1932, there have been no realignments. Unfortunately, all three of those occurred before the advent of modern polling.

1980 wasn't a realignment? I think the country clearly moved to the right, and since then we've had 20 years of Republican presidents and only 8 of Democrats. I guess Republicans only ever controlled the Senate, House and Presidency for 4 years, but they had working control for much of that time period, and their ideology heavily influenced the Democratic Clinton administration.

[MarkWarner08]

Landslide.

Mandate.

Re-alignment.

Yes to the first two; no to the third. It'll take at least one generation to tell if 2008 represents a realignment toward Democrats. We all know how well the 1980 "realignment" worked for the GOP....

Besides 1860, 1896, and 1932, there have been no realignments. Unfortunately, all three of those occurred before the advent of modern polling.

1980 wasn't a realignment? I think the country clearly moved to the right, and since then we've had 20 years of Republican presidents and only 8 of Democrats. I guess Republicans only ever controlled the Senate, House and Presidency for 4 years, but they had working control for much of that time period, and their ideology heavily influenced the Democratic Clinton administration.

The jury's still out on 1980. I would argue that Reagan won in 1980 because of economic, not ideological reasons. His popularity was infused by his affability, not widespread support for his domestic policies.

For a realignment to truly occur, the dominant political party must become the minority political party for at least one generation. While the Republicans won the White House for 20/28 years, they've only held the House for half of that period and they've never led in party ID.

A true party realignment constitutes a fundamental shift in the voting behavior of partisans. Weak Democrats would have to switch en masse to the GOP for there to have been a realignment. This didn't occur. The "Reagan Democrats" made a short-term defection due to the ineptitude of Carter, they stuck around in '84 because of Reagan's popularity, and some stayed with the GOP in 1988, when the Democrats nominated a feckless East Coast liberal.

Most of these voters have reverted back to the old political allegiances or have dealigned (i.e., became Independents). If they had generally switched to the GOP, the Republicans would've achieved a political realignment.

BTW, this exchange has helped me study for my poli sci midterm.