Just for once an actual realignment...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't know where the losses were, but they were very heavy.

Things would likely have been a lot worse Congressionally were it not for the gerrymander, though that doesn't explain Shuler, obviously.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

These are the raw GOP gains in the South (including any states that could be arguably in the South -- decide for yourself if they actually are or not), according to NCSL:

AL House +17
AL Senate +8

AR House +17
AR Senate +5

FL House +5
FL Senate +2

GA House +7
GA Senate +1

KY House +7
KY Senate +2

MO House +18
MO Senate +3

NC House +15
NC Senate +11

OK House +8
OK Senate +6

SC House +3
SC Senate (not up)

TN House +14
TN Senate +1

TX House +24
TX Senate +0

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia are up next year.

[minionofmidas]

Ouch!

[Nym90]

I don't see it as a "realignment", at least not any more so than any previous elections with that dubious moniker. Regarding the South I think it was just an acceleration of a process that has been occurring for at least 50 years, if not 90. Yes, the wave swept higher this time, and clearly Congressional elections are becoming more nationalized and polarized than before, which caused a lot of Dems who had been able to convince voters to split tickets in the past to get washed out. If you want to call that a fundamental change in the nature of Congressional elections I wouldn't necessarily disagree, though of course it'll take time to see if it lasts. It seemed to have affected state legislatures as well.

The Midwest would be the place to look for for true long lasting change in terms of partisan composition (the loss of all three Lake Superior districts, for example, was very depressing), if it is going to occur anywhere.

[Dgov]

The Midwest would be the place to look for for true long lasting change in terms of partisan composition if it is going to occur anywhere.

Well, the GOP cleaned house there effectively.  The Democrats are only sitting on a handful of Competitive Midwestern House seats (and lost all the region's Senate Seats and all but 2 of the Governors seats, both of which were extremely close), so if the Democrats can't win much of that back over the next few cycles, I'd call it a regional re-alignment.

The South on the other hand, is just the Republican version of what happened in New England and the West Coast across the last decade--voters are lining up their congressional votes with their presidential ones far more than they used to.  The Democrats only hold 3 McCain '08 seats there right now (AR-4, NC-7 and NC-11), each of which they probably would have lost if the incumbents had retired.  2010 was basically the final death keel of the Democrat's Solid South.

[Skill and Chance]

I would really hold off on the realignment talk until 2012.  If 2012 is like 1980 or 1936 or maybe 1948, then one side can start to legitimately claim that there has been a realignment, but until then, I'm not buying it. 

The best sign that there hasn't been a realignment would be something like the 1996 or 2000 election happeningi n 2012, which would basically confirm that the existing party system remains unchanged from the 1990's.

[Dgov]

I would really hold off on the realignment talk until 2012.  If 2012 is like 1980 or 1936 or maybe 1948, then one side can start to legitimately claim that there has been a realignment, but until then, I'm not buying it. 

The best sign that there hasn't been a realignment would be something like the 1996 or 2000 election happeningi n 2012, which would basically confirm that the existing party system remains unchanged from the 1990's.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.  To me, a re-alignment is not necessarily something that benefits one party over another.  For example, Republicans are running stronger in the South and Midwest than they did in 2000, but worse in the Northeast and on the West Coast, which to me is a realignment, even if it has a relatively neutral partisan effect.

[J. J.]

I would really hold off on the realignment talk until 2012.  If 2012 is like 1980 or 1936 or maybe 1948, then one side can start to legitimately claim that there has been a realignment, but until then, I'm not buying it. 

The best sign that there hasn't been a realignment would be something like the 1996 or 2000 election happeningi n 2012, which would basically confirm that the existing party system remains unchanged from the 1990's.

The Roosevelt realignment began in 1930; the Reagan realignment began 1978.

It is time to look at the situation, though still too early to call it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see it as a "realignment", at least not any more so than any previous elections with that dubious moniker. Regarding the South I think it was just an acceleration of a process that has been occurring for at least 50 years, if not 90. Yes, the wave swept higher this time, and clearly Congressional elections are becoming more nationalized and polarized than before, which caused a lot of Dems who had been able to convince voters to split tickets in the past to get washed out. If you want to call that a fundamental change in the nature of Congressional elections I wouldn't necessarily disagree, though of course it'll take time to see if it lasts. It seemed to have affected state legislatures as well.

The Midwest would be the place to look for for true long lasting change in terms of partisan composition (the loss of all three Lake Superior districts, for example, was very depressing), if it is going to occur anywhere.

The Midwest was interesting in terms of the near complete sweep of seats. Commentators on election night on CBS attributed it to the decline in the influence of unions and strong GOP candidates.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't see it as a "realignment", at least not any more so than any previous elections with that dubious moniker. Regarding the South I think it was just an acceleration of a process that has been occurring for at least 50 years, if not 90. Yes, the wave swept higher this time, and clearly Congressional elections are becoming more nationalized and polarized than before, which caused a lot of Dems who had been able to convince voters to split tickets in the past to get washed out. If you want to call that a fundamental change in the nature of Congressional elections I wouldn't necessarily disagree, though of course it'll take time to see if it lasts. It seemed to have affected state legislatures as well.

The Midwest would be the place to look for for true long lasting change in terms of partisan composition (the loss of all three Lake Superior districts, for example, was very depressing), if it is going to occur anywhere.

The Midwest was interesting in terms of the near complete sweep of seats. Commentators on election night on CBS attributed it to the decline in the influence of unions and strong GOP candidates.

If there is a long term re-alignment in progress, I suspect that we will see the GOP move left economically and become more populist, while the Democrats move right economically and become more libertarian.  The strategy in on the Republican side would be to solidify their gains in the upper midwest, plains, and interior south, while the Democrats would go after the mountain west (already realigning here in CO and NV) and eventually the South Atlantic states while retreating from the middle of the country.  A sign of this realignment would be Huckabee winning the GOP nod in 2012.  I admit that Obamacare complicates this type of realignment significantly, but it could still work out, especially because the southwest fits naturally into an environmentalist coalition when climate change resurfaces as the next big issue, while the Rust Belt can be expected to strongly oppose.

[Badger]

Talk of realignment can be aided by discussion of each parties respective weaknesses in the last election.

The Republicans: Their candidates. More specifically the fact there was--and is--litterally no limit to how extreme right wing a candidate can be and still be embraced by the party. Sharron Angle? Ken Buck? Christine O' Donnell?? In all of these cases settling for even someone even a scintilla less right wing in the primary (or several steps in Delaware) would've assured victory.

But it wasn't just the losers either. Democrats were universally shellacked in PA, a center left state, and yet the GOP won the Senate race by the narrowest of margins. This wasn't due simply to Joe Sestak being a decent candidate (though he was), but much more that the GOP wouldn't settle for anything less than Santorum 2.0. There are exactly two words to sum up why a particularly anti-Obama red state like KY was even competitive this year: Rand. Paul. Yet because these guys squeezed out wins in the most GOP favorable year in half a century they appear relatively (emphasis here) sane--and in Toomey's case compared to O'Donnell and Angle how can you look bad?

There were exceptions of course, but the Hoevens, Hecks, Kirks and Portmans were indeed exceptions to the tea party mania that's swept the Republican Party. So how'd they still do so well?

The Democrats weakness: The Economy. The all-consuming motivation of the voters this year. And it was a typical case of blame the people in charge--even if the challengers policies had more to do with current hard times, but I digress. To put it mildly, persistent 9.5% unemployment and weak growth had much more to do with GOP gains than health care reform or a continued 10 year tradition of high deficits. If unemployment was 7.5%, Feingold, Sestak and Giannoulias would all be in the Senate, and Pelosi would still be Speaker. If unemployment had dipped under 6.5%, Democrats actually might've gained seats.

So there are each parties major weaknesses. The question then is: Which is more likely to happen sooner---the GOP aggressively reverses its retreat from the center, or the national economy improves? (Hint: Its #2). The loss of southern blue dog seats will not be soon reclaimed, and gerrymandering redistricting will protect a lot of the Renee Elmers in Congress despite themselves. But unless you doubt the economy was the true driving force of GOP success this election, was this really a realignment to normal national voting patterns after the aberrations of 06 and 08, or is 2010 itself actually the temporary aberration?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't see it as a "realignment", at least not any more so than any previous elections with that dubious moniker.

I agree that realignment theory is dubious, teleological and restricts our understanding of electoral dynamics. But it is a potentially useful word and one that can be used for different purposes; occasionally political loyalties do 're-align' and I think we've seen a case of that this year in much of the rural South. As you rightly point out, it was just the (probable) final stage in a process that has been progressively slowly forward for half a century, rather than something entirely new.

Regarding the Midwest, I doubt that, actually. Mass unemployment (particularly when it hits places that - whatever their class position - have 'always' been pretty prosperous) will produce

[Torie]

The fiscal bomb, and all the bodies that will be lying around from its impact, will have the potential to change the political landscape a lot, in uncertain ways. Will American voters embrace a spending slash ala team Cameron in the UK, reducing the size of government by close to double digits?  Color me skeptical, until such time as we are in extremis.

The change this time, was largely due to turnout differentials, and a snap back to the 2004 partisan split, which to me is a more nomalized split anyway, putting aside that Obama energized turnout among Dem base voters, and may again. There was some movement to the GOP, particularly among olds, but on balance, it was marginal. So to call it realignment, would be hyperbole.