It's really amazing how one debate completely turned the tide

[J. J.]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

Shut up

No, you might like it, but I've been talking about it since January 31, 2008. 

[opebo]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

Shut up

No, you might like it, but I've been talking about it since January 31, 2008. 

In what way, J.J.?  Younger voters are trending Democrat on the issues, and the nation is trending towards less whites.  The GOP is only winning (and narrowly at that) because of white racism and a black Democratic candidate.  By 2016 more of those old racist whites will have died off and more of the younger more democratic whites will be voting, and there will be more Hispanics, blacks, and Asians relative to whites overall.

Add to that the fact that Romney stands for nothing in particular..  what sort of 'realignment' are you talking about?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

Shut up

No, you might like it, but I've been talking about it since January 31, 2008. 

That actually why I - and the rest of the forum - want you to shut up.

[J. J.]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

Shut up

No, you might like it, but I've been talking about it since January 31, 2008. 

That actually why I - and the rest of the forum - want you to shut up.

Al, it might be coming. 

[Franzl]

That does it. Finally putting J.J. on ignore.

[Kitteh]

It is amazing, regardless of who wins on Nov 6, this debate will probably go down in history as one of the most important debates in presidential history. What's really interesting to me is that there were no specific lines that people will remember, no "you're no Jack Kennedy" moments. It was just that Romney was consistently stronger, clearer, and more persuasive than Obama.

[J. J.]

That does it. Finally putting J.J. on ignore.

And you can miss a lot.

The possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election.  It was when I thought the GOP would win in 2008, and I'd give it 30% currently. 

[opebo]

It is amazing, regardless of who wins on Nov 6, this debate will probably go down in history as one of the most important debates in presidential history. What's really interesting to me is that there were no specific lines that people will remember, no "you're no Jack Kennedy" moments. It was just that Romney was consistently stronger, clearer, and more persuasive w****r than Obama.

[Cryptic]

The possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election.  It was when I thought the GOP would win in 2008, and I'd give it 30% currently. 

What do you base that 30% on?  The race is right now 50/50 and a Romney win would be almost identical to Bush's wins in terms of popular vote and states won.  Even if Romney is declared the winner of the next two debates, I don't see him gaining enough ground to move beyond the swing states.   

[J. J.]

The possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election.  It was when I thought the GOP would win in 2008, and I'd give it 30% currently. 

What do you base that 30% on?  The race is right now 50/50 and a Romney win would be almost identical to Bush's wins in terms of popular vote and states won.  Even if Romney is declared the winner of the next two debates, I don't see him gaining enough ground to move beyond the swing states.   

Well, basically, I'm looking at very long term trends. 


A close Romney victory would NOT equal a realignment. 

[wan]

Republicans crashed the economy, and now you want to put them back in charge? I don't think so vote Obama/Biden 2012

[Bandit3 the Worker]

After seeing the Ohio and Arizona polls that came out today, I don't think there's much to worry about.

[Ty440]

Republicans crashed the economy, and now you want to put them back in charge? I don't think so vote Obama/Biden 2012

[President von Cat]

The possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election.  It was when I thought the GOP would win in 2008, and I'd give it 30% currently.  

What do you base that 30% on?  The race is right now 50/50 and a Romney win would be almost identical to Bush's wins in terms of popular vote and states won.  Even if Romney is declared the winner of the next two debates, I don't see him gaining enough ground to move beyond the swing states.    

Well, basically, I'm looking at very long term trends.  


A close Romney victory would NOT equal a realignment.  

Please shut up.

A new AZ poll by Rocky Mountain has Romney getting 10% of Hispanic's to Obama's 77%. If that holds up elsewhere, you can shove any talk of realignment.

[J. J.]

In what way, J.J.?  Younger voters are trending Democrat on the issues, and the nation is trending towards less whites.  The GOP is only winning (and narrowly at that) because of white racism and a black Democratic candidate.  By 2016 more of those old racist whites will have died off and more of the younger more democratic whites will be voting, and there will be more Hispanics, blacks, and Asians relative to whites overall.

Add to that the fact that Romney stands for nothing in particular..  what sort of 'realignment' are you talking about?

It has nothing to do with race.  It has a lot to do with a generational shift. 

[J. J.]

What do you base that 30% on?  The race is right now 50/50 and a Romney win would be almost identical to Bush's wins in terms of popular vote and states won.  Even if Romney is declared the winner of the next two debates, I don't see him gaining enough ground to move beyond the swing states.    

Well, basically, I'm looking at very long term trends.  


A close Romney victory would NOT equal a realignment.  
[/quote]

Please shut up.

A new AZ poll by Rocky Mountain has Romney getting 10% of Hispanic's to Obama's 77%. If that holds up elsewhere, you can shove any talk of realignment.
[/quote]

Oh please.  You just cited a poll that was 10 points off Rasmussen and PPP. 

[BaldEagle1991]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

Are you high?

[J. J.]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

Are you high?

No, and I'd probably be saying the same thing if McCain had one.

I might be saying the same thing about 2016, if Romney wins.

[BaldEagle1991]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

Are you high?

No, and I'd probably be saying the same thing if McCain had one.

I might be saying the same thing about 2016, if Romney wins.

I think it would all depend on what would be the biggest issue by that time.

[Skill and Chance]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

Are you high?

No, and I'd probably be saying the same thing if McCain had one.

I might be saying the same thing about 2016, if Romney wins.

I think it's about lasting policy changes.  If the next Republican president does not oppose and attempt to repeal universal health care, then 2008 was a realignment.  Conversely, if Romney wins and modifies the New Deal entitlements in a way that the next Democratic president does not try to roll back, then 2012 was a realignment. 

Basically, the emergence of an Eisenhower or Clinton figure who accepts substantial portions of the other party's policy vision establishes that a realignment favoring the other party has occurred.

If 2012 is a Romney win and 2016 is a Dem win, that would be historically remarkable in its own right.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election.  It was when I thought the GOP would win in 2008, and I'd give it 30% currently. 

What do you base that 30% on?  The race is right now 50/50 and a Romney win would be almost identical to Bush's wins in terms of popular vote and states won.  Even if Romney is declared the winner of the next two debates, I don't see him gaining enough ground to move beyond the swing states.   

Well, basically, I'm looking at very long term trends. 


A close Romney victory would NOT equal a realignment. 

Even a strong Romney victory wouldn't be a realignment. Romney doesn't really have a consistent ideology (he doesn't even really have a consistent set of positions, but that's a topic for another thread), and if he wins, it would just be by not being Obama. That's not a realignment. Nixon crushed McGovern in 1972, but it wasn't a realignment, nor were Ike's victories over Stevenson or LBJ's over Goldwater.

[J. J.]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

Are you high?

No, and I'd probably be saying the same thing if McCain had one.

I might be saying the same thing about 2016, if Romney wins.

I think it would all depend on what would be the biggest issue by that time.

I don't think it is issues, though it might me a generational thing.  We've had big, decisive issues, and no realignments.  

I think it's about lasting policy changes.  If the next Republican president does not oppose and attempt to repeal universal health care, then 2008 was a realignment.  Conversely, if Romney wins and modifies the New Deal entitlements in a way that the next Democratic president does not try to roll back, then 2012 was a realignment.  

Basically, the emergence of an Eisenhower or Clinton figure who accepts substantial portions of the other party's policy vision establishes that a realignment favoring the other party has occurred.

If 2012 is a Romney win and 2016 is a Dem win, that would be historically remarkable in its own right.

Part of it is, what happens after the election, and I think those are good points.

I could see at this point Romney winning in 2012, and losing in 2016.  If this does look like 1976, you might see that result.  Is Obama more like:

A.  Wilson (1916)

B.  Ford (1976)

C.  Carter (1980)

The model that most people are looking at are probably Wilson or Ford.

I think the 1980 possibility is about 30% likely, but it is almost impossible to predict.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election.  It was when I thought the GOP would win in 2008, and I'd give it 30% currently. 

What do you base that 30% on?  The race is right now 50/50 and a Romney win would be almost identical to Bush's wins in terms of popular vote and states won.  Even if Romney is declared the winner of the next two debates, I don't see him gaining enough ground to move beyond the swing states.   

Well, basically, I'm looking at very long term trends. 


A close Romney victory would NOT equal a realignment. 

OK, I think we can agree that a realignment will happen this millenium.

[Skill and Chance]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

Are you high?

No, and I'd probably be saying the same thing if McCain had one.

I might be saying the same thing about 2016, if Romney wins.

I think it would all depend on what would be the biggest issue by that time.

I don't think it is issues, though it might me a generational thing.  We've had big, decisive issues, and no realignments.  

I think it's about lasting policy changes.  If the next Republican president does not oppose and attempt to repeal universal health care, then 2008 was a realignment.  Conversely, if Romney wins and modifies the New Deal entitlements in a way that the next Democratic president does not try to roll back, then 2012 was a realignment.  

Basically, the emergence of an Eisenhower or Clinton figure who accepts substantial portions of the other party's policy vision establishes that a realignment favoring the other party has occurred.

If 2012 is a Romney win and 2016 is a Dem win, that would be historically remarkable in its own right.

Part of it is, what happens after the election, and I think those are good points.

I could see at this point Romney winning in 2012, and losing in 2016.  If this does look like 1976, you might see that result.  Is Obama more like:

A.  Wilson (1916)

B.  Ford (1976)

C.  Carter (1980)

The model that most people are looking at are probably Wilson or Ford.

I think the 1980 possibility is about 30% likely, but it is almost impossible to predict.

The thing is, what novel left wing idea would a 2016 Dem push through if universal health care has just been rebuked?  Carbon taxes and tariffs?

On this point, though, if Romney wins he is basically assured of getting a primary challenge from a nut in 2016, particularly if Dems hold a house of congress through 2016.  The fastest way back for the left is if they get to run against some kook instead of Romney.  It could happen.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I just don't understand.  I really don't.

Like Bill Clinton said at the DNC, unless people are "feeling it", they vote you out and we've all learned that people vote their pocketbooks. If you were unemployed four years ago and you're unemployed today, or you took a lesser job to survive and/or you got unemployed during the last four years, you're looking for any reason to vote the incumbent out.  Some things don't change.

Well, sure, the economy's not great.  I just don't understand how a debate where nothing particularly noteworthy happened—no gaffes, no witty one-liners—has led to a four point change in the polls in a year where until now the polls had basically been the most static of any presidential election year since the beginning of polling.

I suspect a good portion of the change is due to the slant post-debate coverage took. "The election's over" had become old, stale, boring news, and the media needed a new gimmick to pull in eyeballs. Combine that with Obama's lackluster record and Romney finally bringing bringing an A-game (even if it was a BS game) and you get where we are right now.