The New Democratic Majority -- It's Realignment

[sdu754]

Nobody can predict a realignment. You only see a realignment once it has happened.

True.  But if realignments happen about once every 40 years (1860, 1896, 1932, 1968), then we are due for one. 

Why are we saying there was a realignment in 1896? Even though McKinley succeeded Cleveland, the Democrats were in no way the dominant Whitehouse party. Republicans won every election from 1860-1880, Cleveland won 2 out of three, then the Republicans won 4 in a row. Wilson won 2 then 3 more very lopsided Republican victories. Not only that, but them Democrats took power in 1932 due to the great depression, not a political realignment. Had the economy remained strong, Hoover would have been re-elected.

[sdu754]

Every Eastern state from Connecticut southward that was winnable by a D post-1872 became a Republican overperformance zone except for Maryland, which moved from safe D to marginal.  Republicans flipped every urban county from Boston to San Francisco, and carried New Jersey, a state that never voted for Lincokln, as well the previously Democratic NYC boroughs.  This is what Walter Dean Burnham calls the "Systwem of 1896" and that Kevin Phillips discusses extensively in ERM and in his American Presidents Series bio on William McKinley (2003).

After 1896, Dems were confined to the Old Confederacy, sometimes KY-MO, the new state of Okla., and in 1916, Ariz and NM.

Dems won the WH in 1912 only because of the R party split, and held on in 1916 by a 3,773 vote margin from California.

You also said: "Each of these elections was characterized by one of the two parties ejecting the other from majority status and maintaining the White House for up to 24 consecutive years as the “sun” party"

The Republicans were the "sun" party from 1860-1928. Not only that, but the Democratic party was basically a party that tried to unify the south & the west to create an electoral majority.

You said "After 1896, Dems were confined to the Old Confederacy" This statement is as much true for the 1860-1892 period as it is for the 1896-1928 period.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/elections.php

Look at the individual elections from 1896-1928

1896: the economy was in a shambles, the Democrats were all but guaranteed to lose that year    (Like Van Buren in 1840 & Hoover in 1932)
1900: McKinley was a popular incumbent
1904: Roosevelt was an even more popular incumbent
1908: Taft was TRs hand picked successor
1912: Taft & TR split republican ticket
1916: "He kept us out of war"
1920: A reaction to Wilson's popularity
1924: Coolidge popular incumbent during "Peace & Prosperity"
1928: Hoover seen as Coolidge's successor & is one of the more popular Americans in his own rights (Both parties wanted to run him) 

As you can see the Democrats had an uphill battle in all the elections they lost. In the elections from 1860- 1892, only Cleveland & Tilden were able to make serious inroads into the North.

[sdu754]

Umm buddy, I believe that is what people mean by the 1896 realignment.  I mean, jeez dude, don't you know any history outside of electoral stats?  I mean don't take this the wrong way, but virtually everybody on this website and probably even most American high school students would consider 1896 a realignment election.

Other than taking a "free silver" stance, how was the Democrat party any different? They still were for racial prejudice, low tariffs and an income tax (all parts of the 1896 platform all things Cleveland supported)

Especially for the Democratic Party, who had nominated a foaming at the mouth evangelical free silver liberal who damned Wall Street and the railroads like it was going out of style!

 

Sounds kind of like Andrew Jackson and his bank war. The Free Silver stance was taken to court western voters. (Destruction of the American Indians was completed by this point)

Considering that four years earlier they nominated Grover Cleveland, who was considered to be basically a free trade Republican by many, it's definitely a realignment.  

Bryan made the free silver issue a major difference between the parties, before that it had not been. As I stated Earlier, what other differences were there?

And if you want to bring in electoral results, well. . .  look at the West and the Plains states.  If you are looking at just statewide results, like who won an election in each state, of course alignments will seem pretty easy.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/elections.php

You can look at the map & my previous post, the Democrats were basically a party of the former slave states from 1860-1928. The Democrats had basically 3 good candidates: Tilden, Cleveland & Wilson, otherwise they were basically uncompetitive.