Realigning elections

[OSR stands with Israel]

1800- Destruction of Fedralists
1828- Democratic Party gets swept into power
1860 - Divided government realignment
1896- Republicans begin to dominate elections
1932- New Deal Coaltion Realignment
1968- Conservative Realignmnent
2008- Divided Government/Liberal Realignment

[Mr. Smith]

1800: Classic Republican Rise
1828: Democratic Party first takes power
1856: North and South divide greatly
1876: Beginning of the "Solid South" for Democrats
1896: Rise of the GOP
1932: New Deal Coalition
1952: Solid South begins to crumble
1964: Divided government realignment/ Solid South and Northeast begin switching
1980: Regressive Rise
1992: Reign of the Third Way

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

1896 also marks the point at which the Democrats became the more left-leaning party economically speaking.

[Intell]

In My Opinion: 1788, 1796, 1824, 1856/1860, 1876, 1896, 1912, 1932, 1948, 1964/1968, 2000, 2008.

1788- First Presidential Election.
1796- Federalist vs Democratic Republican Parties establish themselves.
1824- Federalist Party Dead.
1856/1860- Establishment of the Republican Party.
1876- Solid South and Black Dis-Enfranchisement begins.
1896- Democrats, become the party of the poor, the middle class and the party with the populist message. Republicans become stronger in elections.
1912- Republican Party Split among it's Progressive and Conservative Factions. Democrats more liberal on worker's rights and Union issues ( Though, this actually started in 1896)
1932- New Deal Coalition Realignment, Blacks start voting for Democrats ( Blacks first voted for democrats for president in 1936 not 1932. New Deal Policies had a lot to do with it though.)
1948- New Deal Coalition starts to break away, Democrats establish the Civil Rights as their Platform. Causes splinters with the Southern Voters.
1964/1968- The South starts, voting republican due to the Civil Rights Act. The Conservative Realignment happen, especially in the South.
1980- Conservatives, take over the republican party. Conservative Platforms become more popular. The Reagan Revolution Starts.
2000- Democratic Support is found in major cities, NE, and the pacific west. Republicans be more Southern and more towards the interior west.
2008- The Obama Coalition gets established. Minorities, vote for Obama in high rates. Whites vote for McCain at a high rate. High Turnout among the Young, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians as well as Whites. 

[DS0816]

@ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/america-the-liberal

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Vosem]

1789: First alignment, basically; Federalists are dominant party, especially in the Northeast, while first anti-Federalists then Democratic-Republicans dominate the South.
1800: Switch; Federalists become minority and Democratic-Republicans become the majority. Caused by new western states aligning towards the Democratic-Republicans and New York "switching" sides.
1814/1816: Beginning of the terminal slide of the Federalist Party, which begins to die off in its own home regions.
1824/1826: Death of Federalist Party complete; new factions are 'Jacksonian' and 'Adamsite'; while 'Adamsite' hold power at the split of the Democratic-Republican party, Jacksonians are clearly the majority and take power in 1828.
1840: While Democrats (previously Jacksonians) managed to stave off the effects of the Panic of 1837, it had to hit at some point. In the new alignment, the nation was separated into Democrats and Whigs; this was marked by the Whig victory in 1840. This alignment continued until...
1852: Democratic Party decisively defeats the Whigs and establishes itself as the dominant party. Northern Whigs break up shortly thereafter; southern Whigs generally join the Democrats.
1858/1860: New 'Republican Party' manages to dominate northern states and becomes the new dominant party, regionalizing politics and causing the outbreak of the Civil War. In the immediate aftermath of the civil war, the party continues to dominate but begins to fade.
1878/1880: Brief Democratic northern victories in 1874 and 1876, while not realigning in themselves, cause the end of Reconstruction and allow Democrats to seize control of southern politics, making the south 'Solid' again and restricting the black franchise. This repolarizes politics along pre-Civil War regional lines, with a few northern states where a strong Democratic Party exists (chiefly Indiana and New York) deciding elections.
1894/1896: As a result of the Panic of 1893 and Democratic abandonment of the gold standard, and the formation of the business-progressive alliance within the Republican Party, the Republican Party effectively conquers the entire north, isolates the south, and becomes the dominant party. In the north, third parties form to compete with the GOP. Isolated Democratic victories during this period, most notably 1910/1912, are generally caused by spoiler third-parties.
1930/1932: The Great Depression causes the country to abandon the GOP in record numbers. Democrats become the dominant party except in a few Republican holdouts. Isolated Republican victories are generally short-lasting, or caused by star candidates.
1968: Nixon's victory polarizes the country into two electorates; a 'congressional electorate' which continues to behave as pre-1968, and a 'presidential electorate' which is strongly Republican. The Republican Party makes lasting inroads into the South on the presidential level with the Southern Strategy, but these fail to translate downballot.
1992/1994: The electorates "flip". The presidential electorate, with high turnout for groups which typically vote Democratic, makes the presidency a typically Democratic office, while the "1968 presidential alignment" finally sinks down to the congressional level, resulting in Congress being controlled typically by Republicans.

12 realignments, but these were mainly in the (first half of) the 19th century, when politics was a lot less stable than it is now. Just three during the 20th century, and it seems to me there've been none so far during the twenty-first (though at this stage in the 20th century we were far from one, though we were hot on the heels of what might've seemed like a realignment at the time -- 1910/1912. Similarly 2008/2010 looks like one, but I don't think it really is).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

1788-1860 George Washington

Conservative Federal Slave Period

1860-1912 Teddy Roosevelt

Abolitionist movement and Urban Era


Labor-Income Tax Wilson Movement 1912-1920

1920-1948 Hoover

Great Depression was based on Rise of the Big Banks and Federal Reserve

1948-1980

Civil Rights Truman Era give rise to Manufacturing

1980-2006

Reagan Revolution and Tax Cut Era

2006-present

Ending fossil fuels and dependency of Big Oil Obama Era

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1789: Not really a realignment, but the first alignment of the American electorate, in which Federalists were able to succeed by their support for the Constitution and with George Washington as their unofficial leader.
1800: Pretty obvious; Federalists never elected another president after this.
1828: Democratic Party forms and enjoys its first golden age in the years during and after Jackson's presidency, losing the presidency only once.
1860: Although Republicans had already replaced the Whigs as a major party, it was only with Lincoln's election and the Civil War that they sealed their dominance.
1932: The Democrats' second golden age, ushered in by the stock market crash in 1929 and the Great Depression.  Poor and working class voters become solidly Democratic, while blacks and Jews abandon the GOP in increasing numbers.  The two Republicans who are elected president (Ike and Nixon) are considered moderates.
1980: The South becomes solidly Republican at the national level as Reagan makes conservative politics more acceptable to a mainstream electorate, partially due to the malaise of Carter's presidency and the increasing strength of religious conservatives in the GOP.
1992: After 12 years of the GOP dominating the presidency and conservatism growing more popular, Democrats reassert their dominance with the election with the Clinton coalition of moderates, suburban women, and wealthy social liberals.

Partial/Regional Realignments
1824: The split within the old Republican party creates the conditions for the formation of new parties and for Jackson's election.
1856: While Democrats hold the presidency, the new Republicans supplant the Whig party as the major opposition once and for all.
1896: The Panic of 1893 and Bryan's radicalism reasserts Republican dominance, particularly in the Northern states.
1968: Wallace splits the Democratic vote and causes the party's base to collapse from underneath.  Nixon takes advantage of the split, along with demographic shifts, to put the South in play, and campaigns as a moderate who rejects both ideological extremes.  However, conservative Republicans are largely ignored until Reagan's election.

I could see a case for 2008, but I think it's still too early to tell.

[Mr. Smith]

Absolute Realignments

1789
1800
1828
1860

1932: The Democrats' second golden age, ushered in by the stock market crash in 1929 and the Great Depression.  Poor and working class voters become solidly Democratic, while blacks and Jews abandon the GOP in increasing numbers

1980: The South becomes solidly Republican at the national level as Reagan makes conservative politics more acceptable to a mainstream electorate, and takes poor white workers away from the old New Deal coalition.

Partials

1824: The victory of Adams begins a rift in the  Old Republican Party, withe 1828 being the end result

1896: Begins the Democrats steps leftward where economics are concerned and manages to give them the entire Mountain West and Plains as well as contain the South...too bad the North controls all still.

1912: Builds on 1896, except there's a split in the GOP to allow Wilson to gain the all powerful Northeast. Because of the adoption of most of TR's policies while the GOP stuck with Taft, the Democrats are now completely to the left as a whole. However it isn't until FDR that liberalism completely submerges the other factions.

1952: This election manages to cement the entire West Coast to the GOP in every election except '64, and makes in-roads in the Solid South

1968: Wallace splits the Democratic vote and causes the party's base to collapse from underneath.  Nixon takes advantage of the split, along with demographic shifts, to put the South in play, and campaigns as a moderate who rejects both ideological extremes.  However, conservative Republicans are largely ignored until Reagan's election.

1992: Finishes 1980 by giving the entire Northeast to Democrats on a national level

Preludes:

1820: One party,...gee how long can that last

1852: Pierce's victory begins a split from the Whigs, and his Southern sympathies begin to cement the Democrats as the Party of the South

1892: Populist sentiments and the strong showing eventually go to the Democratic Party

1928: Al Smith loses big, but he gains a lot more of the minority vote than preceding Democratic candidates, and he takes Massachusetts and Rhode Island, setting the stage for a complete blockout of the GOP after 1932

1964: Goldwater loses big, but he takes the Deep South, opening up the door for the Southern Strategy

1988: Dukakis re-opens the West Coast again, and gets a lot of the voters Clinton does, if at smaller levels

I'm guessing 2008 will prove to be one, maybe 2016 too and 2020 will topple 1980 for good.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I'll never understand why so many people include 1968. I mean I can understand the arguments for, but to me, they're just far outweighed by the counter-arguments. Nixon's win in '68 was like Wilson's in '12..caused by a split in the nation's majority party. And unlike Wilson, Nixon couldn't even bring along his party in Congress! Also, while Nixon's rhetoric may have been conservative, his policies were decidedly not. The New Deal and Great Society were not seriously threatened at this time.

[Boston Bread]

I see 2000 as the election that more than any other ossified the nation into red and blue states instead of most of them being competitive depending on the candidate.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'll never understand why so many people include 1968. I mean I can understand the arguments for, but to me, they're just far outweighed by the counter-arguments. Nixon's win in '68 was like Wilson's in '12..caused by a split in the nation's majority party. And unlike Wilson, Nixon couldn't even bring along his party in Congress! Also, while Nixon's rhetoric may have been conservative, his policies were decidedly not. The New Deal and Great Society were not seriously threatened at this time.

George Wallace cost  Nixon votes not Humphrey.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

It's hard to say for sure since Nixon's totals went down much less than the Democratic Party's from 1960 to 1968, but of course, CRA happened during that time. Humphrey was even more closely associated with it than LBJ, and it killed LBJ, but the South didn't like Nixon much either. It's very possible it could have had a lot of 1960 in it when they hated Kennedy the Catholic too. Would Wallace voters even have a 2nd choice? Nixon obviously did well in '72, but I don't think he had the ability to win that yet as Eisenhower's former VP.

[Nichlemn]

I'm sceptical that "realigning elections" even exist to any meaningful degree. Certainly there are shifts in the party coalitions but it's usually a gradual and/or noisy process. I'm in agreement with this quote I found on the Wiki page for realigning elections: 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Del Tachi]

1932 - Rise of the New Deal Coalition.  Democrats are able to broaden their appeal outside of the South by building a strong electoral core consisting of the working classes (both White and minority), Southerners, and progressives.  GOP strength isolated to the Northeast and Midwest.  Main electoral cleavages now formed around economic issues.
1968 - The New Deal Coalition collapses as Southern Whites defect to Richard Nixon and George Wallace en masse.  Southernization and the Sunbelt phenomenon support Republican dominance from the 1970s into the 2000s.  Main electoral cleavages now formed around social/moral issues (i.e., "the Culture Wars").
2008 - Rise of the "Obama coalition".  Social conservatism ceases to be a viable electoral strategy for the GOP.  GOP strength isolated to the South.  Democrats take a solid chunk out of the GOP's electoral backbone by nabbing up educated, wealthy, suburban Whites (i.e., Loudoun County, VA)

This is all I know for sure.

I'd call 1800, 1824, 1856/60 and 1896 realignments too but I didn't feel like typing up anything about them. 

[bobloblaw]

1800- Destruction of Fedralists
1828- Democratic Party gets swept into power
1860 - Divided government realignment
1896- Republicans begin to dominate elections
1932- New Deal Coaltion Realignment
1968- Conservative Realignmnent
2008- Divided Government/Liberal Realignment

I actualy think 1992 was a relaignment. Often a realignment isnt noticed until years later. What happened in the early 1990s (1990-91) for the first time lots of white collar workers lost their jobs in large numbers. There was a shift from the GOP to the Dems in the suburbs of in states like NJ, IL, PA, NH, NY MI.

[bobloblaw]

1788-1860 George Washington

Conservative Federal Slave Period

1860-1912 Teddy Roosevelt

Abolitionist movement and Urban Era


Labor-Income Tax Wilson Movement 1912-1920

1920-1948 Hoover

Great Depression was based on Rise of the Big Banks and Federal Reserve

1948-1980

Civil Rights Truman Era give rise to Manufacturing

1980-2006

Reagan Revolution and Tax Cut Era

2006-present

Ending fossil fuels and dependency of Big Oil Obama Era

Your post is one long example of confirmation bias. 2006 is ending dependence on fossil fuel era? In case you hadnt noticed US production of fossil fuels has nearly doubled since 2006.

[bobloblaw]

I'll never understand why so many people include 1968. I mean I can understand the arguments for, but to me, they're just far outweighed by the counter-arguments. Nixon's win in '68 was like Wilson's in '12..caused by a split in the nation's majority party. And unlike Wilson, Nixon couldn't even bring along his party in Congress! Also, while Nixon's rhetoric may have been conservative, his policies were decidedly not. The New Deal and Great Society were not seriously threatened at this time.

No 1968 isnt like 1912. The coalition of 1912 didnt survive. The coalition of 1968 survived until 1988.

[Kraxner]

1788-1860 George Washington

Conservative Federal Slave Period

1860-1912 Teddy Roosevelt

Abolitionist movement and Urban Era


Labor-Income Tax Wilson Movement 1912-1920

1920-1948 Hoover

Great Depression was based on Rise of the Big Banks and Federal Reserve

1948-1980

Civil Rights Truman Era give rise to Manufacturing

1980-2006

Reagan Revolution and Tax Cut Era

2006-present

Ending fossil fuels and dependency of Big Oil Obama Era

Your post is one long example of confirmation bias. 2006 is ending dependence on fossil fuel era? In case you hadnt noticed US production of fossil fuels has nearly doubled since 2006.

People who live in ideological bubbles tend to say wacky things.


http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/?tbl=T01.01#/?f=A&start=1949&end=2013&charted=4-6-14-3-2-1


(By the way a huge portion of that "renewables" is from hydro which should never of been included in the renewables category)

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

(By the way a huge portion of that "renewables" is from hydro which should never of been included in the renewables category)

Hydro is totally renewable.

It has no CO2 and undammed rivers would flow for a very, very long time and that energy is harnessed continuously from the flowing water in a dam. 

I don't know what you're talking about.

A lot of environmentalists hate it because it still has emissions when you dam the water. Ecosystems can be destroyed. And it gets worse for the absolutists because methane is released due to decaying living things. So it's no emission free.
On the political side, some states do not count it as renewable - I think it varies by state.

If we're going to get the crazy into it, Staten Island environmentalists prevented the building of a wind farm because it would harm some bird species a few years ago. I guess beggars can't be choosers, but they will try all they can to be.

[muon2]

In the Great Lakes states, 1992 was a turning point for the northern suburbs. Consider IL. Prior to 1992, Cook was Dem but not overwhelmingly (56%), and it allowed GHW Bush to carry the state in 1988. The collars were solidly GOP (DuPage 69%, Lake 64%). After 1992 the suburbs started to turn away from their solid GOP position, causing the Cook margins to increase and the collars to fade. By the time Perot left the ballot in 2000 Cook was at 69% Dem, and the collars were at 55% and 50% for the GOP in DuPage and Lake.

1992 was when suburban voters found that it was ok to not vote for the GOP. The pattern around Cook can be seen around other cities all the way to Philly and NYC.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think in modern history

1932 - while there was a big personal vote for Roosevelt as evidenced by the drop off in support for Truman in the North in 1948 - it did show that the Democrats weren't just a Southern Party at the Presidential level.

1968 - The 'big-flip' - the increasing strength of the Democrats in the North, and a new coalition of urban whites, African-Americans etc and the GOP shifting to pick up ground in the South.

1980 - the affirmation of the lock of the South (with some exceptions) and the plains for the GOP. The Democratic coalition becoming more fragmented and Southern whites flee to the GOP and the rise of the Evangelical Right.

....

It's hard after that.

I see suggestions of 1992 - which is plausible, but I kind of see 1992 as more the last gasp of Southern parochialism, being built on a demographic shift (due in some part to the economy at the time) away from the GOP in the Suburban North as well as the first signs of the death of the Rockefeller Republican as a significant pillar of the GOP. The reason for this is that while there jumps swap Florida/Georgia/Montana/Arizona etc... you don't see a big difference between 1992/1996... but the Clinton coalition didn't hold for 2000.

I see 2008 as a similar but structurally different scenario. Obama's win built on the new base of the Democratic Party - the NE, the West Coast, the Mid-west and the Mid-Atlanic. That was kind of the rump that Gore and Kerry won. It also capitalised on the Demographic shifts - which has been the story of both 2008 and 2012. The increase the African-American population in places like VA, NC and the increased Latino populations in NV and CO... and the change in the mix of the Latino vote in Florida - away from Cubans toward Puerto Ricans (namely on the I4 corridor between Orlando and Tampa). The other element from 2008 and 2012 is the almost complete relegation of the Democratic vote to the urban and suburban areas outside of the Northeast and West Coast. 

[bobloblaw]

1788-1860 George Washington

Conservative Federal Slave Period

1860-1912 Teddy Roosevelt

Abolitionist movement and Urban Era


Labor-Income Tax Wilson Movement 1912-1920

1920-1948 Hoover

Great Depression was based on Rise of the Big Banks and Federal Reserve

1948-1980

Civil Rights Truman Era give rise to Manufacturing

1980-2006

Reagan Revolution and Tax Cut Era

2006-present

Ending fossil fuels and dependency of Big Oil Obama Era

Your post is one long example of confirmation bias. 2006 is ending dependence on fossil fuel era? In case you hadnt noticed US production of fossil fuels has nearly doubled since 2006.

People who live in ideological bubbles tend to say wacky things.


http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/?tbl=T01.01#/?f=A&start=1949&end=2013&charted=4-6-14-3-2-1


(By the way a huge portion of that "renewables" is from hydro which should never of been included in the renewables category)

Look in the mirror. The USA has gone from 5 million barrels per day production in 2005 to 9 million barrels production per day in 2014.

[bobloblaw]

In the Great Lakes states, 1992 was a turning point for the northern suburbs. Consider IL. Prior to 1992, Cook was Dem but not overwhelmingly (56%), and it allowed GHW Bush to carry the state in 1988. The collars were solidly GOP (DuPage 69%, Lake 64%). After 1992 the suburbs started to turn away from their solid GOP position, causing the Cook margins to increase and the collars to fade. By the time Perot left the ballot in 2000 Cook was at 69% Dem, and the collars were at 55% and 50% for the GOP in DuPage and Lake.

1992 was when suburban voters found that it was ok to not vote for the GOP. The pattern around Cook can be seen around other cities all the way to Philly and NYC.

Agree 100%. You see the same thing in Bucks, Montgomery and Delaware counties in PA. But PA overall hasnt changed much because the old Dukakis strongholds in W and SW PA are now GOP (except Allegheny County). The end result is PA's PVI is mostly unchanged.

[DC Al Fine]

I'll do Canada.

1896: Tories lose their dominance in Quebec over the French schools question.

1921: The Progressive party places 2nd in response to Western alienation over tarrifs, government aid etc.. Two-party system is gone forever.

1935: Social Credit and the CCF emerge as socon and socialist responses to the Great Depression.

1958, 1962: Social Credit begins winning seats in Quebec. The Western/Anglo Socreds replaced by the Tories. The NDP contests their first election in 1962.

1984: Mulroney wins a landslide with a broad base including Western populists, Eastern establishment types and Quebec nationalists

1993: Mulroney coalition implodes as populist and French nationalist wings become Reform and Bloc Quebecois respectively.

2004: Progressive Conservatives and Reform merge. NDP shut out of Sasketchewan indicating that their prairie roots are waning.

2011: NDP sweeps Quebec. Liberal coalition cut down to trendy urban areas, English Montreal, and parts of Atlantic Canada.

I consider Canadian politics to be the most interesting in the Anglosphere.