When will be the next realignment election?

[pbrower2a]

Could be this one. Especially if we see both parties fracture (which is quite likely)

The Republicans are more likely to fracture this time. Demographics might hurt the Republicans this time because the youngest voters associate the Republican Party with heavy personal debt (due to high-cost college loans) and low pay for those with little education (and often for those with much education). People in hock up to their eyeballs for the means of sustenance tend to be very far to the Left on economics. The Millennial Generation has little cause to support Republicans who offer more of the same.

[mianfei]

What would be the cause/causes of "the next realignment"?

Judging by history and the 2016 election, I have hazarded at a guess the cause could be Federal public lands in the West. There has already been much debate about privatization of these lands, and how formidable might a third-party candidate radically in favour of such a move be in the West (except Washington state)??

The issue of Federal public lands in the West – which everywhere bar eastern Washington account for most land in the West – seems to me a much bigger issue than anything in the 2016 election. There is from a scientific perspective no doubt that present management of the West’s land and water is badly flawed – huge water shortages in California and Arizona for a start, and complaints over access to grazing land in eastern Oregon for another suggest a radically different management system could certainly be plausibly better.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Now I think 2020.

-No chance. 2032 or 2036. Count on it.

I consider the last "realigning election" to have been 2000 (or maybe 1996 or 1992).

[RINO Tom]

Not sure I buy that one election can be totally realigning.  1964 didn't realign shlt, for example, it simply opened up the South politically, and Republicans won it over, over a series of elections that spanned three decades, arguably four.  I think an election can trigger changes in voting patterns, but coalitions don't just change like the flip of a switch barring something MAJOR, like the Civil War and the Great Depression.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

What I was taught in political science classes was that the last realigning election was 1932 and that there will likely never be another one, largely because the advent of public opinion polling allows parties to gradually move, rather than the sudden re-divides of 1824, 1860, or 1932.

[The_Doctor]

I voted 2024. The Reagan era and the string of close elections (since 2000) both come to an end with the election of 2024 which sends a Democrat to the White House to match Democratic majorities in Congress.

There have been (imo) four great realignments. Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan. I think the Reagan era concludes in 2024 (Trump - Pence I don't think can hold together the Reagan coalition past 2024).

Outside chance of 2020 if the Republicans really act incompetent.

[Beet]

I voted 2024. The Reagan era and the string of close elections (since 2000) both come to an end with the election of 2024 which sends a Democrat to the White House to match Democratic majorities in Congress.

There have been (imo) four great realignments. Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan. I think the Reagan era concludes in 2024 (Trump - Pence I don't think can hold together the Reagan coalition past 2024).

Outside chance of 2020 if the Republicans really act incompetent.

If that happens, the Dems should pack the court, because it'll probably be 7-2 conservative Republican by that point.

[The_Doctor]

The Court will shift blue (Atlas Red) on its own accord under this scenario. The justices know that in that scenario that their legitimacy derives from the public believing in them. It's why the Court went pro-New Deal. They knew that without public support they had no standing to get their rulings enforced.

There's a very important reason Roe wasn't overturned directly and gay marriage made legal. The Court looked at public opinion and made up the legal rationales after.  Kennedy, in particular, is famous for this as is Roberts.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What I was taught in political science classes was that the last realigning election was 1932 and that there will likely never be another one, largely because the advent of public opinion polling allows parties to gradually move, rather than the sudden re-divides of 1824, 1860, or 1932.

-1932 was not a constituency realignment (FDR's constituency wasn't much different from Wilson's), but an ideological realignment, and, indeed, it was the last such one in American history. The age of Reagan only began the trend of the dying of the liberal Republicans. Trump could bring about an ideological realignment, but I'm skeptical.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The Court will shift blue (Atlas Red) on its own accord under this scenario. The justices know that in that scenario that their legitimacy derives from the public believing in them. It's why the Court went pro-New Deal. They knew that without public support they had no standing to get their rulings enforced.

There's a very important reason Roe wasn't overturned directly and gay marriage made legal. The Court looked at public opinion and made up the legal rationales after.  Kennedy, in particular, is famous for this as is Roberts.

-This is why I'm such a fan of Scalia and Thomas.

[The_Doctor]

I'm generally a fan of constructionist judges but we cannot ignore the fact that the judiciary rightfully derives their support from the governed's consent, like the other two branches. The judiciary has to balance appropriately reading the Constition with maintaining public support. Everything in our system is based on reading public support for x and y.  We live in Reaganism so our Judiciary feels more free to be more conservative.

I'll respond to the other point later. 

But in general even a liberal Court would be far more constrained than the Democrats would want. They have to operate under the same rules Reaganism set down.

[Suburbia]

2028. A more centrist shift will dominate America for the next generation. No more extremes, economically.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

2028. A more centrist shift will dominate America for the next generation. No more extremes, economically.

Just because you want something to happen, doesn't mean it will happen.

[catscanjumphigh]

1980- old south becomes the new south
1992- New England goes from purple to blue (MA and RI were already there)
2000- finally saw the collapse of the west coast
2008- nothing besides North Carolina becomes competitive
2016- upper Midwest and some of New England
2024- Every time we get a new president there seems to be a small realignment.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trump won 46% of the vote and most of his states were Bush states from 2004 + PA, WI, MI + ME's 1 elector. It wasn't a wholesale realignment.

Anyway, FDR definitely led a realignment of the country as a whole away from the Industrial Republicans to the New Deal Democrats.

Reagan's realignment created a brand of conservative voters (the Baby Boomers, Reagan Democrats and suburban & rural Republicans). If you don't believe 1980 wasn't a realignment, look at our politics since 1980 and compare to before. Our Courts are more conservative, Republicans have been in power more, and generally, Reaganism holds in this country.

[GlobeSoc]

2016 was a setup for a realignment in 2020 or 2024. It brought the Reagan alignment trends to or near their final conclusion, and we should see new and unexpected trends in the near future.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

2016 was a setup for a realignment in 2020 or 2024. It brought the Reagan alignment trends to or near their final conclusion, and we should see new and unexpected trends in the near future.

-Too soon.

[Person Man]

2016 was a setup for a realignment in 2020 or 2024. It brought the Reagan alignment trends to or near their final conclusion, and we should see new and unexpected trends in the near future.

-Too soon.

That's a dumb reason. Its been 40 years. Its time.

[The_Doctor]

Yeah the New Deal era lasted 48 years. The Reagan era lasting 40-44 years makes sense. In theory could go on longer but I doubt it given climate change and economic changes.

[Person Man]

Yeah the New Deal era lasted 48 years. The Reagan era lasting 40-44 years makes sense. In theory could go on longer but I doubt it given climate change and economic changes.

For what it is worth, the Industrial Republican Era lasted 56 years. Reconstruction doesn't count. The Agrian Democrat system lasted 32.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Yeah the New Deal era lasted 48 years. The Reagan era lasting 40-44 years makes sense. In theory could go on longer but I doubt it given climate change and economic changes.

But, wait: three months ago, Atlas was saying that the Reagan era ended in 2008 with the election of Obama and that we were in the liberal Obama realignment now.  Which is it?

(Partisan realignment eras (as Atlas likes to think of them) are mostly a myth, anyway.

[The_Doctor]

Yeah the New Deal era lasted 48 years. The Reagan era lasting 40-44 years makes sense. In theory could go on longer but I doubt it given climate change and economic changes.

But, wait: three months ago, Atlas was saying that the Reagan era ended in 2008 with the election of Obama and that we were in the liberal Obama realignment now.  Which is it?

(Partisan realignment eras (as Atlas likes to think of them) are mostly a myth, anyway.

I dunno about them but I never said Obama was a realigning President. The Reagan era didn't end with Obama, as very clearly defined by 2010 and 2014.

I tend to disagree and believe we're in a period of changing alignments from the Reagan Republicans to the Sanders Democrats.

[The_Doctor]

Yeah the New Deal era lasted 48 years. The Reagan era lasting 40-44 years makes sense. In theory could go on longer but I doubt it given climate change and economic changes.

For what it is worth, the Industrial Republican Era lasted 56 years. Reconstruction doesn't count. The Agrian Democrat system lasted 32.

I disagree. The Republican Party won power in 1860 and never really let go until 1932. The intensity of the Republican majority changed over time (becoming bigger at the turn of the century) but didn't essentially change that we were a Republican nation from Lincoln to Hoover (we elected only two Democrats to the White House and Congress was largely pro business and Republican).

The Agrarian Democratic era, same deal. Jefferson inaugurated the system and wiped out the Federalists while Jackson reaffirmed the agrarian Democratic majority.

Tangent: in theory Trump could have been that confirming President to Reagan's Republicans but I am betting more that W. was it.

[The_Doctor]

The other reason for a realigning election in 2024 is probably this. The string of close elections since 2000 probably will come to an end an one party will prevail over the other for a few cycles. For a lot of reasons, the Democrats look like the party that have a bigger coalition and being the out party right now probably gives them the breakthrough they need in 2024.

For a lot of reasons, I don't see the GOP breaking that logjam to win 55-58% of the electorate on a consistent basis.

[Nichlemn]

Realignment elections are mostly a myth.